Proclaiming and Preparing

Athanasius has Left the Building

2012-02-07T17:15:00.002-06:00

The recent controversy over T. D. Jakes and his supposed trinitarian confession has surprised me. It's not surprising that good, well-meaning Christians have a hard time articulating their understanding of the Trinity. It's also not surprising that many believers would hear Jakes' comments at the Elephant Room conference and think that he had been "won over."

What is surprising to me is how leaders within the church have failed to understand the significance of what Jakes said or have decided that the distinction between what he believes and what we believe about the Trinity is not important enough to quibble over.

How important is our description of the Trinity? Is it a doctrine that church leaders must understand precisely or is there "wiggle room"?

The fourth-century church leader Athanasius believed that our articulation of the Trinity was so important that he was willing to face the wrath of an emperor rather than budge one little Greek mark--literally.

Arianism was a fourth century heresy that taught Jesus was not co-equal with God but rather created. In The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform, Roger Olson describes how Athanasius stubbornly held on to the biblical, orthodox understanding of the Trinity:

Athanasius served as archbishop and patriarch of Alexandria for forty-five years until his death in 373. He spent approximately one-third of that time in forced exile due to his steadfast defense of the key terminology of the Nicene Creed in the face of imperial oppposition. With good reason he has come to be known as the "saint of stubbornness" because of his uncompromising opposition to anything that smacked of Arianism--even when emperors threatened his life. It may not be much of an exaggeration to say that all Christians have Athanasius to thank that the theology of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the "orthodoxy" of most of Christendom (161).

Emperor Constantine's son, Constantius, wanted to see the controversy over trinitarianism done away with. He believed that the Nicene Creed presented an obstacle to unity and believed that one, tiny, insignificant change to the creed could allow all Christians to live in peace with one another.

The emperor wanted peace, and uniformity was its path. He came to believe that the term homoousios...should be replaced in the Nicene Creed with homoiousios, which means "of a similar substance" and would be acceptable to the semi-Arians and even many trinitarians. If accepted, the new terminology would have made orthodox the belief that the Son and the Father share a "similar substance" or a "like being" instead of the belief that they are of the same substance or being.

Athanasius stubbornly resisted the change and even condemned it as rank heresy.... [H]is concern was not merely to defend some sacrosanct wording but to defend the gospel itself. For Athanasius and his supporters, salvation itself depends on the Son of God being God and not merely a great creature "like God." For him "the fundamental issue is that only very God can unite a creature to God" and "salvation is not...possible through an hierarchical chain, from the Father through an intermediate Son to creatures...."

One modern critic of early Christian orthodoxy has suggested that Athanasius played a role in the downfall of the Roman Empire because of his obstinacy over one tiny letter that in Greek is only a diacritical mark over a vowel (164-5).

As is so often the case, little things matter when speaking of the Trinity. Athanasius was absolutely right and his brave defense of clear articulation of the Trinity protected many from heresy.

But where is Athanasius today? Are "manifestations" the same as "persons" when speaking about the Trinity? Do little things still matter?

The answer to the last question is "yes" and I'd encourage you to keep this in mind when reading these excellent essays: Carson and Keller on Jakes and the Elephant Room and Thabiti Anyabwile's 11 Things I'm Thinking in the Wake of Recent Events.

Emerging Conversations

2012-01-30T15:52:00.002-06:00

A friend suggested that I read Church in the Present Tense: A Candid Look at What’s Emerging. Published in conjunction with the Emergent Village, the book attempts to participate in the “emerging conversation” within the church.

I reluctantly agreed.

It was my own fault because I had recommended Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church to him. And my reluctance was not because I doubted my friend’s book recommending abilities. It was due more to the fact that the whole “emergent church” discussion has becoming somewhat frustrating to me. I don’t have a lot of appreciation for the movement and didn’t want to wade through a lot of essays championing it.

And if that weren’t enough, the subject has become passé in many ways. I don’t know any church in our area that currently labels itself “emergent.” My hope has been that the movement will die off and the good parts of it will endure and the other, far more-concerning elements will fade away.

But two things struck me as I skimmed through a preview of the book. First, strands of emergent church philosophy—if the movement is cohesive enough for such a thing to exist—are prevalent even in churches that wouldn’t consider themselves emergent. Second, the book offers a valuable perspective. It is written by those within the emergent community to describe where they see the movement currently at and where it is headed.

I finished the book this past week and found it engrossing. It’s well written and some of the authors are trying to address the concerns that others have expressed about the emergent church. Some of their responses gave me hope for a continued dialogue and other responses caused me to wonder in what sense their theology could even be called “Christian.”

Here are just a few scattered thoughts.

Philosophical Realism

According to Kevin Corcoran, the philosophical realist is one who believes that things really exist. You might think that everyone would be a philosophical realist, but you would be wrong. The antirealist believes that we simply create things like God and the world around us. But the philosophical realist believes that “objects exist quite apart from and independent of the conceptual contributions of minded beings like us” (8).

Corcoran addresses here one of the critiques I have often expressed about the epistemology (theory of knowledge) of emergent churches. There is a tendency within the movement to question our ability to “know” things. Even those who might admit that there are real things in the world sometimes believe “we are simply constitutionally incapable of ever coming to know [the world] as it is, independent of us” (9).

This impacts Christianity in the following way: “As this relates to God, the idea is something like this: God is so big, so wholly other, and we are so small (or finite), that to name God as loving or merciful or gracious (or whatever) is really to create an idol; it always results in an unsuccessful attempt to domesticate or tame the untameable, to name the unnameable God” (9).

This postmodern take on knowledge leads “many emerging Christians to call for a Christianity beyond belief. The idea is that committing oneself to concrete Christian beliefs places oneself in the primoridal waters of modernism.”

To his credit, in this chapter Corcoran rejects this and advocates philsophical realism.

What is the relationshp between philosophical realism and religious experience? One might think that the relation is a loose one at best. The problem is that the relation might indeed be a loose one on one level but not so loose on another. For example, one might think that what is important is not that the resurrection occurred as a historical event but that Jesus rises as a subjective, transformative event or experience in the lives of his followers.

At the level of reflective theorizing, if Jesus did not rise, then those who claim to have been transformed by an encounter with the rise Christ are mistaken…. The point is this: if the event has anything to do with a rise Christ, then Christ must be risen.

I commend Corcoran for advocating this viewpoint, but it should raise real concerns that such a defense is necessary. When he writes, “one might think” that whether or not the resurrection really happened might not be important, of whom is he talking? Who wouldn’t find that important?

What is striking to me is that this isn’t someone outside the movement claiming that emergent Christians struggle with making assertions about the character of God and the historicity. This is someone within the movement.

What Can Be Affirmed

By far the worst chapter in the book was by Peter Rollins as he discussed the “worldly theology” of emergent Christianity.

Trying to contemporize Galatians 3:28 where we read that there is “neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” Rollins writes:

You are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither high church nor low church, Fox nor CNN, citizen nor alien, capitalist nor communist, gay nor straight, beautiful nor ugly, East nor West, theist nor atheist, Israeli nor Palestinian, hawk nor dove, American nor Iraqi, maried nor divorced, uptown nor downtown, terrorist nor freedom fighter, priest nor prophet, fame nor obscurity, Christian nor non-Christian, for all are made on in Christ Jesus (24).

It’s hard to know how to describe this paragraph, but the word “absurd” keeps coming to mind. Rollins takes elements that truly are consumed by unity (ideologies, appearances, culture) and combining them with things that Christ can have no part of (homosexuality, atheism, denial of His Lordship). While touting humity, he is actually betraying arrogance in rejecting God's understanding of unity.

Consumerism

In contrast, the best chapter was on the religious aspects of our consumer culture. Jason Clark provides an excellent example of how our culture has it's own religious demands:

Recently my teenage daughter wrestled with taking part in a dance club on a Sunday that would require missing out on the regular worship life of our church community. Her dance teacher felt no restrain in “evangelizing” her, telling her that surely she could speak to God in private; why did she need church? Wouldn’t church always be there in the future? Isn’t the dance club what’s really important? Her teacher, knowing that becoming a dancer requires learning the traditions of dance and regular practice with others, didn’t realize that the logic of her argument extends to Christanity as a way of life. How often do we become captive to this consumer training and liturgy, organizing our lives around the consumer imagination of what life is really about, relegating Christianity and church to a mere supplement, a cultural accessory? Indeed, church has become nothing more than a meaningless expression of private religious association or a private club. But what if church were not just one choice among many but an ultimate and final choice (43)?

Clark is right and there are important implications for the Christian to think through as we pursue Christ in a culture awash in a different type of worship.

Two More Thoughts
There are pages and pages on which I've scribbled notes on in the book, but two concluding thoughts come to mind. First, there is no cohesive emergent movement. There is a great deal of diversity and, as my friend and I discussed, it's hard to critique the movement because people can quickly claim "that's not me" as you level your criticism.

But, second, if you're part of a movement where you have to defend the idea of truth...why bother? What does it say if large segments of the movement with which you self identify believe the resurrection didn't really happen, or it doesn't matter if it did or not? Does 1 Corinthians 15 still matter?

Is a movement worth saving if one of the central issues it is grappling with is whether or not it one make assertive statements about the nature and character of God?

Book Reviews

2012-01-30T15:52:00.001-06:00

Will Gender-Based Abortions Change the Debate?

2012-01-23T14:13:00.002-06:00

In an article last week, Al Mohler offered a depressing analysis of how far apart the positions of the pro-life and pro-choice movements remain. The article was entitled, “'Abortion is as American as Apple Pie’—The Culture of Death finds a Voice.”

Describing attempts to find a moderating position in the abortion debate, Mohler notes:

With predictable regularity, cultural authorities call for the emergence of a moderating position between the pro-life and pro-abortion positions. But efforts to achieve a stable compromise on the abortion issue are doomed to failure. The two positions hold irreconcilable views of reality. The pro-life movement holds that the central issue is the unborn child’s right to live. Abortion activists have staked their entire case on the claim that the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose.

The viewpoints represented have such differing views of reality, compromise is almost impossible. Will a pro-life person change their minds regarding the value of life? Speaking for myself...no.

But will a pro-choice person waver in their commitment that “the only determinative issue is the woman’s unrestricted right to choose”? I hold out hope that the answer may yet be “yes” for many pro-choice advocates.

On the one hand, the case seems bleak. Consider the assertions made by Merle Hoffman in her recent memoir, Intimate Wars. Mohler writes:

Just recently, Merle Hoffman, a major voice in the abortion rights movement and founder of Choices, a major center for abortions in New York City, has written a memoir, Intimate Wars. In telling her story, Hoffman calls for her colleagues in the abortion industrial complex to defend abortion as a moral choice.

Abortion is the ultimate act of empowering women, she argues. “The act of abortion positions women at their most powerful, and that is why it is so strongly opposed by many in society,” she asserts.

A central portion of her memoir deals with the abortion rights movement’s attempt to defend abortion in the face of pro-life arguments that the fetus has a right to life.

“The pro-choice movement had to find a way to navigate these narratives,” she explains. “The simplest option was to negate the claims of the opposition. And so many pro-choice advocates claimed that the fetus was not alive, and that abortion was not the act of terminating it. They chose to de-personalize the fetus, to see it as amorphous residue, to say that it was only ‘blood and tissue.’”

As she explains, the pro-life movement thought that, if women really knew what abortion was — the killing of an unborn human being — they would decide to keep their babies. She rejects the argument.

Hoffman argues that women do know what an abortion is. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that it is not “just like an appendectomy.” Her conclusion is that women know that abortion is “the termination of potential life.”

She then makes this statement:

“They knew it, but my patients who made the choice to have an abortion also knew they were making the right one, a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart. Sometimes they felt a great sense of loss of possibility. In the majority of cases, they felt a great sense of relief and the power that comes from taking responsibility for one’s own life.”

Rarely do we see abortion defended in such unvarnished terms — “a decision so vital it was worth stopping that heart.” Merle Hoffman goes on to explain how she can speak of abortion so directly. She has, she tells us, no conception that life is sacred.

Common ground with such extremism seems impossible.

But I have hope that the pro-choice movement is not monolithic and some in its ranks may waver in their belief that the right to choose is the ultimate issue at stake in this debate. Evidence of this is seen in the gender-based abortion debate.

On January 20, 2012, Canada’s National Post ran an article entitled, “Sex-based abortion divides pro-choicers on rights.” In the article, Danielle VanDerSchans describes the quandary the radical pro-choice person is in.

Mara Hvistendahl is pro-choice, except when she is not.

She believes a woman should have the right to terminate a pregnancy. Except if she is in China or India and wants to abort a female fetus because she was hoping it was a male. In those countries, the toll of “missing” girls is in the millions, despite existing bans on sex-based abortions.

While she said a ban in the Asian context “makes complete sense,” she is solidly against a U.S. bill that would criminalize the practice in America — the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act introduced by anti-abortion Republican Trent Franks last November. [. . .]

And Ms. Hvistendahl supports reproductive rights for women, but not necessarily when it comes to knowing the sex of the fetus she is carrying. A woman should have the choice of whether or not to abort, but not to know all the details about it.

“There’s no real need to know the [sex], and that could be an effective way to fight sex-selective abortion,” she said. She summed up her stance by saying: “You can believe in a right but still believe it has limits.”

But why? Why limit on the basis of gender? VanDerSchans continues:

In pro-choice, feminist circles the idea of limiting a woman’s rights has long been condemned. But the idea of aborting female fetuses strictly because they are female, of discriminating against them because of their sex, may have presented feminist pro-choicers with a new and rather difficult challenge — a philosophical issue where a well-founded rejection of patriarchal cultural attitudes conflicts with an instinct to beat back any limits at all on a woman’s right to choose abortion.

The pro-choice movement is anything but unanimously or easily decided on sex-based abortion. It is divided, whether publicly or behind closed doors, between the pro-choice absolutists who fear any concession marks a slippery slope, the feminists who loathe too much the idea of fewer females being born, and all those who carve out what several pro-choice activists called a “nuanced” position somewhere in the middle.

The hypocrisy of taking a "nuanced" position is not lost on many within the pro-choice movement. Many recognize how people like, well, me would react.

Joyce Arthur, executive director of Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, said it would, indeed, be hypocritical for a pro-choice group to support restrictions on a woman’s right to choose or even to information about her fetus. She said the coalition does not support a ban on sex-based abortions, nor does it support concealing the fetus’ sex until 30 weeks.

“As soon as you put any kind of restriction on abortion, it really is a slippery slope,” she said, adding that education is the key to reducing sex-based abortions around the world and in Canada, where the medical journal said hundreds of girls are aborted in favour of boys each year, mostly by immigrant women. “If you can restrict sex-based abortions, then why can’t you restrict abortions for genetic abnormalities?”

Indeed, why not?

Arthur is exactly right. Those of us who are pro-life do hope that restrictions on gender-based abortion "rights" would prove to be a slippery sloope. We hope that as people recognize the value of life little girls, it would lead to a recognition of the value of all life.

What Does it Mean to be Evangelical? A Review of Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism

2012-01-09T16:52:00.001-06:00

On September 17, 1915, while speaking at Princeton Theological Seminary, B.B. Warfield lamented the confusion regarding the term “evangelical”:

"The religious terrain is full of the graves of good words which have died from lack of care—they stand as close in it as do the graves today in the flats of Flanders or among the hills of northern France. And these good words are still dying all around us. There is that good word “Evangelical.” It is certainly moribund, if not already dead. Nobody any longer seems to know what it means."

Nearly 100 years later, Warfield’s dilemma has worsened. The diversity of those who would claim to be “evangelical Christians" has increased to the point that the label seems meaningless. If one disagrees with the historic understanding of the gospel or evangelicalism, one simply redefines the term to make it mean what they want it to mean. As one pastor, when asked if he was an Evangelical, put it:

I embrace the term evangelical,” he remarked, “if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

Unfortuantley, that's not what we mean, at least not historically. While those sentiments are nice, that definition can just as easily be applied to a Peace Corp volunteer as an evangelical.

Complicating the problem, the term evangelical is sometimes used as a pejorative in the public sphere. For example, evangelicals are caricatured in the political realm as anti-intellectual and anti-freedom; individuals who want to impose their religious beliefs on others while failing to meet their physical needs.

Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism, edited by Stanley Gundry, provides a valuable resource for those who want to understand how those who identify themselves as evangelical define the term.

Kevin Bauder provides a Fundamentalist perspective on what it means to be evangelical. He doesn't defend hyper-fundamentalism but instead the idea that the gospel “draws the boundary of Christian fellowship” and believes that Christians should also separate from those who fail to draw those boundaries (but he's really nice about it).

Al Mohler argues for something Confessional evangelicalism. He maintains that adherence to certain beliefs define an evangelical. To deny those core beliefs places one outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

John Stackhouse considers himself a Generic evangelical. He maintains that there are distinctive features to evangelicalism but wants the tent to be large enough so that we can “all feel we are authentic evangelicals.”

Roger Olson, promoting a position called Post-Conservative evangelicalism, believes that there are not boundaries to the evangelical movement but rather a center. In other words, there are core beliefs that can be considered "evangelicalism", but no one who desires to be considered part of the movement can be excluded.

This book will not solve the dilemma of what it means to be evangelical. In fact, it sheds far more light on the theological perspective of the individual authors than the issue of what it means to be evangelical.

While I had expected to be irritated by Bauder's fundamentalims, I found myself largely in agreement with much of what he wrote. Unfortunatley, his insistence on "secondary separation" (the idea that we must separate from those who refuse to separate from those who undermine the gospel) is a bridge too far for me.

I found Stackhouse an interesting read but extremely confusing. He seemed confused himself on what he was willing to call evangelical and what he must be forced to admit fell outside the boundaries of evangelicalism.

I disagree with Olson in terms of what ought to be true of evangelicals, but I found myself admitting that he was at least correct in a practical sense. As much as I believe that the term evangelical should be reserved for those who profess the evangel, the gospel, it is hard to deny that the term has grown to include those who deny significant truths related to the gospel. In this sense, Olson is right. Evangelicalism is not an institution but a movement.

But Olson arrives at an understanding of evangelicalism that empties the word of any real meaning. As he admits:

So, how…do I define evangelical and evangelicalism? I’m tempted to say, paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice, that while I can’t define who is an evangelical, I know one when I meet one. . . . I refuse to talk about evangelical boundaries or about anything approaching an evangelical magisterium. I value its movement character and its diversity as well as its unity (182).

This will not do. For a term to have meaning, sometimes it must have both positive and negative value. When we classify something, we are not only saying what it is, we are simultaneously saying what it is not. A chair is not a window. A book is not car. Defining something necessitates limitations.

Like Bauder, Mohler argue for a definition that is more theological than sociological. I agree with him when he writes: “Evangelicalism is coherent as movement only if it is also known for what it is not. Attention to the boundaries is as requisite as devotion to the center. . . . Our task is to be clear about what the gospel is and is not” (210).

The hope I have is not that we will preserve some arbitrary term. My prayer is that we will rightly define evangelical so that we will maintain clarity in our presentation of the good news of Jesus Christ.

Welcome Kent Kloter

2011-12-12T23:20:00.002-06:00

On Sunday night, our church unanimously voted to affirm hiring Kent Kloter as our newest associate pastor. It’s hard to express the joy I feel about our plans to have Kent join our staff on January 1, 2012, but let me give you just three of the many reasons I’m so eager for him to join our staff.

1. I’m excited by his shepherd’s heart.

Kent loves the flock at Bethany Community Church. One of the most convicting passages for me as a pastor is God's rebuke to self-serving shepherds in Ezekiel 34. “The weak you have not strengthened," God tells them. "The sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them" (v. 4)

Kent is the very anti-thesis of these uncaring shepherds. I have witnessed the pain he feels as he ministers to those who are hurting. I believe that his love for the church will cause us to grow in our ability to minister to one another.

2. I’m excited by his love for God’s Word and belief in the power of the gospel.

Kent’s care for the flock is coupled with a deep understanding of God’s Word and appreciation of its power. Like Paul, he is “not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, ‘The righteous shall live by faith.’” (Romans 1:16-17).

3. I’m excited by his spiritual maturity.

Kent likes to joke about being an “old man.” He’s not, of course, even though he does raise the average age of the staff (in a good way). There is a strength of perspective and wisdom that Kent will add to our staff and I’m glad that God is allowing us to benefit from his experience.

So this is a thrilling time for our church. Thank you for allowing me to serve as a pastor here. Thank you for the confidence you have showed in the leadership by affirming Kent in this position. Please pray for Kent and Janell as they make the transition to Bethany Community Church. Pray that their ministry for the Lord will be joyful and bear much fruit.

Christians and Love for Homosexuals

2011-12-05T16:11:00.001-06:00

A friend asked me to post a response to a blog article entitled, “I’m Christian Unless You’re Gay,” by Dan Pearce (warning: some language). While I normally refuse such requests on the “you’re not the boss of me” principle, this request intrigued me. The article has generated lots of responses and hits upon a topic with which many Christians are wrestling.

Let me share four thoughts I had as I read the article. I hope that my friends who would identify themselves as homosexuals would read the entire post and know the spirit of love in which I write this.

1. The post is about Christianity and Homosexuality.

At the beginning of his article, Pearce writes:

Before I go on, I feel I must say something one time. Today’s post is not about homosexuality. It’s not about Christians. It’s not about religion. It’s not about politics. It’s about something else altogether. Something greater. Something simpler.

It’s about love.

It’s about kindness.

It’s about friendship

And love, kindness, and friendship are three things that Jacob [Pearce's friend] hasn’t felt in a long time.

In many of the follow-up comments to the post, some claim that if you think the post is about homosexuality and Christianity, you’ve missed the point. If that’s so, please count me among those who missed the point.

Certainly the article touches tangentially on other topics. The themes that Pearce claims are the main points are certainly discussed. But the themes that dominate both the article and the follow-up posts are Christianity and homosexuality. Those who write to Pearce to express how much the article has meant to them primarily address the issue of homosexuality. Those who are angered by the article identify themselves primarily as Christians.

If the article isn’t about Christianity and homosexuality, (1) it was poorly titled and (2) most people have responded to it for reasons that were not the author’s intent. I don’t believer either of those is true, however. I think the title expressed the intention of Pearce and people have responded pretty much as he anticipated, except maybe for the intensity of their responses.

2. Some who claim to follow Christ act in a way that is contradictory to that claim.

In his article that is not about Christianity (ahem), Pearce contends that many who claim to follow Christ act in a way that is contradictory to that claim.

Love others.

Period.

So if this is the founding directive of all the major religions… why is it that sometimes the most “Christlike” people are they who have no religion at all?

Let me repeat that.

Why is it that sometimes the most Christlike people are they who have no religion at all?

Of course it is true that those who claim to be Christians do not act in a Christ-like manner. It would be very foolish to argue the contrary. Jesus said that there would be those who named His name and yet He would tell them that He never knew them. The apostle John tells us that those who claim to be followers of Christ yet do not have love are deceiving themselves (1 John 4:7-8).

So I agree with the truth of Pearce’s statement if by “Christ-like” he is referring to those claiming the mantle of Christ while denying Christ’s teaching. That certainly happens and it is grievous when it does.

3. Defining the terms "loving" and "unloving" is crucial.

And here we come to the most significant problem with the article. What is it about Christians' actions towards homosexuals that Pearce finds so unloving?

Mostly, the article is full of vague statements about unloving conduct that simply assume the truth he’s claiming. One specific instance that Pearce notes is the shunning of his friend “Jacob.” After Jacob revealed that he was practicing homosexuality, he claims his friends deserted him and refused to even talk to him. If this is indeed what happened, certainly we can agree that this is unloving.

And in some places I agree with Pearce’s exhortations. Of course we should be willing to put our arm around someone who is hurting.

But in other places in the article, “loving” is defined in a way with which I disagree.

I think it doesn’t matter if you or I or anybody else thinks homosexuality is a sin. It doesn’t matter if you or I think anything is a sin. It doesn’t matter if homosexuality is a sin or not. In fact, it doesn’t matter if anything anybody else does is a sin or not.

Because sin is a very personal thing! It always has been and it always will be!

And it has nothing to do with love.

Absolutely nothing.

But sin is not simply a personal choice and is very much related to love. James 5:19-20 tells us:

My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.”

If Scripture teaches us that one of the most loving things we can do is warn someone who is headed for a path that will end in misery, I think we should do so.

The problem is that our actions may be perceived as unloving by those whom we care about. And those who claim Christ’s name and behave in an unloving don’t make it easier for those of us who truly care about homosexuals. Reading many of the comments posted on Pearce’s article, there were some claiming to be Christians who seemed to relish the idea of eternal destruction for homosexuals. Such an attitude does not reveal a heart that has truly been transformed by faith in Christ.

The unstated thesis in my opinion is: Christians need to love those who are practicing homosexuality. But with Pearce’s definition of love, the expanded thesis is: Christians need to love those who are practicing homosexuality by refusing to say that it is contrary to how God says to live.

4. We must think rightly about how to minister to those struggling with homosexuality.

Those who wish to promote the homosexual lifestyle would have us believe that sexuality is predetermined. We are what we are and we need to accept how we feel about how to express our sexuality.

Sexuality is much more complicated, in my opinion. All aspects of our human nature have been tainted by our sin nature, including our sexuality. No person save Jesus Christ has ever been sinless in the area of sexuality. We all have or have had wrong views or thoughts or actions in regards to sex. Based upon our past experiences and current temptations, the way in which we fail to honor God in this area differs.

The solution to these wrong opinions is not to look within ourselves to see what seems “best” to us. The solution is to see what God says regarding how we are to live our lives. Then our responsibility is to lovingly proclaim that message to others.

How do I believe Christians demonstrate love to those struggling to rightly follow God’s instructions for sexuality?

With those who claim to be Christ-followers yet are living immoral lifestyles, other believers should talk with them about what God’s Word says regarding how we are to conduct ourselves as saints. If those who are members of your church refuse to turn from sin, this may end in removing them from membership (Matthew 18:15-20; Galatians 6:1-3).

The purpose of removing them from membership is not to shun them but rather communicate to them the danger of knowingly following a path that is contrary to what God has told us to do. The goal and heart attitude is always complete and full restoration.

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 2:7-8 regarding a man who had committed immorality and was now repentant: “you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him.”

This is true love, according to Scripture. Holding fast to Biblical principles of sexuality, yet caring for those who have turned from these principles. We encourage Christians to pursue holiness not to rob them of joy but so that they may know the fullness of joy!

With those who are outside the church and make no claims of being Christ-followers, other believers should pursue friendships the way one would with anyone else. As the opportunity allows, proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, not focusing first and foremost on the question of sexuality but rather the absolute Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Love is not the absence of conflict. Love is sacrificially caring about another person for the glory of God.

Ben Davidson: Guest Blogger

2011-11-28T12:30:00.000-06:00

As I am on vacation this week, Ben steps up to the plate and does the weekly blog update...

This fall, a number of us at Bethany Community Church participated in short term compassion projects presented by BCC’s Community Compassion ministry. The purpose of the Community Compassion ministry is to glorify God by meeting the spiritual and physical needs of our neighbors (Matthew 9:35-38).

The purpose of these projects was to give short term exposure to compassion ministry and see where the Lord may lead our church in future compassion ministries.

Historically, the universal church has struggled to know the balance between gospel-proclamation ministry and a perceived separate ministry of caring for the poor. I believe these two ministries are beautifully wed together in the Scripture:

James 1:27 - Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

Galatians 6:10 - So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

Colossians 1:28-29 - Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ. For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.

Matthew 9:35-38 - And Jesus went throughout all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction. When he saw the crowds, he had compassion for them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd. Then he said to his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.”
(All Scripture quotations from the ESV)

What does it mean to minister to the poor and still hold fast to the gospel? What is the Good News? Is it simply making the world a better place? Watch this video entitled “Ministries of Mercy” as John Piper, D.A. Carson, and Tim Keller interact over this topic. The conversation speaks to what John Piper means when he says, “we exist to relieve all suffering—especially eternal suffering (hell).” View it at: http://thegospelcoalition.org/videos/26484222

May our hearts be infatuated with the gospel and its implications for our lives!

Pastor Ben

Occupy My Street

2011-11-14T14:09:00.001-06:00

Anxiety and materialism are close cousins. The anxious person fears his or her lack: lack of security, lack of wealth, lack of safety. This Sunday, we will discover that our tendency to become anxious reveals we don't trust our heavenly Father.

This past Sunday, I mentioned an article by Frank Turk at the Team Pyro blog. The graphs I showed may have been a little hard to see, so I thought I'd reproduce the two graphs I showed here and direct you to his article here for his excellent observations: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/11/open-letter-to-occupy-movement.html.

By the way, Turk used Gapminder World to construct his graphs and make his observations, which you can find here.

The first graph, if you recall, shows the average life expectancy and median per capita income in the year 1800.

The second graph shows us in 2010:

Turk writes:

The green line there is the median household income for the United States in 2010. If you have forgotten 6th grade math, the "median" in a series of numbers is not the average of the series: it is the number in the middle of the series. So if you lined up the incomes for all 113,146,000 households with incomes in 2010, the value in the dead center of the list is $ 44,389.00 This is an interesting number as it shows how incomes skew either to the high end or the low end of the distribution -- and given that the mean household income is north of $60,000, I grant you it shows that the household incomes in the U.S. skew lower than average.

But see here: that green line has a startling place on the graph of world economies. There are only 4 nations that have an average per cap GDP higher than our median household income -- so the median household in the U.S. has it pretty good. And that value has special meaning relative to Rosling's video: Rosling classifies income of $40,000 as rich.

Rich! Isn't that awesome? That puts your complaints into a certain light, but there's one more vertical line I want to stripe in here:

You may not be familiar with the quintile rankings for income, so briefly: if you took that list of 113,146,000 households again in lowest-to-highest rank, and broke them up into five evenly-sized groups, you would have quintiles of income. The break point between the 1st (lowest) and 2nd quintile is at $18,500 -- meaning the bottom 1/5th of households in the US have an annual income of under $18,500. That sounds pretty scary, right? That's the kind of thing you are out in the street trying to educate us about, yes?

But check it out: the line where you and I would say is the line which designates the poorest of the poor is well above the per capita income of more than 85% of the world's population. It's a level of income 80% greater than the per cap GDP of South Africa, 30% greater than Russia, and six times greater than that of India.

That is: we define poverty in an opulent way. Compared to the UK in 1800, we have defined the crown of Western Civilization to that time down to a dirty little country which we would be offended to live in. The great part about this is the punchline: it's because we're greedy.

"It's because we're greedy." His words are hard to take, but he's right. The problem with the world is not only found in greedy fat cats on Wall Street, nor grungy kids in the streets. The problem is within men. The protestors, if they want to find examples of greed need not go to Wall Street--they can come to My Street.

I'm excited to be going through the Gospel of Luke with you and being challenged to live for God's glory in a more profound and radical way.

The Fool, Money, and Marriage

2011-11-07T16:59:00.001-06:00

This Sunday, as we continue to go through the Gospel of Luke we will look at "The Parable of the Foolish Rich Man." It is one of those parables that makes us squirm. In it, a man decides to build larger barns to store his vast resources. Finally, he tells his soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry.”

But God calls this man a fool, for his life comes to an end that very night and, God asks, “now who will own what you have prepared?” Jesus concludes: “So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

We’ll deal with the text Sunday, but it should be obvious that there is no shortage of sermon illustrations on this subject. Let me share just one study with you that demonstrates how foolish those of us who believe we can find joy and peace in the material things of this world. The original story can be found here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/byu-cbm101111.php

Can't buy me love: Study shows materialistic couples have more money and more problems

New research to be published Oct. 13 confirms The Beatles' lyrical hypothesis and finds that "the kind of thing that money just can't buy" is a happy and stable marriage.

Scholars at Brigham Young University studied 1,734 married couples across the country. Each couple completed a relationship evaluation, part of which asked how much they value "having money and lots of things."

The researchers' statistical analysis showed that couples who say money is not important to them score about 10 to 15 percent better on marriage stability and other measures of relationship quality than couples where one or both are materialistic.

"Couples where both spouses are materialistic were worse off on nearly every measure we looked at," said Jason Carroll, a BYU professor of family life and lead author of the study. "There is a pervasive pattern in the data of eroding communication, poor conflict resolution and low responsiveness to each other."

The findings will be published Oct. 13 in the Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy.

For one in five couples in the study, both partners admitted a strong love of money. Though these couples were better off financially, money was often a bigger source of conflict for them.

"How these couples perceive their finances seems to be more important to their marital health than their actual financial situation," Carroll said.

And despite their shared materialism, materialistic couples' relationships were in poorer shape than couples who were mismatched and had just one materialist in the marriage.

The study's overall findings were somewhat surprising to Carroll because materialism was only measured by self-evaluations.

"Sometimes people can deceive themselves about how important their relationships are to them," Carroll said. "It's helpful to step back and look at where you focus your time."

Brothers and Sisters, only the fool pursues a path that will not bring him joy. Pursue the pearl of great price instead of the guady trinkets of self-destruction.

Thankful for Bethany Community Church

2011-10-31T16:28:00.001-05:00

On Sunday, Dave Robinson publically thanked the pastoral staff. That was very kind and we appreciate the kind words in the cards many of you wrote.

But there is a certain awkwardness to Pastor's Appreciation Month. It feels like we're receiving thanks for something we don't deserve. First, we know that it is God who works in us to will and to work for His good pleasure. Second... you all make our job pretty easy! I speak for all the staff when I say that we are the ones who feel grateful for those of you who are part of our church body.

No church, of course, is perfect. You know there are ways we could improve in our shepherding and I trust that you pray for God to be gracious and allow us to grow in those areas. And we know there are ways that God will continue to perfect your faith. The labor of ministry is very heavy at times.

Even still, I can't imagine a more joyful place to serve the Lord. I can honestly say, along with Paul:

I give thanks to my God always for you because of the grace of God that was given you in Christ Jesus, that in every way you were enriched in him in all speech and all knowledge...so that you are not lacking in any spiritual gift, as you wait for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, by whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord (1 Cor 1:4-9).

Thank you for allowing the Lord Jesus Christ to be glorified in your worship!

Daniel, Ben, and Mike

The Intellectual Evangelical

2011-10-24T19:04:00.001-05:00

Several friends forwarded me an article from Friday’s edition of the New York Times. The article, entitled “The Evangelical Rejection of Reason,” is a blistering attack on Evangelical Christians by self-identified Evangelicals. I’ve found it difficult to respond to because I don’t find it to be very well-written.

If you have a moment, check out the article before reading on: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/opinion/the-evangelical-rejection-of-reason.html?_r=4&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

The one point that comes through clearly is that Giberson and Stephens are really disdainful of other Christians. The article seems to be their opportunity to unload on conservative Christians—and they don’t hold back.

In fact, the article made me think of a poorly-argued high school debate match I once watched. One student laid out his argument and as you watched his opponent, you could tell he was getting more and more frustrated. He rolled his eyes, he condescendingly sighed, and tapped his pen impatiently. Only by sheer will power did he manage to wait until it was his turn to offer a rebuttal. And, boy, did he rebut!

A stream-of-consciousness attack on his opponent spewed out of his mouth. Some of his points were valid, but the general presentation of his argument was overshadowed by faulty logic and unhidden disdain for his opponent and his relevant points went unnoticed.

Like that debater, Giberson and Stephens have some valid arguments, but their contempt for Evangelicals has caused them to make those arguments ineffectively. They seem angry and guilty of several logical fallacies.

The Argument

The general complaint the authors are making is that Evangelicals are anti-intellectual. Evangelicals fail to hold beliefs viewed acceptable by the general scientific community, such as global warming and evolution. They do so in willful defiance of reason and the use of intellect. They also cling stubbornly to a literalistic understanding of Scripture. As illustrations of this phenomenon, the authors cite Ken Ham, David Barton, and James Dobson.

The answer to Evangelical’s assault on reason, they argue, is to integrate secular knowledge with faith. This means promoting social justice instead of opposing gay marriage, incorporating Darwinism with Christianity, and striving to flourish in a pluralistic society.

Areas of Agreement

Giberson and Stephens hit upon something that I have noticed as well. At times, Evangelicals are reactionary. There is such a distrust of secular culture that sometimes Evangelicals fail to really listen to what their opponents are saying.

In fact, I, too, have sometimes disagreed with approaches taken by the three Evangelical leaders the article cites. I’ve sometimes thought Ken Ham should interact more with some of the counter-arguments of secular scientists. David Barton, while rightly realizing the importance the Christian faith has played in our culture, tends to overly romanticize the degree to which our country was ever truly “Christian.” And I’ve differed with James Dobson sometimes as he’s blurred politically conservative opinions with truly biblical positions.

In short, the article is right when it argues that Evangelicals have sometimes been sloppy in their intellectual endeavors, in my opinion.

Poor Argumentation

These valid points are buried within an article that is poorly argued and developed. It’s hard to refute an article like this because so many different accusations are leveled and so many generalizations are made that it’s hard to tackle them all. It’s like a person who gets angry with you and begins to accuse you of so many things, their valid criticism is overshadowed by their frustration and it's hard to address all the issues they've raised. Let me just give a few examples of the faulty logic used.

1. Poor definition of a key term

According to Miriam-Webster, anti-intellectualism is “opposing or hostile to intellectuals or to an intellectual view or approach.” Intellectual refers to that which is “relating to the intellect and its use" or to be “developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than emotion or experience.”

But Giberson and Stephens have taken a hodge-podge of positions with which they disagree and labeled them “anti-intellectual.” In their view, not only is opposition to evolution “anti-intellectual” but so is the moral opposition to homosexuality. Those who disagree with climate change are anti-intellectual. Those who interpret the Bible literally are anti-intellectual. In short, those who disagree with them are guilty of “rejection of knowledge.”

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, they keep using the phrase “anti-intellectual” but I do not think it means what they think it means. For instance, the authors argue that they “look to the Bible as our sacred book” but those who believe in approaching that book literally are “against reason.” But being literalistic isn’t the same as anti-intellectual. In fact, one could argue that it might be more intellectually honest to jettison Scripture than alter its meaning beyond recognition.

Just because someone disagrees with you is not evidence that they are against the use of the intellect or are simply being guided by emotion.

2. Ad hominem attacks

The article would have been far more convincing if the authors would have displayed a little charity toward those they claim are fellow-Christians. Ham, Barton, and Dobson aren’t just wrong. They are “self-appointed” leaders who are “orchestrators” of a parallel culture in which they are the “beneficiaries” of a “rejection of knowledge.”

3. Gross generalizations and Guilt by Association

The authors are also guilty of gross generalizations. Everyone with whom they seem to have some sort of beef is thrown together. The literalist is a David Barton apologist. The pro-life pastor is for one of three Republican presidential candidates.

Such generalizations, which occur in almost every paragraph of the piece, make it very difficult to respond to the substance of the article. Am I the one being attacked because I believe the Bible is literally true and I reject knowledge? Or does the article have a more narrow focus? Maybe there is some guy out there who is voting for Rick Perry, owns every book by Ken Ham/David Barton/James Dobson, believes in a vast secular conspiracy, is for prayer in schools, is angry about the removal of the nativity, against pornography, can’t read, and is against any sort of multi-culturalism. And that’s the guy they’re really ticked off at.

But in reality, they are committing the logical fallacy of guilt by association. If I believe that if the Bible says it I believe it and another guy who believes the Bible is true is a cultural isolationist, I must be a cultural isolationist as well. And if I take a stand on a moral issue like homosexuality, then it means that I have the same opinions as others who are opposed to homosexuality. This isn’t a well-thought piece and it betrays a lack of understanding of the diversity of conservative Evangelical thought.

Observations

1. Conservative Evangelical Christians are not the only group guilty of reactionary positions and poorly thought out positions.

This article is a great illustration of the truth that Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on poorly thought out positions. For instance, the Occupy Wall Street Crowd could surely give us some great examples of secular argumentation that fails to pass the mustard in terms of logical cohesiveness. There is nothing uniquely Evangelical about intellectual laziness.

2. The goal of Christianity is not to be found intellectually appealing to the lost.

Paul is very clear that Christianity’s worldview will not be accepted by the secular world.

18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” 20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18-24

This was true in the first century and it remains true today. This doesn’t mean Christianity is anti-intellectual but rather that intellectuals are often anti-Christian.

There is a profound difference.

The understanding of reality as advocated by God has been actively resisted and rejected by many intellectuals.

3. A person doesn’t need to be intellectual to be right.

I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but there’s a great deal of truth in this. David Stowe writes that John Stuart Mill called “Conservatives ‘the stupidest part,’ [and they were] but they were also right….”

Being intelligent doesn’t make you right. Being anti-intellectual doesn’t make you wrong—just ask your average financial advisor who has struggled to navigate the current economic crisis. What makes you right--or wrong--is the degree to which your thinking aligns with how things truly are. My prayer is for God to give us the grace to understand and rightly process reality.

Forgive and Forget?

2011-10-17T15:00:00.000-05:00

At the beginning of Sunday's sermon, I addressed a question that had cropped up frequently after last week's sermon: If God forgives our sin, how is it possible that it will be brought up in the future?

During the week, I tried to find out how others had answered this question pastorally. I was encouraged that Pastor John Piper found it necessary to address this question a few days after he preached a sermon dealing with a similar theme. If I'm not always going to be as clear as I like, I'd at least like to make the same mistakes as John Piper. . . .

Here are four truths that are helpful to develop a biblical understanding of God's forgiveness and future accountability for sin.

1. Everything we’ve done will be known. Scripture is very clear on this point--good and evil will be made manifest.

Luke 8:17 "For nothing is hidden that will not be made manifest, nor is anything secret that will not be known and come to light."

1 Tim 5:24-25 "The sins of some men are conspicuous, going before them to judgment, but the sins of others appear later. So also good works are conspicuous, and even those that are not cannot remain hidden."

Ecc 12:13-14 "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil."

Matt 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."

2. Our sins will not condemn us. There will be no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). Romans 4:7-8 tells us our sin will not be counted against us (cf. v. 22). It is in this sense that I believe our sins are forgiven. They will not be brought up in any context in which the purpose is condemnation or punishment. There is no sin credit in our account, only Christ's righteousness. God "forgets" our sin when it comes to punishment. All He sees is Christ's righteousness.

3. We will suffer loss of reward (1 Cor 3:10-14). Even though we won't suffer condemnation for our sin, we will suffer loss of reward for our disobedience. As our lives are laid out before God, our sinful acts will be consumed with fire.

4. Our future joy is dependent upon our current obedience. Your current obedience causes you to grow in your ability to experience God's joy in the future (e.g. Matthew 25: 14-30). This doesn't mean that some won't enjoy heaven. It means some will be able to experience more fully the joys of heaven because of their obedience.

Praying for you today as you strive to begin today to worship God for eternity,

Pastor Daniel

A Task Unfulfilled

2011-10-10T22:58:00.001-05:00

I was sitting at my computer on Wednesday evening when I decided to do a quick check of the news. “Steve Jobs Dead” read the headline on the Drudge Report.

Since Wednesday night, I’ve read a great deal about Jobs and his life. I found out he was adopted, wondered how he managed to keep so much of his life a secret and, of course, marveled at how his accomplishments have impacted so many lives.

But it was his comments in one of his final interviews that really captivated my thoughts. When asked why he had authorized a tell-all biography, Jobs responded: “I wanted my kids to know me. . . . I wasn't always there for them, and I wanted them to know why and to understand what I did."

It was a sad statement to read. Jobs didn’t necessarily express regret that he had made the decisions that he had, but he certainly realized he had made a choice. Jobs had chosen to pursue his career at the expense of allowing his children to know him.

For all of his accomplishments, it was a tragic decision and one that Scripture warns those of us who are parents to avoid. It is especially tragic for the believing parent who has a special charge to bring up their children “in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).

To fulfill this charge takes time. Our children do not know God intuitively. It is the joyful task of each parent to spend the time necessary to help them know the Lord.

The Great Prosperity and the Great Regression

2011-10-03T16:47:00.002-05:00

There is a fascinating info-graph on the New York Times website, which can be found here. There are a lot of nuggets to be gleaned from the graph, but let me make just a few observations.

1. For those who are wealthy: There is a disturbing lack of correlation between the increase in productivity and the increase in wages. Perhaps there is more data that is relevant here, but it appears that those who have access to resources are leverging those resources in such a way as to hoard profits.

James' words to the wealthy are strong: "Look, the pay you have held back from the workers who mowed your fields cries out against you, and hte cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived indulgently and luxuriously on the earth. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter" (James 5:4-5).

2. For those who are "poor": Do not envy the wealthy. It is easy to lament one's condition when one compares oneself to the very wealthy. But the wealthy have troubles of their own. Consider: Do you believe that greater access to wealth would increase your spiritual maturity? Or do you believe that the odds are greater that more wealth would tempt you to be drawn away from God and more in love with the material world (Prov. 30:7-9)?

3. For all of us: Our increasing level of debt is a symptom of a culture that refuses to deny itself anything.

Some will see this chart as symptomatic of the greed of the wealthy. Others will see it as a sign of our economic misfortune. I see in it the signs of a nation that has jettisoned not only biblical principles but human wisdom as well.

Christians, Injustice and the Death Penalty

2011-09-26T17:06:00.002-05:00

While speaking about Jesus’ words on justice from Luke 11 on Sunday morning, an example of injustice popped into my head. I thought about sharing it but was hesitant to speak “off the cuff” on what is an extremely controversial topic. I decided I would instead spend some time mulling it over before sharing it publically. I wanted to make sure I worded my thoughts as carefully as possible. If you plan on reading my next sentence, please commit to reading the entire article.

Christians who are concerned about justice should be uneasy about the death penalty.

At a recent Republican primary debate, when moderator Tom Brokaw noted to Texas Governor Rick Perry that his state has executed 234 death-row inmates while he has been governor, Brokaw had to pause because of the cheering. Brokaw was eventually able to ask his question: has Perry ever struggled to sleep at night, wondering if any of those inmates were innocent.

Perry’s answer was firm. “No, sir. I’ve never struggled with that at all.”

Really? Never?

There have been 234 (actually, now the number is 235) executions since Perry has been governor--that is almost two executions every month. There has never been a moment where he felt unease and lost sleep as he thought about the fate of those men and women? Perhaps there has been and he simply can’t say so because of the political implications.

I’m in favor of the death penalty because I believe the government has the right to “wield the sword” and punish the wicked as well as reward the just. Even so, here are four things that I believe should burden a Christian’s heart as he or she thinks about justice and the death penalty.

1. Racism. Christians should be troubled by the fact that ethnic minorities face a far greater likelihood than Caucasians when convicted for the same crime.

2. Poverty. Christians should be distressed by the fact that those who are poor often receive inadequate legal counsel. One study found that two-fifths of all errors in capital punishment trials were due to gross incompetence on the part of the defense legal team.

3. Capriciousness. There seems to be a lack of uniformity regarding when crimes warrant the death penalty.

4. Vindictiveness. The believer should not wildly applaud the death of the wicked. When justice means that a human life is taken, there should be mourning and a sobriety of spirit. A spirit of vindictiveness is not a spirit of justice.

This is not meant to be an argument in favor of abolishing the death penalty. However, the believer who is passionate about justice should consider carefully their acceptance of a system that seems to be riddled with injustice.

Weight Gain, Self-Control, and the Grace of God

2011-09-19T11:30:00.000-05:00

You should be familiar with the basic plot of The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The short story by Robert Louis Stevenson has been subjected to numerous adaptations. In 1931, there was an Oscar winning movie version, but most versions have been b-grade movies at best. 1951 saw the birth of Son of Jekyll, so to speak. Six years later came Daughter of Jekyll. In 1944 Mighty Mouse met Jekyll and Hyde Cat and Abbott and Costello had a run in with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in 1953. Perhaps the most creative adaptation, which I have only heard about and not seen, was The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Rock ‘n Roll Musical.

But just in case, let me review the basic details of the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: a scientist concocts a potion that divides him into two personalities: the benevolent, kind Dr. Jekyll and the evil, murderous Mr. Hyde. At first, Dr. Jekyll enjoys the freedom to commit various crimes under the guise of Mr. Hyde. However, as time progresses he finds the anecdote that turns him back into Dr. Jekyll to be less effective and the demon that is Hyde grows stronger and stronger until he is overpowered. No longer is Jekyll able to resist the power of Mr. Hyde. He is trapped.

It should come as no surprise to you that many adaptations, such as The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde Rock ‘n Roll Musical fail to capture the finer nuances of the story. It was not originally some sci-fi horror story. It was written in the late 1800s by Stevenson not about the horrors of scientific hubris but rather about the horror within every human heart.

Dr. Jekyll struggles against his sin nature and speaks of the struggle in terms similar to Romans 7. The potion that he concocts was designed to free him of these rather unpleasant urges; to separate him from his evil side. However, the power of his evil side begins to overwhelm him. This is not just a story about a creepy scientist—it is about every person and the terror of the power of sin!

This should be a struggle that every believer feels. We have a desire to control our sin nature but at times are completely overwhelmed by it.

I've felt this reality in my struggle with gluttony. I knew that my metabolism would slow down when I made the transition from my 20's to my 30's, but no one warned me that my metabolism in my mid-30's would be slower than my metabolism of my early-30's. I am approaching the point where my gluttony can't be concealed by a fast metabolism!

Let me quickly present four principles on self-control from the book of Titus, especially Titus 2:11-14.

1. All of us are to exercise self-control.

Throughout the book, various groups are either explicitly or implicitly told to have self-control: children of leaders of the church (implied, 1:6); leaders themselves (1:8); older Men (2:2); older women (in relation to wine); young women (2:5); young men (2:6); and slaves (2:9)

God expects the members of His church to be able to live sensible lives—to be in control of their actions. This attacks the insinuation of many that some people are incapable of controlling their baser urges.

2. Our ability to exercise self-control is the grace of God.

In Titus 2:11, Paul says that "the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men." This grace "teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness... and to live self-controlled... and godly lives in this present age" (v. 12).

Salvation protects us from ungodly behavior and promotes self-controlled, godly behavior. Self-control is itself a fruit of the Spirit.
3. Part of the motivation for our self-control is our future.

When I'm failing to practice self-control in my eating, I'm thinking very little about the future. I'm thinking about the present enjoyment of another chocolate-chip cookie. But Paul tells Titus that we are to live in expectation of "the blessed hope" which is "the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior."

I'm not motivated by slogans or cute sayings. I'm motivated by the future appearing of my Lord Jesus Christ!

4. The provider of our self-control is our savior.

Finally, Paul tells Titus, the one who provides our salvaiton and ability to practice self-control is our savior. He "gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good" (2:14).

I hope you find these principles encouraging. Self-control is a challenge each of us has. May God lavishly bestow His grace upon us!

A Little End-of-Summer Cleaning

2011-09-12T15:27:00.002-05:00

When I find an article that interests me, I sometimes copy and paste a link to it and save it for use in a future weekly blog. When I find I have a bit of a back-log of articles, I end up tossing a lot of them out.

But as I was getting ready to throw out some of the articles I knew wouldn’t make it into a blog, I found two that I wanted to make sure I mentioned. I believe I found out about both of them through http://www.teampyro.blogspot.com/.

The first article is about a new booklet from Kevin DeYoung describing why his congregation switched to the ESV translation. It can be found here. In the article and the comments that follow are some great thoughts on the nature and purpose of translation.

The second article is by Rodney Stark and Byron Johnson, writing in the WSJ, and correcting the assumption that the church is losing young people in droves.

What interested me about this article is that it directly attacks many of the narratives put out by George Barna. Barna has been highlighting the declining attendance of young people in the church and proposing some ways to combat the trend that I believe would only make the problem he purports to observe worse. This is an important article for many of those who are so desperate to appear relevant to read. Check it out here.

Thanks for letting me clean out some of my summer junk!

Prayer at Congressman's Dinner

2011-08-31T21:28:00.000-05:00

What would you pray if you had the opportunity to pray at an event for some of your elected officials? Tonight, Congressman Aaron Schock graciously invited me to pray at the beginning of his fundraising dinner, with Speaker Boehner in attendance as well. This is essentially what I prayed:

Heavenly Father,

I thank you for Representative Schock’s kind invitation to me this evening, to allow me the privilege of praying for my congressman, the man you have sovereignly placed in leadership over me, and to pray for Speaker Boehner, and to pray for our meal and our time together this evening.

Father, in your word, you tell us there are two loves that cannot coexist in our hearts--a love for the things of this world and a love for You.

And so my prayer is first for those of us who are guests this evening. We confess that as individuals, we are sometimes motivated to engage in the political process by a love for the things of this world instead of a love for you. In this tent are people who have been entrusted with vast resources. Each of us here are wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the majority of the billions of souls in this world. And, yet, our heart’s temptation is to be motivated to engage in the political process simply to gain more resources. We love the things you have given us instead of loving you.

At times, we have distorted conservatism to mean that not only should government be limited but our own personal generosity should be limited as well. We pursue wealth and as individuals ignore the plight of the widow, the orphan, the poor and the foreigner.

Let us hold the material things you have given us loosely. Help us to participate in the democratic process not because we are angry or afraid of what others may do to us but instead because we have a desire for your honor and glory.

I also pray this evening for Speaker Boehner. I pray that he would not love the things of this world; that he would not seek after the approval and applause of men; that he would see even the Speaker’s gavel as a tool to be used instead of a prize to which to cling to whatever cost; that he would not crave the approval of influential or seductive voices within his party who have only their own good as a goal.

Instead, may he seek to pursue your desire for government. May he be your instrument to bring about a government that protects its citizens, rewards the one who does good and punishes the one who does evil. .

As I think about our country Father, I know of no greater atrocity than the evil of abortion. May Speaker Boehner lead the Republican party to do more than cynically play lip service to the protection of the unborn for pro-life votes. May Speaker Boehner unite pro-life Republicans and Democrats to promote the sanctity of life.

And finally this evening, I pray for Representative Schock. May he not love with the things of this world. Even as he prepares for the 2012 elections, let him see this congressional seat as yours and not His own. Let him not be in love with the approval of his party, his party’s leadership or even, Father, the approval of we his constituents. Let him be willing to do the hard things that are the right things even when we disagree with him. Protect him morally as he lives and works within a culture that loves power and prestige and the exaltation of self. Allow him to have the attitude of Christ Jesus, who humbled Himself even to death on a cross. Allow Aaron to serve in a spirit of humility and treat others as more important than himself.

And Father, because we cannot love both the things of this world and You, I pray that You would teach us how to love You. I pray that the gospel of your son Jesus Christ would be boldly proclaimed. I pray that men and women here and in our country would recognize their need for a savior, repent of their sins, and place their faith in your son Jesus Christ alone for their salvation.

In Jesus' Name I Pray,

Amen

Eugene Nida's Legacy

2011-08-29T20:26:00.000-05:00

Last week, Eugene Nida passed away at the age of 96. Many have never heard of Nida but anyone who has read a modern Bible translation has been influenced by his work.

What is the best way to translate the Bible? Some argue that one should make the translation as literal—or as close to the original text—as possible. This means preserving the original language word order and sentence structure as closely as possible. The resulting translation is often hard to read, but close to the original language. This type of translation philosophy is called “formal equivalence.”

Nida argued for a type of translation he called “dynamic equivalence.” He believed that one should attempt to aim for a “thought-by-thought” translation. Phrases and idioms in the original language should even sometimes be changed to make the most sense in the culture of the people who are receiving the text.

Morgan Feddes, reflecting on his passing in Christianity Today, writes:

In his work, Nida emphasized the importance of cultural context—both the cultural context of Bible and the cultural context of the language into which the Bible is being translated. One example he liked to use was the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, where the sheep represent those who have done the Lord's will, and the goats are those who haven't. "Look out, because in most of Africa, sheep are regarded as very bad animals!" he said in his 2002 interview. "The translator, of course, cannot change all the sheep into goats and the goats into sheep. But you've got to have footnotes to explain the cultural difference. Otherwise, you're going to give an entirely wrong impression."

As I think about the influence of dynamic equivalence on Bible translation, I see both positives and negatives. Positively, it forces us to think realistically about the changing nature of language. Idioms, phrases, and definitions of words are constantly evolving. Bible translation should recognize that.

I also appreciate the way in which dynamic equivalence strives for clarity in communication. Our goal in coming to God’s Word should not just be to know that our translation is right but also that it is understandable.

Finally, I appreciate the philosophy’s emphasis on application. God’s Word is not lifeless but living and active.

On the other hand, I do have some concerns with translations that rely too heavily upon the dynamic equivalence philosophy. First, in an attempt for greater readibilty in English, dynamic translations can distort the actual meaning of the text. For example, compare the NIV (a somewhat dynamic translation) with the ESV (a more formal equivalence translation).

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." (1 Peter 5:6-7, NIV)

"Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you, casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you." (1 Peter 5:6-7, ESV)

The NIV has created two sentences and two separate commands: “Humble yourselves” and “cast all your anxiety.” The ESV, however, correctly translates the passage to show us that there is only one command: “Humble yourselves” and one of the ways we obey that command is by casting our anxieties upon God.

Second, the attempt for greater clarity can mar the intricacies of Scripture. As Robert Thomas argues, if Paul wrote an epistle that was a “10” in terms of complexities in syntax and argumentation, have we translated it faithfully if we make the reading level a “3” or “4”?

Finally, by having Bible translators make interpretive decisions for us, we limit the possibilities. As Thomas writes:

Which interpretation is right in 1 Thess. 4:4, the one which says that Paul speaks of control over one’s own body, as in the JB, NEB, NIV, PME, or the one that says he speaks of taking a wife in marriage, as in the LB, RSV, and GNB? Or should the translator shun the responsibility of making a choice, as is done in the KJV, the NKJV, and the NASB?

I believe that the more formal translations are more faithful to the text and help us understand the Word more accurately. Dynamic translations, however, can be helpful in allowing us to understand the force of some texts. All good translations involve a certain amount of interpretation and Nida helped us understand how to think more carefully about what is being communicated in a translation...and that's a good thing.

The words of the KJV translators in the preface to their monumental work are a fitting conclusion to this discussion on the nature of translation:

“To those who point out defects in [the translators works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that [the translators] have introduces so many changes in relation to the older English version, they answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputes as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language, they say, is a history of repeated revision and correction.”

The Morality of Intellectual Simplicity

2011-08-22T16:36:00.000-05:00

David Warren, a Canadian journalist for the Ottawa Citizen, wrote this intriguing paragraph in a recent column:

There are some issues that are too simple for intelligent people to understand. Most moral issues are like that. The problem isn't distinguishing between right and wrong. That is not always as plain as day, but usually it is. The problem is finding a way to justify doing the wrong thing. And once you think you have found it, the people still arguing for doing the right thing may be dismissed as "simplistic."

He was contrasting competing economic theories and, while he may or may not be right about his conclusions, he accurately describes a real phenomenon. Often human beings use their intellect to justify evil. Paul tells us much the same thing in Romans 1:21-23:

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

The unregenerate heart leads us astray. Self-proclaimed wise persons behave foolishly. They turn their God-given ability to think and reason toward useless ends as they pursue evil instead of God’s glory. Their thinking becomes futile. Like those Warren writes of, their intellect is turned toward exercises in justifying evil. Intellectual sophism presents a labyrinth of complex arguments to reach a rather simple conclusion: reject God and His authority for your life.

Does this mean that we as Christians should reject intellectual endeavors? The criticism leveled by the secular humanist is that Christians are intellectually bankrupt. We are fools who fail to understand sophisticated, nuanced arguments.

But our critics have presented us with a false dichotomy. I do not have to choose between the futility of human-centered reasoning or the vapidness of a mindless, zombie-like Christianity.

The problem that Paul describes in Romans 1 and to which Warren alludes is not that people are being intellectual. Intellect is a gift that has been given by God to be used. The problem is the fallen nature that attempts to utilize that intellect, oftetimes to construct complicated arguments advocating rebellion against God.

It is not as though the intellect exists outside our person or is a tool impervious to the biases of our selves. Our intellect is twisted. Our pride causes us to turn our intellect away from self-introspection of deeply held beliefs and direct it toward defending our prejudices and attacking others. Our intellect is wielded by a mind that has been shaped and modled by this current world and its thought patterns. Indeed, those who are heralded as “revolutionary thinkers” are often those most enslaved to the mores and thought patterns of our time.

The answer lies in the gospel. The redeemed mind can be renewed (Rom 12:1) and set itself on things above not on things below (Col 3:2).

My encouragement to you is to engage your mind. Think critically. Think carefully. Challenge your old thought patterns. But do all this not in your own pride but in submission to God as He reveals Himself in His Word.

In Defense of Sunday School

2011-08-18T22:59:00.000-05:00

On Sunday afternoons, our family piles onto the couch and the kids begin to tell me what they learned at church in the morning. Each child is able to tell me what they learned about God and His Word as a result of their time worshipping with our family at Bethany Community Church. I find these times with the kids encouraging for several reasons, one of which is the joy of having others in the church re-enforce the things that we are trying to teach our children about God and His Word.

Some believers argue that age-segregated Sunday School classes are—at best—detrimental to the family or—at worst—unbiblical and contrary to Scripture’s design for the church and family. Many argue for what they call a “Family Integrated Church (FIC),” which they define as the entire family staying together for times of teaching and instruction.

My purpose in this article is not to attack the FIC model. Indeed, there are several strengths to that philosophy of ministry. It rightly recognizes the importance of parents—especially fathers—shepherding their children. It also draws attention to the failure of many youth ministries to fulfill the purpose for which they were intended. Youth ministries sometimes degenerate into a playground for adolescents. Instead of fostering deeper maturity they exacerbate the immaturity.

At the same time, age-segregated ministries like children’s Sunday School are not unbiblical. On the contrary, there are some very biblical, God-glorifying aspects of ministries that allow for a period of time of age-based instruction. Here are a few of the reasons I rejoice that we offer special ministries for children.

1. Children have a special need for instruction.

Broad, generalizing statements like “modern youth ministry is contrary to Scripture” are problematic because Scripture does seem very much concerned that children receive special instruction. Moses in Deuteronomy, the psalmist, Solomon in the book of Proverbs, all understand that children have a special need for instruction. Paul refers to the understanding he had as a child and how he put it away as he became a man (1 Cor 13:11).

A good youth ministry recognizes that children have a special need for instruction to help them gain wisdom. A more accurate statement than the one above is “many modern youth ministries are failing to fulfill the Biblical mandate for the church to disciple its younger members.” This does not invalidate the concept of having times of age-targeted instruction.

2. Children need a proper theological understanding of the family of God.

While parents are to be the primary tool God uses to disciple children, they are not the only tool. In the Old Testament, the entire community punished the wayward and rebellious child (Deut 21:18-21). The New Testament expands the idea of family and teaches us that every believer is part of the family of God (Eph 2:19). A Sunday School system that encourages other adults to speak into the spiritual development of my children helps them see that the church body is larger than just our family.

3. Children must learn not to idolize their nuclear family.

The way we center our lives around the nuclear family is a recent cultural phenomenon. A far more prevalent understanding of “family” throughout human history includes uncles, aunts, grandparents, cousins, and crazy fourth-cousins.

It is important to teach children not to idolize the nuclear family. This means training them that the family exists not just to spend time with itself but to be engaged in ministry in the lives of others outside the family. This means that families will have to do difficult and inconvenient things for the health of the church.

This improves the ability of the church to minister to individuals who do not have a spouse or children. It also helps provide a structure for children who do not have the nuclear family that may be the cultural norm in the church.

4. Children should be innocent of that which is evil.

It is important for adults to be innocent of evil (Rom 16:9). How much more should we strive to protect the innocence of our children! Allowing some times of age-segregated ministry allows adults to discuss concepts that children amy not be prepared to consider. It also allows them display transparency about issues in their lives—such as parenting—that children might not understand.

I applaud much of the motivation behind the family integrated church movement. I pray that our church is able to offer additional ministries that provide for the integration of the family into the church. I encourage us at BCC to take the lead in discipling our children. At the same time, I praise God that He has provided other men and women to disciple my boys and girls.

Vacations, Homes, and Heaven

2011-08-15T14:40:00.000-05:00

This past week, our family went to Horn Creek Christian Camp, near Westcliffe, Colorado. It was a wonderful but long week. After we arrived home on Sunday evening, our youngest daughter went around the home exclaiming, “We’re home! It’s a miracle! It’s a miracle!” We obviously have some work to do on our daughter’s theology (she has made a habit lately of proclaiming any positive event a ‘miracle,’ but given my driving, maybe she’s on to something).

Even though I wouldn’t call our arrival home miraculous, I am grateful to God for bringing us home safely. I enjoy travelling and seeing my children have fun, but at heart I’m a homebody. On vacation, the bed isn’t my bed. The kitchen isn't my kitchen. The shower isn’t my shower. When I arrive home, I look around and there is a sense of “Yes, this is how things are supposed to be.”

That is why, when I travel, Hebrews 11:13-16 often comes to mind. After describing those whose lives displayed extraordinary faith, the writer of Hebrews explains why they had the ability to live such lives:

13 These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth. 14 For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. 15 If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. 16 But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city (ESV).

The appropriate response for believers in this world is to feel like they are “strangers and exiles”—they are not at home in the trappings of this world. The entertainment and financial systems and political structures of this world have their place in our lives but we recognize our distance from these things even as we interact with them.

My prayer for you this week would be that you have a godly sense that things are not quite right and that you long for heaven as you live for God’s glory in this world.

Pro-"Choice", Anti-Woman

2011-07-25T17:05:00.000-05:00

On my way back home from Texas, I listened to quite a bit of talk radio. In between St. Louis and Peoria, a comment by an angry listener caught my attention. She made the statement that she would never vote for a politician that was “anti-choice.” Such an individual, she claimed, demonstrated too little respect for women.

Such thinking, I believe, is ultimately demonic. Like all demonic thinking, it deceives people into believing that which is false and calling evil good and good evil. I was reminded of her comment this morning when I read the following post by Pastor John Piper:

163,000,000 unborn baby girls have been killed in Asia over the last three decades. That’s more than the entire female population of the United States.

Aside from the mounting up of blood-guilt, and the treasonous shredding of God’s image, the result is a dangerously imbalanced population. “Normally, about 105 boys are born for every 100 girls. The ratio in India is 112 to 100, in China 121 to 100, with some Chinese cities reaching 150 to 100” (First Things, Aug/Sept, 2011, 69).

This is dangerous for women not only because females are the ones being killed, but also because of what men will do when there are not enough women to marry—prostitution, rape, polygamy, and who knows how many other destructive forces unleashed in such societies. Such efforts to predict the poisonous fruit of girl-killing are unnecessary for those who simply say: It’s wrong. Don’t do it.

But where the goddess 'choice' is still enthroned, we may pray that the people will see the painful price of her deceitful rule before long.

For if ‘choice’ is the moral imperative guiding abortion, then there is no way to take a stand against ‘gendercide.’ Aborting a baby because she is a girl is no different from aborting a baby because she has Down syndrome or because the mother’s ‘mental health’ requires it. Choice is choice (First Things, Aug/Sept, 2011, 69).

And of course, killing any baby because of any disability, is monstrous. Perhaps killing her because she is a girl will help us see this.

Grandma Jean and Children's Ministry

2011-07-19T13:41:00.000-05:00

This week, the kids and I will be travelling to Texas to attend memorial services for Whitney’s grandmother. Grandma Jean passed away suddenly on Saturday afternoon and Whitney has been with her family since Saturday evening.

I’m grateful that Whitney’s sister and brother-in-law graciously drove Grandma Jean and Grandpa Bob up here last month. We were able to visit with them and have a cook out. Grandma took Hannah to get her ears pierced, just like she had taken Whitney when she was a little girl. We also were able to pray and read God's Word together as a family in the evenings.

Whitney often thanks God for our family’s “legacy of faith” and Grandma Jean embodied that legacy. Her love for the Lord has impacted our immediate family in significant ways.

Her devotion to her husband was a model for how spouses should sacrificially love one another. Her care for her family was a model for parents who desire to nurture their children. Her prayer for the proclamation of the gospel was a model for those who love the glory of God.

When Grandma Jean prayed in our home, it was obvious that one of her greatest desires was that her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren would walk with the Lord.

That’s the essence of effective children’s ministry, of course: having such a love for the Lord Jesus Christ that you are passionate about seeing the next generation carry on that legacy of faith. It is a tragedy when, as the writer of Judges tells us, a generation arises that does not know the Lord or the great things He has done.

Grandma Jean strove to ensure that the generations that followed her would know both the Lord and the great things He has done. Please pray for Whitney's family, especially her grandfather, as they minister to one another during this loss.

Worship and Architecture

2011-07-11T16:45:00.000-05:00

Worship & Architecture

Can the design of a building help us worship God? I would suggest that the answer is yes…but not for the reasons you might think. It is a question many of us in the church ponder with greater frequency as we watch the amount of our outstanding debt rapidly decrease due to your generous giving.

Let me first say this very clearly: A building should not be the impetus for our worship. The building itself is not a “sacred space” (see link below). It troubles me to hear believers talk of “feeling closer to God” when they visit ornate churches or historically significant buildings of worship. While it is appropriate to praise God for the creativity He has given His creation, our contemplation of man-made buildings should not be the cause of our worship.

This is not to say that the design of a building is unimportant or unrelated to worship. There is, I believe, such a thing as God-glorifying design in building. A well-designed building helps us in our worship in the following ways…

1. A well-designed building will help us proclaim the Word of God effectively. The auditorium, sound system, and classrooms in a God-glorifying structure will help the church fulfill her task of teaching Scripture.

2. A well-designed building provides us with space to serve others. A God-glorifying structure is designed with the needs of others in mind.

3. A well-designed building will point people to God and not us. This does not mean it should be an elaborate structure. It means that the building should not distract people from God. As we build a church building, we are not designing a Tower of Babel that will serve as a shrine to ourselves. It will not be so ornate that it distracts people from the contemplation of God.

4. A well-designed building will ensure that we have resources for doing ministry. A wise church will not tie up so much of its financial resources in its building that it is unable to do anything else.

5. A well-designed building will demonstrate to the community our commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ. Building a church gives the community of faith a common goal and our shared giving reveals a willingness to sacrifice for the sake of the gospel.

As your read through this list, notice that a building is not essential for our worship to take place. A well-designed building is an outgrowth of worship and not a prerequisite for worship. I can proclaim the Word of God with or without a building. The building simply helps me do so more effectively. I can serve others with or without a building. The building simply helps me do so more effectively.

My friend Luke sent me a link to an ongoing conversation at the Gospel Coalition blog: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/07/06/should-churches-spend-money-on-nice-buildings/. As you can see, some godly men are wrestling with how best to construct God-glorifying buildings. I am sure our own church will wrestle with these questions as well as we think about how best to implement these principles.

Praise God for His continued provision…and pray that God would give us wisdom as we consider the church building in which we will gather to glorify His name.

Unanswered Questions About Unanswered Prayers

2011-06-27T16:48:00.001-05:00

Yesterday’s sermon provoked some great questions. Thanks of the emails! Many of the questions revolved around people wanting to make sure that the prayers they are praying are the right kind of bold prayers.

One man expressed concern that a bold prayer his family had prayed was in accordance with God’s will. A woman emailed me to ask whether or not one of her prayers could be prayed in a bold manner or if she was being selfish and ungrateful for the things God has already provided her.

Let me provide a few more thoughts that may be helpful as you pray.

1. Mundane issues should provoke extraordinary prayer.

The problem with our prayers isn’t that we’re concerned with the little things in life. The problem is that we fail to see the eternal importance of the little things. Praying for Aunt Mabel’s big toe to heal isn’t wrong. What's wrong is when the focus of the prayer becomes the toe instead of God.

2. God-glorifying motivation is at the heart of God-glorifying bold prayers.

The key—as is so often the case—is to determine what our motives are as we pray. Is our desire our own kingdom or God’s? Mundane prayers are focused on our own glory. Bold prayers begin by glorifying God and praying for the establishment of His eternal kingdom.

3. As we continue to pray, our prayers should become more refined and our wrong motivations filtered out.

After considering the second principle, some might object: “But the problem is that I can pray for a request and justify my motives even if those motives aren’t pure. I can pray for a job promotion and say that it is for God to be more glorified in the workplace, but I’m not sure that’s truly my motives."

Perhaps this is another reason God allows our requests to not be answered right away. The longer we pray, the more pure our prayers should become. God continues to show things in our heart that aren’t right and it allows our soul to be more focused on Him. As the Psalmist prays: “Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!" (Ps. 139:23-24; cf. Ps 19:12).

I told the young woman who was concerned that her prayers might be selfish that what she wanted to pray for was Biblical and just to make sure that her motives were right. She replied that after considering her motives, she had confessed to God that her desire was not His glory but her own ease of life. Continuing in prayer in this area has been a refining process for her, she told me.

May you and I similarly be refined by a loving and generous Heavenly Father.

Jane Austen for Men

2011-06-20T22:19:00.001-05:00

On Sunday morning, a young lady approached me and asked me to defend Jane Austen. “Will you please tell my dad that it’s manly to like Jane Austen?” she pleaded.

I declined. I didn’t want to look like a wimp. Which, ironically, is exactly how you'd expect a Jane Austen fan to act.

I felt ashamed of my cowardice later. After all, my love for Jane Austen novels is great. People assume that my son is named after the capital of Texas, but my love for a certain 19th century author had as much to do with his name as the state from which I hail. And, although we call her Ellie, it is not a coincidence that my daughter Elizabeth Bennett shares the name of the most famous heroine in all of English literature.

In a recent Christianity Today blog post, Gina Dalfonzo argues men should read Jane Austen. Her blog was prompted by the controversy stirred by V.S. Naipaul, who arrogantly pronounced that no woman writer was his literary match. When asked specifically about Jane Austen, Naipaul replied he “couldn’t possibly share her sentimental ambitions, her sentimental sense of the world.” It is a woman’s “sentimentality, the narrow view of the world” that limits her writing, he argued.

Naipaul’s comments surely resonate within the hearts of many men. There is a sense in which literature that deals with romance and the inner-workings of the heart is not “real” and “weighty” and “manly.”

To make amends for my momentary cowardice, allow me to offer a few thoughts regarding why I think it is helpful for men to read Jane Austen.

Jane Austen affirms gender distinctions. Bombarded by a culture that seems unwilling to affirm the truth that men and women are different, Austen offers a welcome reprieve. In her novels, men and women think and feel differently.

Neither are inherently superior. Both are capable of great good and great evil. Both can be silly and petty and vindictive and foolish. Both can be kind and self-sacrificing and generous. But the novels celebrate unique qualities of each gender.

Jane Austen helps men understand women. I somtimes hear men complain that their wives speak a different language; they simply “don’t understand” them. In Scripture, of course, women are not instructed to understand their husbands. Instead, it is the husband who is tasked to live with his wife in an understanding manner (1 Peter 3:7).

Men, while reading Jane Austen won’t cause you to suddenly fully understand all the emotional intricacies of your wife, it may help you think more clearly about the complicated nature of her thought processes. Austen will help you understand better human foibles and the necessity for clear communication with others.

Jane Austen increases the value we place upon the home. The drama that fills the pages of an Austen novel only rarely delves into the global affairs of the day. Wars and political mechanizations are relevant only in their affect upon the lives of loved ones. Austen’s myopic scope doesn't triviliaze the home but instead shows that it has equal importance with affairs of state. The home as an important place, not a place to "escape" for something more grand.

I can still remember the first time I read a Jane Austen novel. My college schedule had forced me to take a Women's Literature course. The first novel we were assigned was Pride and Prejudice. I delayed and delayed reading the first three chapters we were supposed to read until 10 PM the night before the class. I opened the book and read those famous first lines, full of wit and sarcasm, and was hooked. I didn't stop reading until the morning, having finished the novel in a single night.

There is nothing feminine about understanding human nature. It is a manly endeavor and Jane Austen helps us in that pursuit.

Eerily similar to what I experience every Sunday morning...

2011-06-20T13:08:00.000-05:00

BUILDING THE BLOCKS...#links

2011-06-20T00:32:00.000-05:00

Whitney's friend and famed blogger put a plug in for the book. Thanks, Amy!

BUILDING THE BLOCKS...#links

But a Breath...

2011-06-13T17:08:00.000-05:00

On Sunday at BCC, we considered how to rightly approach God in prayer. Last night, I read this prayer in Psalm 39:4-5:

“O LORD, make me know my end and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting I am! Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing before you. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath!”

What an odd thing to pray. The psalmist does not pray for improved self-esteem or a greater sense of self worth. Instead: “Lord, help me remember my smallness and keep me mindful of my frailty.” “Lord, let me be reminded of how short my life will be.”

Without understanding our frailty, our ability to see God rightly is hindered. How can we exalt the Creator if we are consumed with the laborious task of exalting ourselves?

So, my prayer for you and me this week is: “Lord, consume us with a sense of our own insignificance.”

John MacArthur's Legacy and Expository Preaching

2011-06-07T10:15:00.000-05:00

This past Sunday—June 5, 2011—Pastor John MacArthur accomplished a rather tremendous feat, by God's grace. He completed preaching through the New Testament, an endeavor begun some forty-odd years ago.

In the Christian blogosphere, negative stories get a lot of attention. If an emergent guy sneezes, we take to our blogs and pulpits to discuss the impact on the health of the church. Vigilance is necessary, of course, but it’s sad when important stories fail to receive the attention they deserve.

The reaction to MaArthur’s accomplishment has been surprisingly muted. As of the time I am writing this, I have only seen one announcement on the subject. On Monday morning, a Tweet by Al Mohler simply read:

“Congratulations to my dear friend John MacArthur, who completed a 30 year project of preaching through the New Testament today. Incredible.”

That was it. A Tweet—and one that got the timeline wrong to boot—is all that I’ve seen to commemorate this milestone.

As I think about how God has used John MacArthur, it invigorates me with a renewed passion for expository preaching at our church. The faithful proclamation of His truth through sustained study of it a portion at a time has already yielded spiritual fruit and I am confident it will continue to do so. It encourages me to continue to be faithful to proclaim the whole counsel of God, reproving, rebuking and exhorting with great patience and instruction.

Here is an interview Phil Johnson did with John MacArthur earlier this year in anticipation of what God allowed to come to fruition yesterday: http://www.gty.org/Resources/Sermons/GTY133_Theology-and-Ministry-An-Interview-with-John-MacArthur.

I hope you find it edifying as well as you consider how God will be faithful to our bear fruit through the preaching and teaching minstry at Bethany Community Church.

Building the Family of God

2011-05-30T06:58:00.013-05:00

The following is an update from Steve Hornbrook that I think many of you will find exciting. At the end of our fiscal year, the Bethany Fellowship churches were able to bless many of our missionaries. Steve shares the specifics below...

Join with us in celebrating some exciting news in Bethany Fellowship Missions! God provided some unusual circumstances this year which resulted in a significant portion of missions budget not required for its original purpose. The BFC Elders directed that any funding designated for missions purposes should always be used to bless missionaries by meeting the next highest priority needs. God’s faithfulness through your giving allowed us to make the following unexpected gifts:

• Beakleys-caring for Handsome, the orphan from Zimbabwe they have taken in
• Ausfahls-medical expenses
• Loseys- Global Partnership Ministries setup
• Wilmoths-personal needs and birth of Judah
• Hostetlers-laptop and personal needs
• Shannon Horn-start-up expenses
• Kloters-one-time BBCM expenses
• Schupps-Hope Medical Clinic
• Hornbrooks-church plant property
• Bagleys-El Shaddai property
• Cheri Geise-totaled car replacement
• Timchenkos-REALIS Christian Center development
• Bennetts-Rwandan church development (church roofing, Jesus film projection)
• Perez-replacing totaled car
• Cortez-Bibles for Ecuadorian Church leaders on Cayapas River
• Joseph Mahaola, Beakley South African missionary/lecturer co-worker-new laptop
• Dave Korb- Brazilian church leader training
• Cheryl Parks (Peoria Jobs Partnership)-ministry needs
• Emmerts-baby birth expenses
• Scarboroughs, pastor training in Lebanon
• Martins (former BBC missionary)-church planted in Italy

There are always more financial needs on the mission field than we can satisfy through our regular budget. Our missionaries were not expecting this assistance, and the surprise provision was indeed a special blessing from God through you. Thank you for your faithfulness which God uses to bless others! To God be the glory.

Fads and Historical Theology

2011-05-24T15:18:00.000-05:00

I just purchased a new book from Gregg Allison entitled Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Designed to be a companion to Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology, Allison’s book traces the historic development of selected doctrines.

Allison’s words in the introduction regarding the benefits of historical theology are helpful. I specifically found his comments regarding the protection historical theology provides against the “novel” insightful:

"Similarly, historical theology can guard Christians and churches from the penchant for the novel, the yearning for relevancy, and the tendency to follow strong leaders who are biblically and theologically shallow. Lamenting evangelicalism’s radical proneness to destabilization, Alister McGrath urged this solution: 'Rediscovering the corporate and historic nature of the Christian faith reduces the danger of entire communities of faith being misled by charismatic individuals and affirms the ongoing importance of the Christian past as a stabilizing influence in potentially turbulent times.'”

In other words, it is far too easy for Christians to be carried away by strong individuals who claim to have new and fresh insights. Allison continues:

Coining bizarre new doctrines (such as the health, wealth, and prosperity gospel), tampering with traditional doctrines (such as minimizing the need for repentance from sin as part of the response to the gospel), and following dynamic leaders who boastfully minimize the importance of sound doctrines, are exposed as dangerous developments by a consideration of what the church has historically believed—or not believed

Historical theology is a tool that the believer can use to spot the vapidity that permeates much of Evangelical thought. May we be granted protection from the tumultuous fads of contemporary Christian life and cling to the Eternal Rock, Christ Jesus our Lord.

Guest Blogger Pastor Ben

2011-05-16T08:36:00.000-05:00

Pastor Ben Davidson is guest blogging this week for me...thanks, Ben!

They say that “confession is good for the soul”. I must confess something to my beloved church family—I love my to do list. I get great joy out of checking tasks off the list and moving onto new ones!

On this note, I have recently been challenged by a book I am reading for a seminary class. Although I do not agree with everything in the book Cross-Cultural Servanthood, it has challenged my to do list mentality. The author, Duane Elmer, challenges the reader to consider how important relationship is in ministry and for our to do lists.

He states two primary ways we serve others. The first is by entering into “a relationship of love and mutual commitment.” 1 Thessalonians 2:8 states, “So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us.”

The second is our need to adjust to the patterns we learn through that relationship. These two primary ways then allow us to perform the right kinds of God-honoring tasks for our to do lists. Instead of filling the list with the wrong kinds of tasks, we take the position of learner and lover of people and allow that to help us make wise decisions for our to do lists.

Let me ask you church—how much of your tasks for this week involve entering into relationship with others, encouraging the saints and ministering to the lost? Join with me in making a God-centered, people loving list!

Pastor Ben

Righteousness and the Death of bin Laden

2011-05-04T12:23:00.000-05:00

Many words have already been written about the right response the Christian should have as he or she considers the demise of Osama bin Laden. Let me offer a few words of my own that relate to the text we’ll be considering on Sunday.

I am preaching on Luke 10:17-24. In this passage, the seventy-two disciples return from proclaiming the coming kingdom. As they rejoice that the demonic realm retreated before them, Jesus confirms that their ministry has been effective in fighting the enemy:

And he said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you.” (Lk 10:18-19)

But despite the success of their ministry over the demonic realm, Jesus offers these words of caution:

“Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.” (Lk 10:20)

Jesus’ point is that there is something of far greater importance than a successful endeavor—even a spiritually successful endeavor. The source of the disciples’ joy should not be in their accomplishment but rather in the fact that a sovereign God had been mindful of them and saved them.

I think there is a sense in which it is appropriate to rejoice that the wickedness pursued by bin Laden has been thwarted by our government. God bestowed the authority to wield the sword and our government wielded it effectively this past Sunday.

At the same time, we must be careful that our joy is not in the demise of the wicked but rather the triumph of righteousness. Our prayer is that our government—and we ourselves—would prove to be an instrument of good and not wickedness. May God grant us hearts that are aflame with a desire for Him to be glorified in us and in the world.

Church Growth and Conservative Theology

2011-04-25T12:23:00.000-05:00

This week our church had its largest Easter services ever—about 650 people worshipped at Bethany Community Church .

The growth of our church is exciting and a little overwhelming. It is overwhelming as we consider the enormous responsibility each of us has to care for those who are new to our flock. It is exciting to realize that one of the main reasons our church is growing is because of the thirst people have for our Lord Jesus Christ.

In an interesting blog by Al Mohler this week entitled, “Why Conservative Churches are Growing: David Brooks and the Limits of Sociology,” he discusses a recent article by Brooks in The New York Times. In the article, Brooks maintains that Americans “have always admired the style of belief that is spiritual but not doctrinal, pluralistic and not exclusive, which offers tools for serving the greater good but is not marred by intolerant theological judgments.”

These are the hallmarks of more liberal theology. However, Brooks continues, “Vague, uplifting, nondoctrinal religiosity doesn’t actually last. The religions that grow, succor and motivate people to perform heroic acts of service are usually theologically rigorous, arduous in practice and definite in their convictions about what is True and False.”

As an example of the effectiveness of conservative churches, Brooks relates a personal anecdote: “I was once in an AIDS-ravaged village in southern Africa. The vague humanism of the outside do-gooders didn’t do much to get people to alter their risky behavior. The blunt theological talk of the church ladies — right and wrong, salvation and damnation — seemed to have a better effect.” In other words, the more conservative churches proclaim a message that is more effective in creating true heart change.

Sometimes when discussing church growth, people confuse means and ends. The assumption is that perhaps churches should be more conservative so that they will experience greater growth. But vibrant, biblical theology is not the means to the end of church growth. Rather, theology’s end is the glory of God.

My hope is that our church is growing not simply because we are conservative in our theology. My hope is that our church is growing because people are excited about their Lord Jesus Christ and are experiencing the joy of the Lord as we worship Him corporately for His glory!

Morality and Cleanliness

2011-04-05T12:51:00.000-05:00

To what degree do outside influences, such as the media, influence how you think about morality?

Some Christians contend that media does not influence their thoughts or opinions. The basic gist of their argument is that because they are aware of the potential negative influence of the media they are somehow insulated from its influence. They are "guarded" in what they allow to affect them.

While "taking every thought captive" is certainly a means of protecting the believer, it is dangerous to believe that vigilance alone will guard our hearts and minds. We fail to take into account how ealisy persuadable we actually are. We are not quite the critical, independent thinkers we give ourselves credit for. Even little things change the way we view the world around us, consciously and unconsciously.

In his article "Cleanliness is Next to Priggishness," published in a May 2010 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Tom Barlett writes:

We like to think that our opinions are based on reason. We’ve thought something through and arrived at a conclusion. We’re not easily swayed, overly emotional, or wildly inconsistent. We are more or less rational.

But maybe we’re fooling ourselves. A new study titled “A Clean Self Can Render Harsh Moral Judgment” found that opinions on social issues like pornography, adultery, and drugs were affected by whether people had washed their hands prior to being asked. Participants were told to rate their feelings on social issues, like the ones mentioned above, on an 11-point scale from “very immoral” to “very moral.” Those who lathered up beforehand were significantly more likely than those with grubby palms to find, say, profane language immoral.

The researchers found that participants were also more likely to deem some practices immoral if they simply thought phrases about physical cleanliness.

In a second experiment, some participants were simply told to think of phrases like “My hair feels clean and light. My breath is fresh. My clothes are pristine and like new.” Meanwhile, another group was told to think “My hair feels oily and heavy. My breath stinks. I can see oil stains and dirt all over my clothes.” The groups were then asked, using the same 11-point scale, to rate [different immoral acts]. . .

I gain two insights from that study. First, I now have a spiritual justification for my obsessive hand washing. Second, is it any wonder that Scripture calls us to be so very careful with what goes into our minds? As Paul says in Philippians 4:8: "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things."

Let us follow Paul's exhortation carefully, realizing that we are creatures that are influenced--sometimes, strangely so--by the world around us.

Humility and Ministry

2011-03-29T11:39:00.000-05:00

Charles Spurgeon’s Lectures to My Students is one of my all-time favorite books on ministry. Recently, I re-read a portion of his chapter on the call to ministry. The section I quote below relates a humorous encounter between Spurgeon and a prospective student at his school:

One young gentleman with whose presence I was once honoured, has left on my mind the photograph of his exquisite self. . . . He sent word into my vestry one Sabbath morning that he must see me at once. His audacity admitted him; and when he was before me he said, "Sir, I want to enter your College, and should like to enter it at once."

"Well, Sir," said I, "I fear we have no room for you at present, but your case shall be considered."

"But mine is a very remarkable case, Sir; you have probably never received such an application as mine before."

"Very good, we'll see about it; the secretary will give you one of the application papers, and you can see me on Monday."

He came on the Monday bringing with him the questions, answered in a most extraordinary manner. As to books, he claimed to have read all ancient and modern literature, and after giving an immense list he added, "this is but a selection; I have read most extensively in all departments."

As to his preaching, he could produce the highest testimonials, but hardly thought they would be needed, as a personal interview would convince me of his ability at once. His surprise was great when I said, "Sir, I am obliged to tell you that I cannot receive you."

"Why not, Sir?"

"I will tell you plainly. You are so dreadfully clever that I could not insult you by receiving you into our College, where we have none but rather ordinary men; the president, tutors, and students, are all men of moderate attainments, and you would have to condescend too much in coming among us."

He looked at me very severely, and said with dignity, "Do you mean to say, that because I have an unusual genius, and have produced in myself a gigantic mind such as is rarely seen, I am refused admittance into your College?"

"Yes," I replied, as calmly as I could, considering the overpowering awe which his genius inspired, "for that very reason."

"Then, Sir, you ought to allow me a trial of my preaching abilities; select me any text you like, or suggest any subject you please, and here in this very room I will speak upon it, or preach upon it without deliberation, and you will be surprised."

"No, thank you, I would rather not have the trouble of listening to you."

"Trouble, Sir! I assure you it would be the greatest possible pleasure you could have."

I said it might be, but I felt myself unworthy of the privilege, and so bade him a long farewell. The gentleman was unknown to me at the time, but he has since figured in the police court as too clever by half.

The story always makes me laugh—and pray that God would deliver me from my cleverness and pride! Humility causes us to repent of our self-sufficent and useless ministry and drives us to the grace that God generously supplies.

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

Are You Ready to Worship

2011-03-21T22:58:00.000-05:00

Mike Chambers is guest blogging for me today...thanks, Mike!

Occasionally after a morning service, I will hear someone say, “Hey Mike, great worship this morning!” After thanking them and walking on it hits me: what did they mean? Did they like the music? Did the band sound good today? Were they impressed by my trendy new sweater vest? All I know is something affected them. They had a good experience in the service. What is a good experience? Is it God-focused?

One of the statements in our church’s worship philosophy says this: Our worship will be God-centered; a high priority of the vertical focus of our Sunday morning service; the ultimate aim is to so experience God that He is glorified in our affections.”

Recently as I read through a Christian bookstore flier, I noticed an ad for a new worship CD that mentioned the term “experience” six times. We all love “worship experiences” with God. Experiences aren’t evil. But the concept of worship as an “experience” is fairly foreign to Scripture. I say “fairly” because there are times when worshipping God was definitely an experience! (2 Chronicles 5:11-14; Acts 4:31; 1 Corinthians 14:23-25)

The goal of gathering as God’s people is not to feel something but to acknowledge and remember something. That “something” is the Word, works, and worthiness of God, especially as He has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6) If I pursue goose bumps or heightened emotion during a meeting, God becomes simply one of numerous options I can choose to seek them from. This doesn’t minimize the importance of pursuing encounters with the living God characterized by profound emotion and awareness of the Holy Spirit’s active presence. Scripture is filled with examples of longing for, pursuing, and delighting in God’s presence. (Psalm 84:1-2; 1 Chronicles 16:11; Psalm 16:11) I become aware of God’s nearness by dwelling on His nature, promises, and acts, not by pursuing an emotional fix. This week may our hearts fight for God’s glory, may our minds focus on God’s truth, and may our lives exemplify God’s joy and faithfulness.

I am already looking forward with excitement to Sunday as we will focus our worship on God. My prayer is that as we come together to worship on Sunday, you will be able to “magnify the Lord with me and . . . [we will] exalt His name together.” (Psalm 34:3)

Mike Chambers

Third Day Adoption Song

2011-03-16T11:25:00.002-05:00

Hell, Universalism, and the Evangelical Church

2011-03-14T14:19:00.000-05:00

This week, a book is being published that may have a monumental impact on the Evangelical church over the next few years. I pray that its impact will be minimal but, based upon the initial reviews, my fear is that large segments of the church will be influenced by the age-old heresy of universalism—the belief that all will go to heaven, whether or not they ever placed their faith in Jesus Christ during this life.

The book is entitled, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived, by Rob Bell. I encourage you to check out this review of the book by Kevin DeYoung: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/03/14/rob-bell-love-wins-review/.

That so many would consider this book part of mainstream Christianity is appalling. It reveals much about the lack of theological and biblical understanding of the Evangelical church.

I look forward to talking more about this book with you in the future.

Do Evangelicals Hate Jesus?

2011-03-07T17:13:00.000-06:00

The Huffington Post recently published an article by Dan Cady that was provocatively entitled, “Why Evangelicals Hate Jesus.” If the article’s title didn’t tip you off, let me clue you in: Cady really seems to dislike Evangelicals, particularly what he views as their hypocrisy.

Here is the central argument of his article, which is based upon a recent Pew survey:

White Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in contemporary American culture. Evangelical Christians, who most fiercely proclaim to have a personal relationship with Christ, who most confidently declare their belief that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, who go to church on a regular basis, pray daily, listen to Christian music, and place God and His Only Begotten Son at the center of their lives, are simultaneously the very people most likely to reject his teachings and despise his radical message.

It is an audacious claim, and Cady backs it up by first summarizing his understanding of some aspect of Jesus’ teaching and then how Evangelicals violate it by their actions and political stance (paragraph breaks added for clarity).

Jesus unambiguously preached mercy and forgiveness. These are supposed to be cardinal virtues of the Christian faith. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of the death penalty, draconian sentencing, punitive punishment over rehabilitation, and the governmental use of torture.

Jesus exhorted humans to be loving, peaceful, and non-violent. And yet Evangelicals are the group of Americans most supportive of easy-access weaponry, little-to-no regulation of handgun and semi-automatic gun ownership, not to mention the violent military invasion of various countries around the world.

Jesus was very clear that the pursuit of wealth was inimical to the Kingdom of God, that the rich are to be condemned, and that to be a follower of Him means to give one's money to the poor. And yet Evangelicals are the most supportive of corporate greed and capitalistic excess, and they are the most opposed to institutional help for the nation's poor -- especially poor children. They hate anything that smacks of "socialism," even though that is essentially what their Savior preached. They despise food stamp programs, subsidies for schools, hospitals, job training -- anything that might dare to help out those in need. Even though helping out those in need was exactly what Jesus urged humans to do.

In short, Evangelicals are that segment of America which is the most pro-militaristic, pro-gun, and pro-corporate, while simultaneously claiming to be most ardent lovers of the Prince of Peace.

Before I address the problematic aspects of Cady’s article, let’s begin with confession. Is there anyone among us who would claim to follow our Lord completely? I hope none of us would be so arrogant. I am certainly guilty of loving this material world too much. My prayer, of course, would be that when confronted with my failure, I would respond with repentance. May each of us have the grace to acknowledge that our critics are right on one point: we fail to perfectly practice what we preach.

I would hope that we find that more dismaying than they!

That being said, I take several issues with Mr. Cady’s argument. First, there is not a single citation of Scripture throughout his work. Cady is not a theologian and cites no Scripture or even other sources as he attempts to summarize the totality of Jesus’ teaching. It is shocking that he fails to mention the centrality of repentance and faith in Jesus’ teaching. Jesus preached a coming theocracy...does Cady wish Evangelicals to work to implement that into public policy?

Second, Cady presents a worldview that he has hand-crafted using absurd twists of logic. “Evangelicals” are a gross caricature that seem to march in lock-step on various positions. I believe that Cady actually fails to understand the study he is citing to make his argument. The study he cites is about the beliefs of the Tea Party not about the beliefs of Evangelicals. The Pew study notes that many Evangelicals support the Tea Party and that many Tea Party activists have similar moral views, but nowhere does it delve into the beliefs of Evangelicals. In fact, the Pew study notes that only 42% of Tea Partiers indicate an agreement with Conservative Christians.

Third, another logical fallacy consists of the false dichotomies he presents. According to Cady, I either support the democratic tax policy or embrace corporate greed? I must either embrace a national health care system that will expand access to abortion or I hate poor people? Can I have a third option? Please?

Cady has created an idolatrous Jesus, one that agrees with him on policy, and Cady seems upset when Evangelicals don’t bow down to it.

I have expressed concern before that Evangelicals believe that the Republican party or Conservative movement is synonymous with Christianity. It is not. There is a love for the material world that is damning for the soul within the Republican party. No matter how much it talks about moral values, that does not mean that it has embraced the repentance and faith that the gospel demands. Don’t be deceived.

At the same time, don’t be deceived by those who deny the deity and lordship of Jesus Christ. Just because a party talks about helping the poor doesn’t mean that it rightly understands the life-transforming and God-exalting compassion to which we as believers are called. Simply proclaiming that you are trying to help people doesn't make it so.

Senator Reid and Legalized Prostitution

2011-02-24T11:14:00.001-06:00

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has been representing the state of Nevada since 1987. That’s twenty-four years. According to the Wall Street Journal, on Tuesday he spoke out against legalized prostitution in his state…for the first time.

It is remarkable that it took him that long to publically declare that the time had come to end prostitution in the state. Reid, says The Journal, “has long taken a relaxed attitude toward his home state’s casino and brothel industries.”

What is also remarkable is the reason Reid gives for outlawing prostitution. “If we want to attract businesses to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come for us to outlaw prostitution.” The Journal notes that Reid “maintains conservative Mormon values personally.”

No, he doesn’t.

Reid’s silence on this issue for twenty-four years speaks volumes, as does the fact that the reason he now opposes brothels is not moral but economic.

Our private, personal values are lived out in our public lives. This Sunday, we will be considering how God’s majesty is portrayed in the transformed lives of the broken.

Should Conservative Christians Just Give Up?

2011-02-14T16:04:00.000-06:00

In the February 14, 2011 edition of USA Today, Tom Krattenmaker offers some advice to conservative Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong: give it up!

His point is that our culture has reached a point that homosexuality is generally considered socially acceptable and the Neanderthals who continue to oppose it simply look foolish. He notes the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the classification of several extreme anti-homosexual organizations as “hate groups” and comes to the conclusion that it is time for conservative Christian groups to make a decision:

Do they fight to the last ditch, continue shouting the anti-gay rhetoric that rings false and mean to the many Americans who live and work with gay people, or who themselves are gay? Or do they soften their tone and turn their attention to other fronts?

Notice that there are only two alternatives presented in this paragraph. If you believe that engaging in homosexual activity is a sin, your choices are either (a) shout “anti-gay rhetoric” or (b) soften your tone and find some other battle.

The problem with these alternatives is that (a) is mean and an unbiblical way to engage in a disagreement and (b) implies that opposition to homosexual activity is itself synonymous with (a). Essentially, the options Kratttenmaker offers us are: will you continue to beat your wife or will you stop it? To say we will stop is to acknowledge that at one time we did!

Followers of Christ must be steadfastly committed to loving communication. In fact, we must be committed to loving those with whom we disagree, despite their attitude toward us. I would like to present, therefore, at least a third option that exists for us: continued humble opposition to lifestyle choices that hurt those who engage in them and go against God’s will for one’s life.

Why do we care about homosexual activity? Is it because we desire to control the lifestyles of others? Is it because we want to demonize some sins while minimizing our own? I certainly hope not.

When one minimizes the reality of sin—be it homosexuality or adultery or lying or theft—one minimizes the need for the gospel. Far from being a loving, non-judgmental act, downplaying the reality and pervasivness of sin causes people to doubt their need for a Savior.

P.S. Incidentally, in the article, Krattenaker references a book by Jennifer Wright Knust entitled Unprotected Texts. For a commentary on this book, see Al Mohler’s blog: http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/09/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex-really/

Becoming Anti-Anti

2011-02-07T17:08:00.001-06:00

In the upcoming edition of our church newsletter, Preparing and Proclaiming will be an article entitled: “How Sorry Do You Need to Be?" In it, I contrast how Protestants and Roman Catholics view repentance.

As I was writing the article, I tried to think through how what I was writing might sound to a Roman Catholic. I wanted to be fair while at the same time standing firm in my convictions and clearly articulating our differences.

I was reminded of one conversation with a Roman Catholic who had accused me of being “anti-Catholic.” The accusation had stung and completely caught me off guard. In my mind, I was being “pro-gospel” and not “anti” anything. To be “anti-Catholic” in my mind meant to target individuals of a certain creed unfairly and with hostility. I have many Catholic friends and I would never want to hurt them or treat them unfairly.

I don’t like being called anti-Catholic any more than I like being called anti-choice or anti-homosexual. Calling someone “anti-(fill-in-the-blank) is relatively easy. It means that you no longer need to deal with the substance of their objection. Instead, you merely attack their motives and lament their vitriolic attack on you.

For Christians who are committed to proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, such comments are inevitable. I have a few thoughts about how we as Christians should respond:

First, we should boldly proclaim the gospel.

I would prefer to be known by what I am for than what I am against. My desire would be that those who know me would say that I am passionately pro-gospel.

Second, we should realize that we must sometimes stand against things.

Even though it is sometimes unpleasant, we are called upon by God to stand against things such as false teaching, injustice, and evil. For example, consider what Paul writes in Ephesians 6:10-12:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

Third, we should consider how our words sound to others.

When I disagree—strongly—with the Roman Catholic sacramental system as a means to achieving righteousness, I need to understand that there are many precious people who hold this system close to their hearts. When I attack it, it feels as though I am attacking them personally. It feels as though I am “anti-Catholic.”

Charity requires that we consider carefully how our words sound to those who are hearing them. Paul’s injunction to the Ephesians is one we would do well to heed: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph 4:29).

John Piper Tweets

2011-01-31T13:00:00.001-06:00

UPDATE: HT to Kevin Sauder for this video:

At our staff meeting this week, we were discussing how to use social media in a Christ-exalting way. As is often the case, we remembered that John Piper had gone before us on this issue.

In June 2009, he posted a blog in which he described his take on social media and his decision to tweet. His original post can be found here: http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/why-and-how-i-am-tweeting

Below are extensive excerpts from his post:

I see two kinds of response to social Internet media like blogging, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, and others.

One says: These media tend to shorten attention spans, weaken discursive reasoning, lure people away from Scripture and prayer, disembody relationships, feed the fires of narcissism, cater to the craving for attention, fill the world with drivel, shrink the soul’s capacity for greatness, and make us second-handers who comment on life when we ought to be living it. So boycott them and write books (not blogs) about the problem.

The other response says: Yes, there is truth in all of that, but instead of boycotting, try to fill these media with as much provocative, reasonable, Bible-saturated, prayerful, relational, Christ-exalting, truth-driven, serious, creative pointers to true greatness as you can....

Now what about Twitter? I find Twitter to be a kind of taunt: “Okay, truth-lover, see what you can do with 140 characters! You say your mission is to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things! Well, this is one of those ‘all things.’ Can you magnify Christ with this thimble-full of letters?”

To which I respond:

The sovereign Lord of the earth and sky

Puts camels through a needle’s eye.

And if his wisdom see it mete,

He will put worlds inside a tweet.

So I am not inclined to tweet that at 10AM the cat pulled the curtains down. But it might remind me that the Lion of Judah will roll up the heavens like a garment, and blow out the sun like a candle, because he just turned the light on. That tweet might distract someone from pornography and make them look up.

I’ve been tweeting anonymously for a month mainly to test its spiritual and family effects on me. In spite of all the dangers, it seems like a risk worth taking. “All things were created through Christ and for Christ” (Colossians 1:16). The world does not know it, but that is why Twitter exists and that’s why I Tweet.

Pastor John is correct. It is exactly this ability to see the God-glorifying potential in so many things that encourages me about his minstry. Our church will do well to emulate Pastor John as we employ the venues available to us!

Adoption is the Antithesis of Abortion

2011-01-24T12:04:00.000-06:00

Sunday, I argued that adoption is the antithesis of abortion. Everything that adoption is, abortion is not. Abortion destroys a family; adoption creates a family. Abortion squanders life; adoption redeems life. I also contended that it is not enough for one who is “pro-life” to be against abortion. We must also create a competing vision for how the world should be. We must be pro-life and present adoption as an ideal for a society that must sometimes deal with what to do for unwanted children.

In his blog today (http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/01/24/in-his-own-words-a-radical-pro-abortion-president/) , Al Mohler notes that President Obama’s statement Saturday to mark the observance of Roe v. Wade did little to dispel the notion that he is more radical in his pro-abortion views than his campaign rhetoric suggested. Obama’s final sentence was this:

“And on this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms, and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

This logic, as I mentioned Sunday, is deeply troubling. It ignores the central issue at stake: what are the rights of the baby in the womb. It instead focuses only on the perceived benefits—or potential benefits—to the mother and father.

On Mother Jones’ website, there was an article posted about a pro-life attorney. One comment on the story caught my eye:

“I can tell you right now that if I were to get my girlfriend pregnant (accidentally, of course) I wouldn't even have to think about it. I've still got 3 years of University left, and my current girlfriend is JUST starting her career. There is no way I can support a child, and with the field she's going into, a child will destroy her career at this point in time. If we brought a child into the world it will be a meager minimum wage existence plagued by all the problems that come with low income families.”

Though stated more crudely, this is the same argument that President Obama is making and the same argument Nazi eugenicists made. The destruction of some life protects people’s rights to pursue whatever future they have envisioned for themselves.

The mind-numbingly obvious response, of course, is: what about the future of the aborted child?

Praying for the Protection of Life for the Glory of God,

Pastor Daniel

New Year Predictions

2011-01-12T11:58:00.002-06:00

Recently, Pat Robertson made his annual predictions for the coming year. The bottom line: “It’s going to be another good year for CBN [his ministry], but a tough one for the world.”

Many well-meaning but, frankly, gullible believers have been scared by Robertson’s doom and gloom scenarios in the past and 2011 is no exception.

There’s nothing wrong with making guesses for what might happen in the coming year. The problem is that Robertson claims that God is the one who is making these predictions. For example, he famously claimed God had told him that in 2008 a major U.S. city would be destroyed. That didn’t take place, unless God was speaking metaphorically about the Giants beating the undefeated New England Patriots in the Super Bowl. But New England really refers to a region instead of a city, so I think Robertson missed that one (and many others).

I’ve seen several news articles and blogs rightly take Robertson to task for his wild predictions. My concern with Robertson is both practical and theological. How does his “prophetic” word undermine the confidence in Scripture of those who follow him?

In Deuteronomy 18, God commands the people to put to death those who claim to speak a word in God’s name and lie. How will they know if the prophet is lying? “when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”

I don’t know what will happen in 2011. Neither do you. And neither does Pat Robertson or any other religious figure who claims to have a word from God. What I do know is that Scripture offers us the hope that whatever God has in store for us, we can endure it through the grace of God working within us. May we as believers have that confidence for the coming year!

Cyber Parents

2010-12-15T13:59:00.000-06:00

This week, Whitney and I were talking to a woman who has opted out of the digital world. She closed down her Facebook account and feels that she is better off. “It’s awkward sometimes,” she admitted, “I don’t know as much about what is going on in people’s lives.”

It has caused her to be more committed to developing real, non-virtual relationships. “We’re going to be facing a whole wave of children with communication disorder,” she lamented. As children tweet and text their way through life, the ability to handle face to face communication will diminish.

Not all people will reach the same conclusion as our friend, but all believers should think carefully about why and how they interact with our cyber culture. Our friend, fortunately, was savvy enough to realize the potential dangers of the digital world. Many parents are clueless when it comes to the allure and danger of the cyber world.

Dr. Mohler has some excellent insights into the problems parents face in his article, “The Dangerous Worlds of Analog Parents with Digital Teens.” http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/12/08/the-dangerous-worlds-of-analog-parents-with-digital-teens/

Deceit in the Evangelical World

2010-12-06T14:20:00.000-06:00

How would you feel if you found out that your favorite Christian book was written not by the famous name on the front cover but rather an editor at the publishing company? The practice of using ghostwriters in Christian publishing has been far more common than widely known over the past few decades.

In 2002, Randy Alcorn wrote an article entitled, “Scandal of Evangelical Dishonesty,” which can be found here: http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/25/scandal-evangelical-dishonesty/. In the article, he tackles the sensitive issue of deceit in the evangelical community and cites several examples of areas in which Christians seem comfortable with a certain level of deceit.

For instance, did you know that sometimes charitable organizations that help children actually pay Christian celebrities to mention them at concerts? Alcorn writes:

A disturbing recent fundraising development is purchasing celebrity endorsements of charities given at conferences and concerts. A speaker or musician gives an appeal for a ministry’s child sponsorships. For every child sponsored as a result of the appeal the performer receives $25 to $50. (In the secular world, this is called a kickback.)….

I have no problem with a ministry presenting its vision to a speaker or group and then asking them to pray about calling attention to their cause. I have major problems with offering them a percentage of “the take” (the offering). Unless this is done with full disclosure, unless clear verbal or printed recognition is made of this financial arrangement, the offering is a deception. Anything less than full disclosure to potential donors constitutes fraud. Such arrangements will inevitably promote abuse, and sometimes lead to public scandal. Consider the temptation to overstate or misrepresent needs or to speak with artificial enthusiasm for the poor, while thinking of the larger kickback they will get for doing so. Our enemies dish out enough temptations without us dispensing them to our friends. Think of a Christian speaker appealing to people to give to starving children, knowing what the audience doesn’t—his personal wealth will increase directly in proportion to what he says and how convincingly he says it.

Regarding ghostwriting, he distinguishes between collaboration and ghostwriting, which is “when the actual writer’s name is not on the cover, or when a person’s name is on the cover…who did little or nothing to write the book.”

Alcorn is right to be concerned. The evangelical community, perhaps enamored by the lure of fame and popularity, is willing to look the other way on many practices that in the secular field would be unthinkable. One day I received an email from someone suggesting that I listen to a "great message" given by a pastor of a mega-church that was about a theology of adoption. I went to a church’s website and as I listened to the message, I realized that this was a message that I had given at a conference! Illustrations from my message had been changed to make it more the speaker’s own, but my name was never cited as the original source of the material.

I don’t believe the pastor who did this had wicked motives. I like to think that he was simply unaware of proper ways to cite where material came from. (Most annoying, given his natural charisma and fine speaking voice, I think he delivered the message better than I did.) His possible unawareness that he was doing anything unethical, however, is a byproduct of an evangelical culture where we have lax standards for transparency. It is my fear that these lax standards stem from an infatuation with wanting the esteem of men. We fear honesty and desire prominence.

Jesus has this warning for those of us who desire the approval of men:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-4 ESV)

Holiness

2010-11-29T16:12:00.000-06:00

During Sunday’s sermon, I mentioned J.C. Ryle’s book Holiness. There have been only a handful of books that have been more influential in my life than this book. For those who would like to purchase it, I believe the church has a few copies or it can be found online in its entirety here: http://www.gracegems.org/Ryle/holiness.htm.

It was published in 1879 and yet remains extremely relevant. Controversies over anemic doctrine and slothfulness in our pursuit of holiness are not something birthed in our modern age. Ryle laments, “I have had a deep conviction for many years that practical holiness and entire self-consecration to God are not sufficiently attended to by modern Christians in this country.” He is writing to those living in England in the 19th century, but could just as well have been writing to us.

He continues: "Yet sanctification, in its place and proportion, is quite as important as justification. Sound Protestant and Evangelical doctrine is useless if it is not accompanied by a holy life. It is worse than useless; it does positive harm. It is despised by keen-sighted and shrewd men of the world, as an unreal and hollow thing, and brings religion into contempt. It is my firm impression that we want a thorough revival about Scriptural holiness…."

These are strong statements, but I believe Ryle is correct. Sanctification is important and sound doctrine is useless unless accompanied by a holy life. Neglect of holiness is a stain upon the church.

There are many gems found throughout even the introduction to the book as he gives some glimpses into the themes he will be covering in its pages. For instance, he addresses those who believe one can simply “Let Go and Let God” (a slogan still seen in many Evangelical churches and retreat centers today).

Ryle responds: "…is it wise to teach believers that they ought not to think so much of fighting and struggling against sin, but ought rather to "yield themselves to God," and be passive in the hands of Christ? Is this according to the proportion of God's Word? I doubt it…. But, on the other hand, it would not be difficult to point out at least twenty-five or thirty distinct passages in the Epistles where believers are plainly taught to use active personal exertion, and are addressed as responsible for doing energetically what Christ would have them do, and are not told to "yield themselves" up as passive agents and sit still, but to arise and work. A holy violence, a conflict, a warfare, a fight, a soldier's life, a wrestling, are spoken of as characteristic of the true Christian. The account of "the armor of God" in the sixth chapter of Ephesians, one might think, settles the question."

And in the remainder of the book, Ryle issues his call to spiritual arms, to engage in the first of one’s life…the struggle for holiness. It is our goal at Bethany Community to engage in that fight as well with similar ardor.

A Quick Update

2010-11-15T17:31:00.000-06:00

Dear Bethany Community Church,

Just a quick note today to encourage you to consider two opportunities provided by the Bethany Fellowship of Churches in the coming months.

The first is “A Community Christmas.” The past two years, Bethany Baptist and Living Hope have joined us on this side of the river at Five Points Washington. But this year, each church will be holding a concert in their own community. In one sense, it’s sad to have fewer people from the other churches join us at Five Points. At the same time, in years past we have been quite constrained by space. This year, we have a great opportunity to fill up the seats in the theatre with family and friends in the community who may not have a church home.

Please take advantage of this and invite your friends to a Community Christmas on December 10th at Five Points Washington!

The second opportunity is the “Engage” conference in January. This is a competition for high school students. It gives them the chance to really make their faith their own as they either prepare for the apologetic section of the competition or the preaching category. For more information, contact Joey Holland at joey@bethanycentral.org.

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

The Greatness of God and the Frailty of Earthen Vessels

2010-11-08T18:08:00.000-06:00

I recently began perusing an excellent new book entitled Well-Driven Nails: The Power of Finding Your Own Voice. The author, Pastor Byron Yawn, was an associate pastor at my parents’ church for several years and so I had an added incentive to purchase it.

Yawn is writing primarily to preachers, but there are some principles contained within its pages that I believe are helpful to all.

For example, as I scanned the table of contents, one of the chapters caught my eye. It was entitled, “John MacArthur: The Most Extraordinary Average Brain Expositor I Know.” Here’s what Yawn writes:

[MacArthurs] views his “average intelligence” as a primary reason he’s been able to connect with so many people. As he put it, “…It helps to not be too intelligent. I need a simple understanding of everything. I battle with the Scripture until I can understand it.”

MacArthur, writes Yawn, takes it as a compliment that his commentaries are viewed as tools for the untrained layman:

I’ve spent my entire life talking to the untrained layman. I’m not talking to dead Germans, liberals or scholars in a PhD program. I’m talking to the untrained layman. More than anything, I’m talking to myself. I need a simple understanding of Scripture. I have to have it broken down into simple concept. As it turns out, so does most everyone else.

Pride is a terrible foe. Even as we seek to glorify God in our ministry, pride trips us up. Some of us think too highly of our ministry abilities and stumble as we seek to exalt ourselves. Others of us take a more accurate assessment of our abilities, but then our terrible foe pride causes us to resent that our ability to minister is not greater!

MacArthur here reveals an encouraging truth that should result in greater humility. God uses whatever instruments He deems fit to use in whatever ways He deems fit to use them. In the hands of a Sovereign God, each of us becomes not an extraordinary tool but rather an ordinary tool that does an extraordinary thing—encourages others to worship a holy God.

May God give you grace to humbly engage in ministry for His glory.

Adding my two cents...

2010-11-01T16:00:00.000-05:00

After reading Ritch's article, several of you have sent me emails asking for my perspective on the race for U.S. Sentate (the State Comptroller race is a similar situation). "Be more specific!" you say.
Let me first say that godly men and women disagree on how to apply pro-life principles. Some believe they are promoting pro-life principles by voting for the best of two terrible candidates so that stronger pro-life candidates can be put in stronger positions.

But I personally have come to a different conclusion. Here are the reasons I will not be voting for Mark Kirk tomorrow (nor Judy Barr Topinka).

1. A candidate’s position on life is a litmus test. If they will not support the right every citizen has to life, they are not qualified for elective office. End of story for me.

2. Kirk is a terrible congressman and I believe he will be a worse senator.

3. I’m not a Republican. Having the Republicans gain control of the Senate doesn't drive me. Kirk will be a thorn in the side of the people I want to be successful.

4. I don’t want his potential work in the senate on my conscience. He will certainly cast terrible votes as a senator and I don’t want those on my conscience.

5. I don’t want the Republican party in Illinois believing they can nominate corrupt, pro-choice candidates and count on my vote.

Those are my thoughts, not the convictions of the church or even all the leaders in the church. May God grant each of us the wisdom and courage to vote our conscience tomorrow.

Pastor Ritch Boerckel: A Single Issue Voter

2010-10-31T23:53:00.000-05:00

The following article is by Ritch Boerckel and taken from Bethany Baptist's Broadcaster newsletter. I think it is appropriate to consider in light of the elections tomorrow. I share Ritch's conviction regarding voting pro-life and, because of that conviction, I will not be voting for either the Republican or Democratic candidate in several statewide races.

A Single Issue Voter

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people." (Pro 14:34 NIV)

I am a “single issue” voter. Abortion is the issue. I know that many may ridicule me for it as though such a stance is simplistic and unintelligent, but I refuse to be embarrassed by my conviction that I cannot vote for anyone who promotes legalized abortion. Often the pro-life option is found in one party; sometimes it is found in another. My conviction over the years has led me to vote variously for Republican, Democratic and Constitution Party candidates for the office of governor of Illinois. Sadly, in the past 18 years, I have not had the joy of voting for any winning candidate for governor. Happily, I have not had the sorrow of voting for any indicted and convicted candidate for governor. This is a trade off that I can live with.

Why do I defend “single issue” voting when the issue is abortion? I understand that there are other issues of great importance. I think it wise to consider these other issues when choosing between two pro-life candidates. But my understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that abortion transcends every other issue. Let me offer you three reasons for your consideration:

First, abortion is the most heinous sin that this nation presently acknowledges as lawful. The evil of abortion is almost too nauseating for me to consider. Thankfully, in the nineteenth century our nation’s conscience was awakened to the evil of slavery. We decided that we could no longer give the practice of slavery refuge within our laws. (I am thankful for the single issues voters of Abraham Lincoln’s day that voted to remove the blight of slavery from our land.) Today, our moral ground is no better than those before us when we legally sanction the taking of an innocent human life. Abortion is a silent slaughter that takes the lives of nearly 50,000 babies each year in the state of Illinois alone. As an evangelical Christian who believes that the Bible is true, I believe that there is no qualitative difference between a baby in the womb and a baby in a crib. If I would be outraged by the legal murder of infants and toddlers, then I must be outraged by the legal murder of babies in the womb. The heinous nature of abortion is masked from our eyes as we do not see the corpses of the little ones whose lives have been taken from them by someone more powerful than they. But it must not be masked from our consciences or from our voting record. It seems schizophrenic to affirm the heinous nature of abortion and then support it by voting for an elected official who will work to see that abortions continue to be lawful. My conscience does not allow me to participate in the evil of abortion by giving power to candidates who openly declare their intentions to continue this great national sin.

Second, abortion directly and intentionally causes the death of 1.3 million Americans each year. I do not know of any other issue that intentionally targets a specific group of Americans for death. Christians may reasonably disagree on social justice topics or on fiscal issues or on a host of other important concerns. However, I do not know of any other issue in which one side says, “I defend one person’s right to actively kill another person.” The abortion lobby’s entire intention is the killing of little ones. And it is very effective at accomplishing those goals. The most fundamental right given by God is the right to life. If this right is abandoned, then no other right has meaning. There is no value in the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to bear arms or the right to a free press IF the right to life is undermined. A government that sanctions abortion is a government that is willing to sacrifice any other fundamental human right if the political winds blow in that direction. This issue transcends all the others. Yes, I am concerned about fiscal responsibility and foreign policy, but if I agree with a candidate on every other issue except this one, then I cannot support them. This is too important. I want to vote on the right side of this defining issue of our age.

Finally, I have a responsibility as a citizen of the United States to vote for representatives who uphold the sanctity of life. Ours is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Our elected officials do not rule over us as kings, but they represent us. We vote for a person that we can honestly say best represents who we are and what we value and how we think. We are the ones responsible for the government that we have. The preamble of our constitution explains what the responsibilities that the citizens of our nation have in governing. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I do not uphold the Constitution when I vote for a pro-abortion candidate. These candidates deny the blessings of liberty to our posterity. The Supreme Court ruled abortion Constitutional as the Court reasoned that babies in the womb are not “persons”. Justice Blackmun wrote that "the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense alone" to justify abortion up until the precise moment that the infant leaves the womb. The Court understood that if it acknowledged the personhood of infants in the womb, then it would have to declare abortion illegal throughout the land.

Pastor Martin Niemueller was arrested in Nazi Germany for preaching the Bible, and speaking against Hitler, consequently he was one of only a handful of German Christian leaders who did speak out. A Lutheran chaplain visited him in jail and asked him, “My brother, what did you do? Why are you here?” To which Niemueller replied, “My brother, given what is happening in our country, why aren’t you here?”

So I would urge you to consider voting only for those candidates that affirm life. May God bless our nation with a heart of repentance and revival.

The Greatness of Grace

2010-10-25T23:42:00.000-05:00

This Sunday, Lord willing, we will explore Jesus’ encounter with someone Luke describes as “a woman…who was a sinner.” The story that transpires in Luke 7:36-50 vividly depicts the graciousness of a loving Savior who receives all who come to Him.

I'm excited about preaching on this text because it serves as a nice balance to what we've been discussing in previous weeks. We've talked a lot about repentance and the essential part in plays in the life of the believer. But as we discuss repentance, we need to consider the attributes of the One whom we are seeking forgiveness from.
God’s forgiveness is not granted reluctantly. It is bestowed with eagerness as He proclaims the greatness of His name. I would encourage you to be meditating on this Scripture in preparation for Sunday. Consider how you can grow in your love for Christ as you grow in your realization of your own sin.

Luke 7:36-50 (ESV) 36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Vote on November 2

2010-10-18T11:05:00.000-05:00

I believe that for the Christian, voting is not only a right and a privilege, but a sacred responsibility. God has sovereignly placed you in a unique position of authority. You have the ability to help determine who our leaders will be. You have the ability to affect who will lead you, your family, your children and your brothers and sisters in Christ. When you fail to exercise your right to vote, you are perhaps even more culpable for the type of leaders who are voted in.

Therefore, I encourage you to vote on November 2 and, to assist you in that endeavor, here are a few tools to help you make an informed decision.

First, I like to know who is going to be on the ballot before I step in the booth. Here is an excellent site that allows you to see exactly what your ballot will look like: http://www.evoter.com/. This helps me focus my research and not get bogged down with races that do not affect me.

Second, voting guides can be helpful. The Illinois Family Institute’s voting guide can be found here: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=35014 (if Aaron Schock is your congressman, you are in Congressional District 18).

Finally, viewing endorsements of other groups can help you find out more about candidates. If it is important to you to find pro-life candidates, The Illinois Federation for Right to Life endorsements can be found here: http://www.ifrl-pac.com/. If you like to read about candidates understanding of local issues, the Peoria-Journal Star’s endorsements can also be helpful: http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/endorsements (these endorsements are provided for your research and should not be read as my own personal endorsement for any candidate).

May God bless you as you seek to glorify Him in the voting booth this next month!

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

Pastor Ben Davidson, Guest Blogger

2010-10-11T00:01:00.002-05:00

In my absence, Ben Davidson is guest blogging today:

Last week, I was watching a group of birds outside my office window. There were five of them gathered together on adjacent branches. At once, 4 of the 5 went together to higher branches--leaving the fifth behind. They stayed this way for a few minutes. I watched and wondered if the fifth would join the rest of the group. Suddenly a sixth bird landed near the fifth, and they flew together to join the group.

It reminded me of our roles in the church. There are going to be those in our church who are with us, then maybe because of the growing pressures around them, stray from the group, not looking like they'll connect to Christian community. Nevertheless, our role, like the 6th bird, is to go to them and shepherd them back to where all need to be--in the community of faith.

As I typed this out, the group of birds landed on the gutter directly by my window...then flew away...together.

Hebrews 10:24-25 says, 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.

Let us not neglect,

Ben D.

For more insights on Christian community, go to Pastor Daniel's blog entry at: http://danielbennett.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-my-family-is-participating-in-care.html

Thoughts from a Rookie

2010-10-04T14:57:00.001-05:00

Recently, a friend who works in the publishing industry asked me to write an article for his blog, http://jackkragt.blogspot.com/. He asked me to write about my experiences as a first time writer. Below is what I wrote:

The following are three inter-related applications that I have found helpful as I am nearing the end of what has been a rewarding and enjoyable process.

1. Be humble.

I doubt there are many writers who submit a manuscript to a publisher without wondering “what if.” In “the writer’s daydream,” the would-be wunderkind begins to fantasize about future fame and glory: What if the publisher accepts my manuscript? What if it does really well? What if I become a best-selling author? What if J.K. Rowling, John Grisham and I begin to hang out?

The writer’s daydream is majestic, but the writer’s reality is far more mundane. Most books are not best sellers, and there’s no reason to believe your book will be the exception. As my friend and fellow pastor said to me when I told him I could get some copies of my book at a discounted price: “That’s OK. I’ll wait a month and get it at clearance prices.” Odds are that he has hit upon a pretty-good strategy.

The harsh realities of the publishing world should protect a writer from hubris. A first-time author, such as myself, should be particularly humble as he or she receives guidance from a publisher.

From the very beginning, my publisher has had specific suggestions for how to improve my book. It would have been very foolish of me to believe that my original proposal was so incredible it could not be improved upon!

By the way, this principle is important at all phases of the publishing process. As I have researched more about the publishing world, I hear authors make all sorts of complaints about their publishers: they should have a higher initial printing, they should do more to market my book, they should display my book more prominently, etc.

In the end, the reality is that the publisher wants your book to do well almost as much as you do. The hard truth to accept is that maybe your book is getting the attention it deserves. It’s good enough to be published, but maybe it won’t change the universe in quite the way you thought it might!

2. Have something to write about.

The remedy to the discouraging realities of the publishing world is to be confident that you have a contribution to make. The writer of Ecclesiastes tells us that of the making of books there is no end. What you will say in your book has already been said before. You are simply repacking ideas that have already been thought and perhaps you are expressing them in a new way.

It is incumbent upon you, therefore, to make sure that the ideas you are repackaging are of worth, that they are those timeless truths that will serve to build up Christ’s kingdom.

3. Keep your ultimate goal in mind.

Our ultimate goal in writing, as in life, is to glorify God. There is only one way to ensure that your book or project has an impact that reaches into eternity and that is to make it a work that exalts our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. When that is your passion and aim in life, your book need not be published at all to be considered a success!

Call to Ministry

2010-10-04T14:31:00.000-05:00

I am occasionally asked how a person knows whether or not they are “called” to ministry. This relates somewhat to the discussion that has been going on in our Sunday School classes on God’s will.

Obviously, there are both subjective and objective elements to a decision to pursue ministry. My call was a slow one. As I tried to be obedient to God’s Word and participate in ministry, He continued to direct me to vocational ministry.

In the process of trying to determine whether or not I should pursue vocational ministry, I read a great chapter on the call to pastoral ministry from Rediscovering Pastoral Ministry, a book that the Master’s Seminary faculty put together, that I found very helpful. In it, James M. George identified four elements of a biblical call to pastoral ministry that we find in Scripture: Confirmation, Abilities, Longing, and Life (CALL).

First, there is a confirmation of one’s call to ministry from both God and His church. In Scripture, we often see God confirming a call to ministry through providential circumstances. As George puts it: “God’s sovereignty provides for the calling of certain men for leadership in the local church. God gives them the gifts to carry out the functions of the ministry, gives them the desire to serve in this capacity, and then orchestrates the circumstances to provide for the place of ministry” (108). In 1 Corinthians 16:8-9 Paul speaks of the door God has opened for him to remain at Ephesus. Timothy serves as an ideal model of how the confirming from the church body should take place. The elders in this young man’s church recognized God’s work in his life and publicly recognized his calling. Later, in both 1 & 2 Timothy, Paul would refer to the public ordination of his young friend to exhort Timothy to persevere.

Second, there are abilities that one who is called to the ministry must possess. For example, Scripture tells us that the pastor must be able to teach and shepherd the flock (e.g. Acts 20:18; Ephesians 4:11; 2 Timothy 4:2; 1 Peter 5:2). Therefore, if he does not possess the abilities necessary to perform these very vital and basic tasks, a young man can be assured that he is not called to the ministry.

Third, there must be a longing by the pastor who is called by God. At first, I identified most closely with the type of longing Jeremiah describes. He writes in Jeremiah 20:9, “But if I say, ‘I will not remember Him or speak anymore in His name,’ Then in my heart it becomes like a burning fire shut up in my bones; and I am weary of holding it in, and I cannot endure it.” There was a longing to do what God desired me to do—indeed, I could not help it—but it was a longing that filled me with dread as well. Though I felt the joy of being involved in ministry, I was also reluctant to trust God with the long and difficult road that I knew ministry would be. As time has gone on, I have felt more the joy implicit in 1 Timothy 3:1. Not only is it impossible for me to be involved in any other vocation, there is no other vocation that I would desire to be in. I long to be with the people of God, serving them and aiding them in their walk with Him.

Finally, there must be a lifestyle that is above reproach. Even if others confirm him in his calling, a contentious man may be assured that he is most certainly not called into ministry. I believe that, by the grace of God, my lifestyle is consistent with what Scripture mandates concerning the one called by God.

One final thought: while discerning whether or not God has gifted a man for vocational ministry can be difficult, what is clear is that each believer has been called for some work of ministry. The Holy Spirit has give “to each one” gifts for the body’s benefit (Eph. 4:7; 1 Cor. 12:11).

Russell Moore on God, the gospel, and Glenn Beck

2010-09-16T16:33:00.000-05:00

Dr. Russell Moore published an article at the end of August that I thought made several excellent observations. It was entitled, "God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck." It can be read in its entirety here: http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/08/29/god-the-gospel-and-glenn-beck/

Moore's concern is that evangelicals are so confused as to the content of the gospel that they are embracing Beck's call to return to God despite the fact that Beck is a Mormon and has a far different understanding of the gospel. Moore agrees that evangelicals can partner with those of different faiths for political ends but rightly argues that Christians are not thinking biblically about concepts like justice and the common good.

Here are a few paragraphs from the article:

Too often, and for too long, American “Christianity” has been a political agenda in search of a gospel useful enough to accommodate it. There is a liberation theology of the Left, and there is also a liberation theology of the Right, and both are at heart mammon worship. The liberation theology of the Left often wants a Barabbas, to fight off the oppressors as though our ultimate problem were the reign of Rome and not the reign of death. The liberation theology of the Right wants a golden calf, to represent religion and to remind us of all the economic security we had in Egypt. Both want a Caesar or a Pharaoh, not a Messiah.

Leaders will always be tempted to bypass the problem behind the problems: captivity to sin, bondage to the accusations of the demonic powers, the sentence of death. That’s why so many of our Christian superstars smile at crowds of thousands, reassuring them that they don’t like to talk about sin. That’s why other Christian celebrities are seen to be courageous for fighting their culture wars, while they carefully leave out the sins most likely to be endemic to the people paying the bills in their movements.

Where there is no gospel, something else will fill the void: therapy, consumerism, racial or class resentment, utopian politics, crazy conspiracy theories of the left, crazy conspiracy theories of the right; anything will do. The prophet Isaiah warned us of such conspiracies replacing the Word of God centuries ago (Is. 8:12–20). As long as the Serpent’s voice is heard, “You shall not surely die,” the powers are comfortable.

But Moore does not advocate ignoring the political process. He concludes his article:

The answer to this scandal isn’t a retreat, as some would have it, to an allegedly apolitical isolation. Such attempts lead us right back here, in spades, to a hyper-political wasteland. If the churches are not forming consciences, consciences will be formed by the status quo, including whatever demagogues can yell the loudest or cry the hardest. The answer isn’t a narrowing sectarianism, retreating further and further into our enclaves. The answer includes local churches that preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and disciple their congregations to know the difference between the kingdom of God and the latest political whim.

It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.

And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.

Moore is exactly right. The ultimate problem isn't Glenn Beck or Fox News or Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama. The problem is that the church has failed to train its people to understand the implications of the true gospel and help them live it out in their lives.

John Piper on Preaching

2010-08-31T18:38:00.000-05:00

HT to Ritch Boerckel...excellent insights on the task of preaching.

(Author: Jeff Lacine)

Although John Piper was completely unable to speak in front of groups from fifth grade until his sophmore year of college, and although he received a C minus in his seminary preaching class, God made him a preacher. Hear about it in today's Ask Pastor John.

The following is an edited transcript of the audio.

Where and how did you learn to preach?

I don't know. Watching my dad when I was six, eight, ten, twelve. Watching how not to do it in lots of places. Being unable to speak in front of a group from grade five to my sophomore year in college. I think I was learning to preach during that time because I was so hurt, so wounded, so discouraged, and so desperate that I had to go way down into God, and way into Scripture, and way into pain, and God was making a preacher by shutting my mouth.

You don't become an effective preacher by becoming a loquacious and effective communicator at age sixteen. You become a clever communicator, but you don't become a preacher of the holy things of God. So that was a piece.

I don't know. The courses that I took on preaching were marginally helpful. I got the lowest grade in seminary in my preaching class. I think I got a C minus in James Daane's preaching class at Fuller Seminary. We never agreed on anything except the principle that every sermon should have one point, he said that over and over again. So I made a terrible grade there. But there were other teachers that...

I think the way that I became a preacher was by being passionately thrilled by what I was seeing in the Bible in seminary. Passionately thrilled! When Philippians began to open to me, Galatians open to me, Romans open to me, the Sermon on the Mount open to me in classes on exegesis (not homiletics, but exegesis), everything in me was feeling, "I want to say this to somebody. I want to find a way to say this because this is awesome, this is incredible!"

So for preachers today that go everywhere but the Bible to find something interesting or something scintillating and passionate, I say, "I don't get it. I don't get that at all!" Because I have to work hard to leave the Bible to go somewhere to find an illustration, because everything in the Bible is just blowing me away. And it is that sense of being blown away by what's here—by the God that's here, and the Christ that's here, and the gospel that's here, and the Spirit that's here, and the life that is here—being blown away by this, I just say, "That's got to get out."

And then I suppose how it gets out. What is that? I don't know what that is. That's just the way I'm wired that I would say it a certain a way. It's owing in part to me being a lit major, you know, I studied language a little bit. Goodness, a thousand things go into your life and nobody can copy anybody else. I don't know. God makes us who we are. I don't think there is much you can do to become a preacher except know your Bible and be unbelievably excited about what's there. And love people a lot, that is, you want to make the connection with people and what's in the Bible.

The Hospitable Bishop

2010-08-31T12:30:00.004-05:00

I have an unwritten rule against using multiple sermon illustrations from the same source—at least until a respectable amount of time has transpired. I used Les Miserables in a sermon several weeks ago and I’m reluctant to use it again.

The pity is that there is so much good material in the book! Therefore, I have decided to grant myself amnesty for weekly updates, which means you may be seeing a lot of Les Miserables in the coming weeks.

Near the beginning of the novel, a bishop says these words to Jean Valjean, who is in desperate need of hospitality:

You need not tell me who you are. This is not my house; it is the house of Christ. It does not ask any comer whether he has a name, but whether he has an affliction. You are suffering; you are hungry and thirsty; be welcome. And do not thank me; do not tell me that I take you into my house. This is the home of no man, except him who needs an asylum. I tell you, who are a traveler, that you are more at home than I; whatever is here is yours. What need have I to know your name? Besides, before you told me, I knew it…. Your name is my brother.

Can you say the same of your home: This is not my house; it is the house of Christ?

In Romans 15:7, tells us why believers should be more hospitable than any other group: “Therefore,” writes Paul, “welcome one another as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory of God.”

You and I have been welcomed into the home of God through faith in Chris Jesus. We become family, yes, but it should never be forgotten that we who were God’s enemies were shown gracious hospitality at the moment where we needed it the most and deserved it the least.

My encouragement to you is to examine the home in which you live and be careful about speaking of it as “your” home. You live in it, but it is God’s. The food, the clothing, the furniture exist not for your own benefit but for God’s. Use it accordingly!

Why My Family is Participating in Care Groups This Year

2010-08-23T12:01:00.000-05:00

Since our church launched in 2008, I think it is fair to say that our family has been pretty involved in the life of the church. We love Bethany Community and receive great joy from our participation in ministry here.

There is one ministry at BCC, however, that my family has not been heavily involved with, and that is the care group ministry. If the care group ministry is an integral part of our church’s discipleship ministry, why have we not been more involved?

The primary reason was that we were busy with other ministries, but as we looked at all that we were involved in, we noticed that we were not, as a family, participating in a smaller, relational ministry.

So this year, our family has decided that we need to be involved in the care group ministry. Not because the ministry needs more leaders. Not because we want to show how important the ministry was by getting involved. Not because we believe the other things we are doing are suddenly unimportant.

We are participating in care groups because it is important for the spiritual health of our family. We need it. You see, it is not only possible for a casual attendee to miss out on relationships at church—it is possible for a very committed attendee/Senior Pastor to miss out on relationships.

Remember the interaction between Jesus, Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42:

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

Mary chooses the “one thing” that is necessary—growth in her walk with the Lord Jesus. That is what my family needs as well, and that growth can occur more effectively in regular, consistent relationships with other believers.

So, we’re looking forward to participating in the small group ministry and seeing how the Lord continues to challenge us in our walk with him.

I encourage you to consider if God is calling you to participate in care groups as well!

Bethany Community Update

2010-04-27T22:57:00.000-05:00

Sunday’s business meeting was a source of great encouragement to me. There was unanimity or near unanimity on every item on the ballot. In fact, the constitution and bylaws—under which we become a church on May 1 unless the Lord returns first—received no dissenting votes.

That is encouraging to me because it seems to reflect a spirit of unity and trust in our church as we move ahead. The unity of Christ’s church is a precious thing that we should endeavor to preserve. As Paul writes in Ephesians 2:

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. 17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. 22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

The unity of the church, then, has been created by Christ and is a reality for all who have responded to the message of peace and placed their faith in Him.

Unity can wrongly be defined as “agreeing with the leadership.” Well-meaning Christians are frightened sometimes of voicing contrary opinions within a church because they don’t want to be seen as “rabble rousers.” I trust our unity is never borne of fear but instead comes from the Spirit leading us in a similar direction.

May God continue to preserve our church for His glory and not our own! As we begin this next phase, I am heartened by the oneness of purpose that exists in our midst.

Message from Christian Alliance for Orphans

2010-03-29T15:45:00.000-05:00

I received the following from CAO...great conference if you're able to attend!

Summit VI

You and individuals from your church community are invited to attend the Christian Alliance for Orphans’ national Summit VI! This national conference is designed to help Christians start and grow orphan ministry in the local church, including adoption, foster care and international orphan initiatives.

Summit VI on April 29-30 in Minneapolis, MN will bring together grassroots advocates, pastors, orphan experts from across America and beyond—as well as many new to the issue seeking to learn how to engage.

Featured speakers include national champions of orphan care and adoption, including John Piper, Doug Sauder, Mary Beth Chapman, Jedd Medefind, Tom Davis and Al Mohler. Compelling voices from the global church will address attendees as well, from Africa and Eastern Europe to Central America. Music will be led by Steven Curtis Chapman and other artists. Meanwhile, more than fifty workshops will deliver practical know-how for orphan ministry—from supporting families with post adoption challenges, to effective models for church foster care programs, to partnerships with indigenous churches for overseas orphan care. In addition, families in the adoption process will have the opportunity for five “Hague Hours” from national experts such as Dr. Karyn Purvis at no additional cost.

If God has stirred hearts in your church for the plight of orphans, Summit offers the biggest and best opportunity of the year to learn how to act upon your convictions. Many churches will send multiple individuals in order to fully access the full range of resources, workshops and other opportunities available. To learn more and register now, visit the Christian Alliance for Orphans website at www.christianalliancefororphans.org.

Bethany Community Update Email

2010-01-27T19:51:00.000-06:00

Dear Bethany Community Church,

Some women’s advocacy groups are protesting CBS’ decision to air a commercial during the Super Bowl that they say is offensive and demeaning to women.

The groups are not protesting the demeaning of women on the sidelines or during the half-time show. The commercial is not one in which women are objectified to sell beer or cars or announce new web companies.

Instead, the groups’ fury is targeted at a 30-second ad from Focus on the Family in which a mother will relate the story of how she was advised to abort her unborn son when she became ill in the Philippines. She refused to do so and her son, Tim Tebow, became one of the most successful quarterbacks to ever play at the University of Florida, or anywhere else for that matter.

I try not to be a pessimist. I have every confidence that through the gospel, hearts can be changed and our culture can change in radical ways. But I have to admit that the furor over this ad has me quite saddened and perplexed.

The venue in question—the Super Bowl—has hosted some of the most offensive advertising content ever. There was the scandalous “wardrobe malfunction” incident several years ago that resulted in heated discussions regarding indecency, but for the most part these discussions missed the fact that decency and modesty in television were long ago replaced with an insidious lasciviousness.

The divide in our country on this issue is truly great. Terry O’Neil, the president of the National Organization for Women, referred to the ad as “extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.” How tragic that in our Mad Hatter sort of world, using women as billboards is wholesome entertainment and the promotion of message of life is demeaning to women while promoting the choice of life is demeaning.

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

2010 Orphan Sunday Video

2010-01-27T19:40:00.000-06:00

Read a Little, not a Lot

2010-01-05T14:56:00.002-06:00

Dear Bethany Community Church,

Let me add one more suggestion to your ever-growing list of New Year’s Resolutions: resolve to read little bit instead of trying to read a lot.

Books can sometimes be rather formidable opponents, weighing in at several hundred pages usually. Great tomes can seem even more overwhelming. We feel as though we are doing well to read the Bible, much less additional reading!

Therefore, my suggestion is to try not to read “a lot” but instead try to read “a little bit.”

Pastor John Stott tells of his struggle to find adequate study time and the realization he came to in his book Between Two Worlds:

I found from the beginning that [spending an entire morning in study] was an impossible ideal to attain. I made valiant efforts, but I failed. Mornings? Why, on Sunday morning I was at public worship in church; on Monday morning there was a staff meeting; Tuesday was my day off; by Wednesday there were urgent letters to write; on Thursday morning I taught in our Church Day School; on Friday morning there was sure to be a funeral; and Saturday morning I had to reserve for actual sermon preparation. Thus the week went by without a single morning being free for those books which I was supposed to be reading. So I found myself obliged to lower my expectations and set myself more realistic goals. I have come to believe in the cumulative value of shorter periods of study (202).

John Piper confirms Stott’s conclusion and offers this observation in Brothers, We Are Not Professionals:

We think we don’t have time to read. We despair of reading anything spiritually rich and substantial because life seems to be lived in snatches. One of the most helpful discoveries I have made is how much can be read in disciplined blocks of twenty minutes a day.

Suppose that you read slowly, say about 250 words a minutes (as I do). This means that in twenty minutes you can read about five thousand words. An average book has about four hundred words a page. So you could read about twelve-and-a-half pages in twenty minutes. Suppose you discipline yourself to read a certain author or topic twenty minutes a day, six days a week, for a year. That would be 312 times 12.5 pages for a total of 3,900 pages. Assume that an average book is 250 pages long. This means you could read fifteen books like that in one year (66-67).

You probably do not have several hours every day to read a book. But perhaps you have twenty minutes a day before you fall asleep, or half an hour while you eat lunch.

By God’s grace and for His glory, venture into new worlds this year in your reading!

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

This Made Me Laugh...

2009-12-17T22:08:00.000-06:00

Check this out:
http://www.sundog.net/carolofthechins/flash/card.swf

Merry Christmas! (After trying a couple of your own, type in "Jingle Bell Rocks")

Till death do us part...part 2

2009-12-17T17:12:00.001-06:00

I was extremely surprised and honored that John Marcotte responded to my previous blog and had some great comments. On a more serious note, let me address some of what he said in his comment.

John's Comment 1:

We're not talking about religious marriage here -- only civil marriage.

Daniel's Response 1:

I'm guessing John is saying that his satirical proposition is not trying to attack religious marriage but rather focus on how civil marriages should be viewed.

John's Comment 2:

The fact that my measure is seen by some as ridiculous validates the idea that Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights to protect marriage -- not their own.

Daniel's Response 2:

The statement contains several fallacies. First, John has probably picked up on the fact that many people don't view the fundamental idea behind his proposition as ridiculous. So, to say that "Prop 8 voters are only willing to sacrifice other people's rights..." seems unfair and imprecise. There are lots of people who would want to buy his t-shirt if he wasn't being satirical! I hope he appreciates the irony. Many would LOVE to make divorce more difficult and more rare. Many believe our society is worse off because of our high divorce rates.

Second, John is using the term "right" to refer to a recognition by the government of a union that has never been recognized before. Comparing that “right” to the process of divorce, which legal codes for thousands of years have provided for, seems extremely far-fetched. This is the subject for a different post, but I think Bork and others have done a good job arguing how the historical understanding of “rights” should inform our thinking when employing that term.

In short, allowing divorce does not fundamentally alter how our culture has defined marriage. At the very least, I wish opponents of Prop 8 would acknowledge that.

John's Question 1:

Does the government make a marriage sacred?

Daniel's Answer 1:

No. (Although I don’t perform a “religious” marriage apart from the assurance that the couple has gone through the necessary requirements that state sets for their union.)

John's Question 2:

And should the government enforce one religious view of marriage over others?

Daniel's Answer 2:

Several fundamental problems to the question.

First, what would be the “one” religious view? Is John referring to Christianity? There are many religions (and non-religious beliefs) that define marriage as a union between a man and woman.

Second, what does John mean by "religious view"? We all have something that guides us in making value judgments. Perhaps your overriding value is liberty or individual freedom. But there must be some philosophical reason behind advocating that value.

John is making the assumption that those who supported Prop 8 did so for religious means. Again, this is painting those voters with a very broad brush! John is second assuming that our underlying views of what is morally right and wrong should not shape our view of what is best for our country if they stem from religious beliefs. If I called his beliefs “religious” because of his devotion to them, does that invalidate them?

I would suggest that this conception of how laws are made is a radical departure from historic policy theory.

Let's put John’s question another way: should one group's anti-religious bias influence policy decisions? Why not? I have every expectation that a person who views the expression of Judeo-Christian values as harmful in shaping policy will vote against them. I don’t go around saying their beliefs shouldn’t affect how they vote. It’s ludicrous.

John's Comment 3:

It's an interesting debate. I enjoy reading others opinions.

Daniel's Final Response:

I want to publically thank John for his gracious tone and comments. I had no idea he would be reading the letter I sent out to the church. I view this blog as my living room and am always excited when guests pop in from far-away parts!

This goes back to what I was saying in a previous post regarding the Manhattan Declaration. This isn’t about gay marriage. It’s about the gospel.

Having marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman doesn’t proclaim the gospel. It’s the right thing to do for numerous reasons, but it’s not a religious statement.

But what gay right advocates rightly recognize is that the underlying force influencing my life is my desire to glorify God. My life has been transformed by placing my faith in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation and I understand why others might find that odd. My goal is not to win an argument on the merits or dangers of gay marriage. My goal is to share the message of Jesus Christ, encouraging everyone—including the church!—to turn from hypocrisy and sin and place their trust in Jesus Christ.

Till death do us part...

2009-12-16T15:04:00.001-06:00

This is from the BCC weekly update...

John Marcotte is a very sarcastic man.

Marcotte was an opponent of Proposition 8, the 2008 California ballot proposition that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. It passed and Marcotte was none too happy about it. Now he is working on getting an initiative of his own on the ballot in California next year.

His initiative is entitled the 2010 California Marriage Protection Act and it would effectively ban divorce in the state. One of the slogans of the campaign: “You said, ‘Til death do us part.’ You’re not dead yet.”

Here's a picture of a shirt for sale on his website http://rescuemarriage.org/.

Remember, Marcotte is being sarcastic—and cynical. He has no desire to really ban divorce. What he is trying to do is highlight what he perceives as the hypocrisy of those who supported the traditional definition of marriage. As he told the Associate Press, “Since California has decided to protect traditional marriage, I think it would be hypocritical of us not to sacrifice some of our own rights to protect traditional marriage even more.”

Two things struck me when I read about Marcotte’s efforts. First, I think he truly believes that those who supported Proposition 8 are mostly hypocrites. They say they one thing about having a high view of marriage but practice another. He is attempting to caricature the religious right as people who attempt to regulate the morality of others but fail to follow their own moral message. I pray that he is wrong.

Second, I was struck by what this proposition says about our culture. The fact that his proposition is considered so ludicrous is an ominous sign of our times. After all, no one could be serious about wanting to make divorce more difficult to achieve. In our culture, a marriage license carries no more weight than the paper on which it is written.

What should our response be as Christians? First, we must have compassion for those who have experienced the pain of divorce. Many in our church family and community have felt the pain of a marriage ripped apart. We must communicate to all our brothers and sisters in Christ that there is healing and restoration in Him.

Second, we must boldly proclaim the importance of covenant faithfulness in marriage. Let us be careful to affirm the truth of God’s Word in Genesis 2:18-15:

18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The Manhattan Declaration

2009-12-02T10:19:00.002-06:00

Recently, the president of the seminary I attend sent out an email discussing why he signed a document entitled, "The Manhattan Declaration." I was unfamiliar with the document and so I read his blog post Why I Signed the Manhattan Declaration and checked out the document.

As much as I respect Dr. Mohler and many of the other signers of the document, I think they made a mistake in signing it. My email update to the church this week describes why:

{UPDATE: One signer clarifies his position: Kevin DeYoung's blog, TeamPyro weigh in: Nineteen Questions }.

Dear Bethany Community,

I am passionately, unashamedly, and whole-heartedly pro-life. So, when someone suggested to me recently that I sign a document supporting the pro-life cause, I was prepared to do so.

As I reviewed the document, entitled “The Manhattan Declaration,” I found myself in hearty agreement with its three primary affirmations: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Not only did I find myself in agreement with its general principles, I found that many evangelical leaders whom I highly esteem had already signed it, including men who have served or are serving as presidents at each of the three seminaries I have attended.

So why did I ultimately decide not to sign it?

The Manhattan Declaration does two things that I believe undermine the gospel. First, it refers to the gospel without ever defining what it is. The reader is left to define it however he or she may choose. Second, and related, it asserts unity in Christ among the signers of the document even though some of the primary signers of the document would reject the basic truth of the gospel that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone apart from our own works.

For example, it states: "It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.” It also uses phrases such as “we Christians,” “we believers,” and “as followers of Jesus Christ” to describe the people signing the document.

But I do not have such unity with all the signers of this document, nor is the basis of unity—the gospel of Jesus Christ—defined. While I will pursue unity with the signers in fighting for the causes enumerated, we do not have unity in Christ simply because we both use the word “Christian.” We believe radically different things concerning how a person comes to faith in Christ.

My personal conviction is that by signing this document, I would be implying that we have unity on the most important issue in the universe—an issue in which we stand on different sides of an immense chasm.

If the document had merely advocated political positions, I would have had no problem signing it. I need not agree with others on theological issues to work toward political ends. But the document made theological assertions. It therefore crosses the line from being a political document—which I could support as a Christian—to making a theological statement about the nature of the gospel that I cannot support.

How important is the gospel?

It is more important than ending abortion. It is more important than preserving a traditional understanding of marriage. Yes, it is even more important than our own lives, brothers and sisters.

No one will ever come to Christ by simply opposing abortion. No legislation defining marriage will transform a child of wrath into a child of God.

May God end abortion in our land and may He give us the grace to work with individuals from all different creeds and religions in the political process. I strive for that and pray you do as well. May God preserve us from the unraveling of traditional marriage in our culture and may He give us the joy of working with those from different faiths toward that end.

But even more importantly, May God give us the ability to boldly proclaim the Good News of His Son Jesus Christ, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved!

By His Grace,

Pastor Daniel

Muppets New Hit Sensation

2009-11-30T20:08:00.001-06:00

Bethany Community Update Email

2009-11-18T11:06:00.000-06:00

In 3rd grade, I memorized Psalm 100 and can still remember the thrill of being able to say that I had memorized a whole chapter of the Bible!

Whitney went to a Be Moms event recently and was encouraged by Laurie Jenkin’s story of teaching her boys Psalm 100 last year. So, the Bennett family is trying to memorize Psalm 100 and plan on saying it together as a family on Thanksgiving.

Psalm 100 (ESV)
1 Make a joyful noise to the Lord, all the earth!
2 Serve the Lord with gladness! Come into his presence with singing!
3 Know that the Lord, he is God! It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
4 Enter his gates with thanksgiving, and his courts with praise! Give thanks to him; bless his name!
5 For the Lord is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.

Perhaps you might wish to read this on Thanksgiving as well as you contemplate the glory of the God from whom all good things flow.

I am thankful for this church. Thank you for letting me serve as a pastor at this church with such joy.

Trailer to the new Blind Side Movie

2009-11-16T23:01:00.000-06:00

Biblical Literacy

2009-08-18T22:18:00.003-05:00

This story from USA Today on biblical literacy was sent to me by my friend Andrew. The basic point of the story is that biblical literacy is important, but schools are afraid to teach the Bible because we crazy Christians will use the book to proseltyze. Here is an excerpt:

Indeed, Newman says that trying to appreciate biblical allusions in literature without an underlying knowledge of Scripture is like trying to appreciate a good joke when someone has to explain the punch line. You might eventually "get" the joke, she says, but by the time you do, "it's not funny anymore."

Interestingly, a 2008 study published in Sociological Quarterly found that regular church attendance positively affected students' grade point averages. And while lead researcher Jennifer Glanville of the University of Iowa attributed much of this effect to the social and psychological benefits of being enmeshed in a wider community of like-minded peers and adults, some of this effect might also be explained by the greater biblical literacy young people typically acquire by attending church.

To stem the decline of biblical literacy, three states — Georgia, Texas and Tennessee — have passed laws in recent years calling for public high schools to offer elective courses that teach the Bible "in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt to indoctrinate students" (as Georgia's law puts it).

A few thoughts...

1. It is always astounding to me to realize what an impact the Bible has had upon our culture...and how quickly our culture is changing. A significantly smaller fraction of our cultural output requires Biblical literacy in order to interpret.

2. Yeah, I have to admit if I were a teacher I would do use the Bible to teach about Christianity. Guilty.

3. It is always sad to see how fearful secularists are of proselytizing, or even the acknowledgement of religious belief in the public sphere. The objective is not protection of all beliefs (or lack thereof) but rather the removal of the acceptability of belief.

4. Would a teacher who doesn't believe the Bible to be true be held to the same standard of "objectivity?" Would he be required to NOT communicate his lack of belief? In other words, if a teacher taught about the life of Christ from the Gospels and considered those accounts to be mythical, would we be concerned about her communicating that to her class? If she mentioned that they were fanciful accounts, would we accuse her of proselytizing? I think the whole idea of objectivity is rather absurd.

Not sure if this is funny or not...

2009-08-08T01:04:00.001-05:00

I still blog...

2009-07-22T22:50:00.002-05:00

...just intermittently. I shall return to the blogosphere soon!

In the meantime, if you haven't seen this, it's pretty good:

God Ordains the Return of Calvinism...

2009-04-02T00:02:00.000-05:00

...and Time chooses to report it.

Time.com is reporting on the big trends of 2009. Surprisingly, the resurgence of Calvinism is on there. They note that the increasingly influence of men like John Piper, uber-cool Mark Driscoll, and my personal friend Al Mohler (he sends me an email every day whether I like it or not) in evangelical Christianity is helping fuel the resurgence.

I think the appeal of Calvinism is partly fueled by the rejection of the alternatives (seeker-sensitive church, dead mainline churches, exclusive emergent church, etc.). There simply aren't a lot of options out there for the believer passionate about the glory of God and the authority of His Word. They're out there, but clearly the dominant voice in conservative Evangelicalism is the voice of JC (John Calvin).

I don't like being assigned a label, but I understand that some believers are just so excited by the truths contained in the doctrines of grace, that it is easier to just proclaim they are Calvinists than to enumerate each truth that excites their soul.

The unfortunate thing is labels can be misleading. The meanings one ascribes to the term Calvinism can be quite varied. But I suppose it is easier to say one is a Calvinist that to pull out a doctrinal statement to identify oneself.

PowerPoint is Evil

2009-03-29T22:05:00.005-05:00

Edward Tufte entitled his Sept 2003 article in Wired magazine, "PowerPoint is Evil." Tufte should know. He is professor emeritus of political science, computer science and statistics, and graphic design at Yale. I think pastors would benefit from reading his article. He begins it with this paragraph:

"Imagine a widely used and expensive prescription drug that promised to make us beautiful but didn't. Instead the drug had frequent, serious side effects: It induced stupidity, turned everyone into bores, wasted time, and degraded the quality and credibility of communication. These side effects would rightly lead to a worldwide product recall."

In case you missed it due to his subtletly, he's referring to PowerPoint. His primary contention is that the program elevates form over content. The dependency upon this form of communication is decreasing our ability to communicate effectively. In schools, children are learning not how to research and communicate content but instead learning how to animate graphics in a slideshow. The typical PowerPoint presentation "disrupts, dominates, and trivializes content."

I think Tufte is at least partly right, which is why I struggled with whether or not to personally implement PowerPoint in my preaching ministry. The difficulty was especially profound for me because I personally don't benefit when others use PowerPoint. In high school, PowerPoint wasn't really big yet, but by the time I was finishing seminary, it had saturated the classroom. Whenever I went to a seminary class and had a professor turn on the projector, I inwardly groaned. But others I know find it extremely useful, which indicates diversity of learning styles, I think.

The pastor, in my opinion, must be careful to preserve the unique genre of the sermon. The form must not overshadow the content. Ultimately, I decided to utilize PowerPoint but very sparingly. The slides are not designed to be the vehicle of communication but merely help people track with where I am in the progress of the message. My goal is that it would be very rare that a person would need to look at the PowerPoint at all to get the full impact of the message.

Further Schooling Thoughts

2009-03-29T16:56:00.004-05:00

This is a paragraph from a recent George Will column in Newsweek.

"But in 1966, the Coleman Report concluded: 'Schools are remarkably similar in the effect they have on the achievement of their pupils when the socioeconomic background of the students is taken into account.' That was a delicate way of not quite saying that the quality of schools usually reflects the quality of the families from which the students come. One scholar estimated that about 90 percent of the differences among schools in average proficiency can be explained by five factors—number of days absent from school, amount of television watched in the home, number of pages read for homework, quantity and quality of reading matter in the home and, much the most important, the presence of two parents in the home. Government cannot do much to make those variables vary, but Duncan correctly thinks that we actually know how to make schools effective anyway. The keys are time and talent."

I agree that those five factors the unamed scholar in Will's are crucial. It's why I'm convinced that there are a lot of valid choices for parents to make when deciding how to school their children. But parents must be careful not to view any option as "the" thing that will bring about the education of their child. In some sense, every child is ultimately homeschooled. The question is: how well is the quality of their home education?

Sound Financial Advice

2009-03-12T21:58:00.001-05:00

No One Can Rid Himself of the Preaching Clergyman

2009-03-12T01:42:00.003-05:00

"Bore of the Age"...I'm thinking about getting that put on my business cards....

From John Stott's Between Two Worlds...

"In Barchester Towers, Anthony Trollop rants eloquently:

"There is, perhaps, no greater hardship at present inflicted on mankind in civilized and free countries, than the necessity of listening to sermons. No-one but a preaching clergyman has, in these realms, the power of compelling an audience to sit silent, and be tormented…..

"A member of Parliament can be coughed down or counted out. Town councilors can be tabooed. But no-one can rid himself of the preaching clergyman. He is the bore of the age, …the nightmare that disturbs our Sunday’s rest, the incubus that overloads our religion and makes God’s service distasteful" (53-54).

Types of Preaching

2009-03-12T00:36:00.005-05:00

I don't know how useful others will find these posts, but I'm continuing a series of posts highlighting some of my thoughts on preaching based upon some of the books I read for my DMin program. In this lengthy post, I'm trying to process some of the different styles of preaching and my thoughts regarding their validity.

Textual Preaching. Textual preaching generally refers to a type of preaching that draws from a single text as its source. Al Fasol considers the nature of textual preaching in Handbook of Contemporary Preaching. He quotes Clarence Roddy who offers the following definition of textual preaching: “A textual sermon is one in which both the topic and divisions of development are derived from and follow the order of the text…the text controls and dominates both topic and development in this type.”[1]

The question I've wrestled with is how this type of preaching is distinguishable from expository preaching. Fasol contends that some distinguish textual preaching on the basis of the length of the text being considered. He considers this distinction “superficial” and concurs with Greidanus who believes that “expository preaching cannot truly be contrasted with textual preaching or preaching on a single verse…. All textual preaching is therefore understood as expository preaching.”[2]

Steven Matthewson agrees on the value of textual preaching, but sees a distinction with expository preaching. Relying upon Broadus’ understanding of textual preaching, he concludes that the main difference lies in the structure of the sermon. “While the [textual] sermon must of course be faithful to Scripture, its structure does not take its cue from the biblical texts(s) on which it is based.”[3]

It seems to me, then, that while the line between expository preaching and textual preaching may at times be thin, it still exists.

I agree with Matthewson’s understanding, and would still argue that the primary focus of the pastor should be on delivering expository sermons that as closely as possible follow both the content and the structure of the text.

But what expositional pastor has not at one time or another come to the conclusion that the structure of the text will not be the most effective way to communicate to the congregation? Or what expositional pastor has not at times felt the need to spend an additional week on a smaller portion of a larger thought? Considering the nature of textual preaching has made me more open to utilizing this method in my preaching ministry.

Doctrinal Preaching. Timothy George contends that “the recovery of doctrinal preaching is essential to the renewal of the church.”[4] Doctrinal preaching is that form of preaching which helps the congregation understand the subject being covered in the sermon in light of its entire redemptive context. The sermon can be only tangentially related to the primary text but should at least be “biblical.”

I have concluded that the problem is not that doctrinal preaching is a bad way of preaching, it is simply that it is not as strong as expositional preaching. As a rule, a steady diet of expository preaching will address the same concerns that doctrinal sermons will cover, but be more tied to the biblical text and therefore is more likely to be “God’s Word.”

That being said, there are times within an expositional sermon series that a doctrinal sermon may be appropriate. For example, while preaching through Ephesians 1, a pastor may decide to spend a week discussing the doctrine of divine sovereignty.

Narrative Preaching. Narrative preaching “is not a simple matter of using stories and illustrations to make the sermon interesting, instructive, or challenging. The narrative sermon, rather than containing stories, is a story which, from outset to conclusion, binds the entire sermon to a single plot as theme.”[5]

Euguene Lowry’s conception of the narrative form is one in which ambiguity is the driving force. He eschews any method that destroys the tension in a sermon. He claims that “nothing can be more fatal” than the philosophy of “tell them what you’re going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.”[6]

The drive for narrative preaching is often fueled by an unbiblical understanding of the purpose of preaching. While I think that narrative proponents are on to something when they encourage pastors to build tension and communicate in “natural” ways, the passion for ambiguity and the call to allow listeners to discover the truth for themselves cuts against the Scriptural understanding of the preaching task.

Craddock laments that in traditional deductive preaching “the conclusion precedes the development, a most unnatural mode of communication, unless, of course, one presupposes passive listeners who accept the right or authority of the speaker to state conclusions that he then applies to their faith and life.”[8] But Scripture presupposes just such a scenario—though it words it less cynically.

I believe that the sermon must be constructed in such a way that propositional truth is going to be communicated clearly. Furthermore, while I cannot categorically say that the narrative sermon is never the best way to accomplish this, I would contend that it is at least rare that it is the best form through which to communicate content. I will discuss this more below.

Topical Preaching. This is perhaps the most widely disputed form of preaching, at least in terms of its definition. It is hard to even begin to establish a definition of this type of preaching. Most of the authors I read attempted to defend topical preaching against those who would consider it unbiblical. Don Sunukjian contends, “Topical preaching that is truly biblical is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from several different passages related to one another through a common subject and through either parallel or progressive assertions about that subject.”[9] Francis Rossow argues that in “the textual sermon, the text determines the choice of the topic; but in the topical sermon, the topic determines the choice of the text.”[10]

How I feel about topical preaching depends upon the definition being used. In Rassow’s definition, I see a form of preaching that is occasionally beneficial. The message is still being guided by the text, the only difference is that the pastor has determined the topic in advance.

Summary. There are elements of expository preaching in each of the above methods, when defined in a certain way. I currently feel a great deal of freedom to preach as the text dictates and the Holy Spirit leads.

For instance, I have decided to take two weeks as we have gone through chapter 4 of Ephesians, and consider more closely the role of the pastor-teacher, I do not feel constrained by the fact that this subject is not be the main idea of the paragraph. I preached a sermon on the paragraph, and now I'm taking two weeks to talk about the role of an elder, yet I still believe I have preached expositionally.

What type of sermon is this? Such a deviation could be considered textual because it is dealing with just one verse and not based upon the structure of the text. It could be called doctrinal because of its focus on ecclesiology. It could be called topical because passages from various other texts are utilized. Such a dilemma shows the difficulty of sermon categorization, and reveals an element common to all preaching that is truly biblical: a desire to be faithful to proclaim God’s Word accurately to God’s people based upon their need. This is what is at the heart of expository preaching.

[1] Al Fasol, “Textual Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 77.
[2] Ibid., 82
[3] Steven Matthewson, “What Makes Textual Preaching Unique,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 413.
[4] Timothy George, “Doctrinal Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 93.
[5] Calvin Miller, “Narrative Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 103.
[6] Lowry, 21.
[7] Craddock, 46.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Don Sunukjian, “Topical Preaching Can Be Truly Biblical,” The Art and Craft of Biblical Preaching, Haddon Robinson and Craig Brian Larson, eds., (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 421.
[10] Francis Rossow, “Topical Preaching,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 85.

Expository Preaching: Meaning and Purpose

2009-03-09T12:13:00.004-05:00

I thought I would share a few thoughts regarding expository preaching over the next few days. I am in the process of completing the first phase of my DMin in Expository Preaching at Southern Seminary and have had some time to reflect on some of the material I have been reading over the past year and a half. Here are some scattered thoughts.

What is Expository Preaching

At the beginning of the program, I wrote a paper in which I attempted to define and defend expository preaching. My beginning definition, intentionally broad, was that expository preaching is "bringing out the meaning of Scripture for a congregation."

I surveyed various approaches to expository preaching and considered how each approach offers a different nuance to what could be considered expository preaching. Some authors, such as Martyn Lloyd-Jones, advocate preaching exclusively expository sermons, but are very broad in what they define as expository preaching.[1]

Others, such as Peter Adam offer a more narrow definition of expository preaching but are more open to other forms: “This does not necessarily mean that we engage all the time in expository preaching (that is, preaching our way through a book of the Bible verse by verse or chapter by chapter).”[2]

I concur with Richard Mayhue who suggests the following elements as the essential components of the expository sermon:

1. The message finds its sole source in Scripture.
2. The message is extracted from Scripture through careful exegesis.
3. The message preparation correctly interprets Scripture in its normal sense and its context.
4. The message clearly explains the original God-intended meaning of Scripture.
5. The message applies the Scriptural meaning for today.[3]

To these, I would amend the first characteristic to say that the message finds its sole source in a single, primary text.

[1] D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 72.
[2] Peter Adam, Speaking God’s Words (Vancouver: Regent, 2004 [1996]), 128.
[3] Richard L. Mayhue, “Rediscovering Expository Preaching,” Rediscovering Expository Preaching, Richard L. Mayhue, ed. (Dallas: Word, 1992), 12-13.

The Purpose of Preaching

I am convinced that many pastors have forgotten the purpose of preaching. As astounding as that sounds, I believe it is true.

The final chapter of David Buttrick’s Homiletic is entitled “A Brief Theology of Preaching.” Here Buttrick asks a salient question:

From a social perspective, preaching may be superfluous…. Reasons for preaching can only be found in faith. So, though we may enjoy the sweet freedoms of a superfluous vocation, in faith let us struggle with the question: Why do preachers preach?”[1]

Most of the works I read suffer from failing to answer this question correctly, if at all. It is difficult to overstate the importance of knowing what the purpose of preaching is. The widespread lack of understanding of or attention to the purpose of preaching in the evangelical community is perhaps the most disturbing trend I have observed during my coursework. It was frustrating to read various authors develop and defend methods that clearly did not share the passions of Scripture.

Failure to Consider Purpose. On one end of the Protestant homiletical spectrum are those works that fail to even consider why Scripture tells us we are to preach. Fred Craddock rebels against the idea of the authoritative proclamation of truth. He advocates that the preacher “re-create with the congregation the inductive experience of coming to an understanding of the message of the text.”[2]

Eugene Lowry advocates the narrative form of the sermon based upon our intuitive sense of how to preach: “Transforming our intuitions into articulate form [the narrative] is precisely the purpose of this book.”[3] Their works never even address what God would have the preacher do.

Purpose and Proof-Texting. But even works written by sound bible expositors sometimes betray a lack of proper concern with purpose. A biblical theology of preaching is not one that can be simply defended with a few quick proof texts. Warren Wiersbe in Preaching and Teaching with Imagination develops an entire work around the thesis that preaching should be creative. His text to defend this argument is 2 Samuel 17 where Ahithophel’s counsel is thwarted due to Hushai’s speech.

It is not that Wiersbe is wrong to urge creativity in preaching. His practical suggestions are excellent. The problem lies in the fact that his work is driven by a text that is simply not about creativity. The primary purpose of the text is to show how the sovereign hand of God uses Hushai to protect David. Not to unfairly target Wiersbe, but the absence of passion about God’s purpose for preaching in his work left me hungry for something more. What is needed in homiletical instruction is to develop within the preacher a heart that burns for the things of the Lord.

A passage that seems to creep up frequently in sections of preaching books that are presumably dealing with purpose is 2 Samuel 12 where David is confronted by Nathan through the telling of a story. For example, York and Decker introduce their chapter entitled “The Goal of Preaching” with this story. They conclude their introductory remarks, “Making the emotional connection with David was instrumental in getting David to act on Nathan’s rebuke rather than just to hear it.”[4]

But, once again, this text is not about preaching. And, what is more concerning, nowhere in this chapter on the goal of preaching are any biblical texts that deal with preaching in the church even mentioned, much less explored.

The problem is that there is a lack of a clarion call to the church regarding the true purpose of preaching. This problem is not universal, but it is wide-spread.

Some works may feel that such a question is beyond the scope of their work, but it seems to be so essential to anything else one might say about preaching that it is a question that should at least be addressed at some level.

Preoccupation with Pragmatics. Finding something that “works” is the goal of many homiletical books. Craddock’s call for change is not based on the fact that the church is failing to fulfill God’s design for preaching but rather that “in countless courts of opinion the verdict on preaching has been rendered and the sentence passed.”[5] Graham Johnston assumes our primary task is to “reach the present age without selling out to it.”[6] Even Michael Fabarez contends that the proper evaluation of a successful sermon is “the biblical change it brings about in the lives of our congregants.” [7]

Failure to Apply Purpose. Some of the works I've read recently have a solid evangelical theology of preaching but fail to consider the implications of that theology. Dennis Cahill in The Shape of Preaching provides an overview of the tools available to the homiletician of the contemporary church. He does this while maintaining an appreciation for and a defense of traditional evangelicalism’s understanding of the purpose of the sermon. Unfortunately, he fails to have his theology truly interact with his method. The purpose of the sermon is never really applied to the methods he surveys.

Focus on the Sacred Task. It should come as no surprise to anyone at Southern that Dr. Mohler gets it right. In the introductory chapter to Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, he identifies the true reason we preach: “True preaching begins with this confession: we preach because God has spoken.”[10] This simple statement is surprisingly profound, even within evangelical circles. Mohler’s conclusion to the article should be required reading for some of the people who advocated various methods in our material:

The preacher is a commissioned agent whose task is to speak because God has spoken, because the preacher has been entrusted with the telling of the gospel of the Son who saved, and because God has promised the power of the Spirit as the seal and efficacy of the preacher’s calling.

The ground of preaching is none other than the revelation which God has addressed to us in Scripture. The goal of preaching is no more and no less than faithfulness to this calling. The glory of preaching is that God has promised to use preachers and preaching to accomplish His purpose and bring glory unto Himself.

Therefore, a theology of preaching is essentially doxology. The ultimate purpose of the sermon is to glorify God and to reveal a glimpse of His glory to His creation. This is the sum and substance of the preaching task. That God would choose such a means to express His own glory is beyond our understanding; it is rooted in the mystery of the will and wisdom of God.Yet, God has called out preachers and commanded them to preach.

Preaching is not an act the church is called to defend but a ministry preachers are called to perform. Thus, whatever the season, the imperative stands: Preach the Word![11]

[1] David Buttrick, Homiletic (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress Press, 1987), 449.
[2] Fred Craddock, As One Without Authority (St. Louis: Chalice Books), 99.
[3] Eugene Lowry, The Homiletical Plot: The Sermon as Narrative Art Form (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), xix.
[4] Hershael York and Bert Decker, Preaching with Bold Assurance (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 11.
[5] Craddock, 3.
[6] Graham Johnston, Preaching to a Postmodern World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2001), 10.
[7] Michael Fabarez, Preaching that Changes Lives (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 9-10.
[8] “Postmodernism Handout,” Expository Preaching 80314.
[9] Dennis M. Cahill, The Shape of Preaching: Theory and Practice in Sermon Design (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2007),93.
[10] R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “A Theology of Preaching ,” Handbook of Contemporary Preaching, Michael Duduitt, ed., (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 14.
[11] Ibid., 19-20.

If you can't make fun of yourself...

2009-03-04T20:57:00.003-06:00

I have mixed emotions about homeschooling. Currently, we homeschool and I'm glad we do. But I think some people homeschool for the wrong reasons (e.g., fear). I might have more to post on this later.

Happy Gotcha Day!

2009-01-30T23:37:00.002-06:00

This time last year, our children were still awake celebrating their new family. We were all pretty excited.

It has been a wonderful year and I couldn't possibly love my littlest princess any more. She is a true gift from the Lord.

Here's a video we've posted before...we watched it today as a family. Austin cried...he hates the part where we leave Ellie in Guatemala. I do too.

Here's a video we have also posted before, but with a better ending:

Imagine a world where your newspaper...

2009-01-28T21:40:00.001-06:00

is on your computer!!! Trippy sci-fi stuff! From 1981...

I bet they're homeschooled...

2009-01-24T20:09:00.001-06:00

We homeschoolers have all the real talents...musical abilities, spelling, great social skills....

Never Mind

2009-01-23T17:28:00.001-06:00

Obama signed the executive order today. Here's the story:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23463777.htm

I stand corrected...for now

2009-01-22T18:55:00.002-06:00

I am very happy to report that it would appear that Obama has not signed the executive order. It is pending, apparently, but not signed. The AP has a report that Obama declined an invitation to speak at a Pro-Life march, but did issue a statment affirming his desire to protect a woman's right to choose.

I would encourage you to pray for our president. I think he desires to please the religious left...this could be good for us.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h-E7bbzu6w9jmmtS9pb-Iz792rWwD95SGO2O0

That Didn't Take Long...

2009-01-22T14:30:00.002-06:00

Today, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama signed an executive order that allows our federal tax dollars to be funnelled to abortion clinics overseas.

From Fox News:

"Separately, the administration was set to issue a reversal of a ban on federal funding for non-governmental organizations working outside the U.S. that offer abortions or abortion counseling.

"Obama was to sign the executive order on the 36th anniversary of the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in all 50 states."

Two things: 1. It is amazing to me how quiet this story is. 2. I wonder how all the Evangelical voters who were just convinced that Obama was one of us feel about this. This doesn't seem like a very effective way to reduce the number of abortions, which was suppossedly one of his aims.

Oh, and today is "blog for choice" day. Pro-Choice bloggers are being urged to blog in support of "reproductive rights." I have to admit, that's pretty good propaganda. But so much of what you say is in how you say it. Those who are "pro-choice" are not just advocates of "reproductive rights." They are also: supporters of "covering up incest and rape"; enablers of the "genocide of minorities"; and advocates of "killing of innocents."

I am very sad today.

Here are a few video that betray the real agenda of those who advocate "reproductive rights":

Supporters of Statuatory Rape:

Supporters of Aborting "Low-Income" Babies:

Allow blatantly racist donations:

Dad's New Blog Address

2009-01-02T21:38:00.002-06:00

For those of you who have been praying for my dad and would like regular updates, he has a new blog address: http://www.txbennett.blogspot.com/. This site should be easier for him to post to and keep updated.

I think my wife's a calvinist

2008-12-23T15:10:00.001-06:00

I really do have plans to blog again.

What better fish to teach you than a fellow mammal?

2008-12-05T14:54:00.001-06:00

Vote as though not voting

2008-10-24T16:29:00.003-05:00

John Piper, as always, has an excellent perspective on voting. So often we become immersed in the world as though it were our home. While we must be involved in the political process, Piper reminds us to keep things in proper perspective. His article can be found here in its entirety: http://www.desiringgod.org/12all/lt/t_go.php?i=345&e=MTUwNjU1&l=-http--www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TasteAndSee/ByDate/2008/3347_Let_Christians_Vote_As_Though_They_Were_Not_Voting/

Here are his closing thoughts:

"So it is with voting. We deal with the system. We deal with the news. We deal with the candidates. We deal with the issues. But we deal with it all as if not dealing with it. It does not have our fullest attention. It is not the great thing in our lives. Christ is. And Christ will be ruling over his people with perfect supremacy no matter who is elected and no matter what government stands or falls. So we vote as though not voting.

"By all means vote. But remember: 'The world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever' (1 John 2:17)."

Presidential

2008-10-18T10:03:00.005-05:00

Much of the coverage of the debates focused on who "looked" more presidential.

First, the whole notion of a "presidential" look seems rather silly. Second, the media kept arguing that Obama bested McCain in that rather dubious category.

Personally?

I thought it was a tie.

Bailout

2008-10-15T11:05:00.000-05:00