My Thoughts on James MacDonald’s “Resignation”

Last week James MacDonald resigned. Not as pastor or anything like that. He resigned his post as “fixer”:

No more setting people straight, helping others see the light. No more putting people on a program or convincing them to look in the mirror and see what they refuse to believe. Helping? Yes. Praying? For sure! Preaching? Always and with increased power, I pray. But fixing people individually? I’m done!

I first read MacDonald’s article after reading the response from Dan Phillips. Others on Twitter expressed concern over MacDonald’s words. Personally, I think this could serve to spur us on towards a helpful conversation.

The first time that I read through the article I was put off by what MacDonald was saying. I wondered if he was completely resigning from doing the messy stuff of pastoral ministry. It seemed to me that he was essentially saying, “I’m not going to be in the business of trying to help people anymore, nobody appreciates me anyways”. It sounded like an angry tirade.

Then I read it again and realized that MacDonald’s central point is that he is no longer going to try to fix people that don’t ask for it. Some of the anger that I had picked up was directed towards his old way of doing things. So now he is resolved to not offer counsel unless asked. As MacDonald says,

“Where the fixer is uninvited and the receiving heart is unreceptive, it’s far better to pull up and kneel down—interceding for a better reception, a more timely time, or a more worthy messenger.”

What I take from MacDonald is that he is going to stop initiating “fix you” conversations. He’s going to be more concerned about the things that he is called to do and less concerned about other people—unless they ask him for assistance.

Where I Agree

As I read through MacDonald’s post I think he actually has a solid point. We are prone to worry about taking the speck of dust out of our brothers eyes without looking at the log in our own. There is a certain type of person that goes about trying to fix everyone as if he/she is helping along the Holy Spirit. I believe MacDonald is saying that he no longer wants to be this guy.

This is good. We shouldn’t be that guy. If this is all MacDonald says, then I’m in agreement with him. I wish he would have been a little more careful with his words and tried making the point in a little less shocking way—but that’s forgivable. I know there have been times when I’ve let art get in the way of clarity.

Where I Might Disagree…

While I find some agreement with Macdonald, his post still causes me to be unsettled. There is some truth in saying “if people don’t want to change there is no use trying to help”. But it’s also an incomplete truth because God’s Word is more powerful than our foolish resistance. The powerful word of God is the means that God uses to “fix” people.  

As ministers of the Word of God occasionally we are called to bang our head against a wall that probably shouldn’t budge. We do so because we know that there is power in the Word of God. Worldly wisdom says that the heart of kings isn’t supposed to turn, yet Nathan boldly proclaimed truth to a King that didn’t want to face his sin. In the same way it’s a solid axiom that you cannot help people that do not want to help themselves. But isn’t the Word more powerful than this axiom?

We must proclaim God’s Word humbly and lovingly. Yes, as we attempt to restore those that are “caught in transgression” we must do it with a “spirit of gentleness” while also “keeping watch on ourselves”. But simply being prone to hypocrisy and having a tendency to botch “pulling specks out of our brothers eyes” doesn’t necessitate the pendulum needs to swing to silence.

Yes, there might be a time to “shake the dust off our feet” but that should not be our default position. And this is what still has me unsettled about MacDonald’s “resignation”. It seems as if his default position goes against the Scriptural admonitions to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching”. That charge doesn’t seem to be something reserved for a Sunday morning sermon. And if you keep reading in that passage in 2 Timothy he is charged to do those things in the context of those that “will not endure sound teaching”.

Now if MacDonald is simply saying that he will continue to exhort, reprove, and rebuke but not try to play the role of the Holy Spirit, I agree. And it’s a good point—that I believe he made somewhat poorly. But my concern is that in embracing something good (not thinking you are deity) MacDonald is adopting something that is not good (being silent when we ought to speak).

What are your thoughts? At one point do we “resign”? Can we?

5 Reasons a Calvinism Discussion Doesn’t Matter

Earlier today I explained why this discussion on Calvinism matters. Now I’m going to explain in what way this discussion doesn’t matter and why I wish we’d spend our efforts elsewhere. Apparently 5 points are really helpful for discussion…so in honor of all the problems those five points have caused…here are 5 reasons why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter.

Truth is the Spirit’s job

I don’t need to be the truth police. I cannot change someone’s heart and make them embrace the truth. All I can do is present the truth as I see it in Scripture and leave it up to the work of the Spirit. It’s not my job to beat truth into someone’s head. Besides there is a decent chance that I’m wrong myself. There are likely doctrines of which I hold (yes even important ones) of which I’ll need to repent of no more than 5 minutes after entering into heaven.

If I really believe that leading brothers and sisters into all truth is the Spirit’s job it changes the way that I interact with them. John Newton is instructive here. When explaining his position on election and perseverance he said, “If you should accede to my opinions upon my persuasion only, you would be little benefited by the exchange”. Newton knew that what really mattered was the Spirit’s work upon the man to whom he was speaking. And it made him humbly present his position, love the man, and leave the results of the discussion up to the Lord.

Unity and love are more important

I love doctrine as much as the next guy. But I’m becoming increasingly convinced that love and unity are more important. Yes I believe that the fuel for love is doctrine. But I also believe that when Jesus was praying for us his central concern was that we be united and show love for one another. And this not merely in talk but in actually loving sinners like ourselves.

These discussions serve as a great barometer of our hearts. I agree with Newton that there is a “principle of self, which disposes us to despise those who differ from us; and we are often under its influence, when we think we are only showing a becoming zeal in the cause of God”. If in the midst of our differences love and unity flow out, then we know that gospel is gaining ground over self.

Lengthy debates are seldom helpful

Seldom do lengthy debates lead to the fruit that we desire. Even if a few people are won to a right position a good number of people are slain in the crossfire. I do see Jesus and Paul reasoning with people and even engaging in debate. Yet I never see them drawn out. (Perhaps because they entrusted the work to the Spirit).

Again I turn to Newton:

We may become wise in notions, and so far masters of a system, or scheme of doctrine, as to be able to argue, object, and fight, in favor of our own hypothesis, by dint of application, and natural abilities; but we rightly understand what we say, and whereof we affirm, no farther than we have a spiritual perception of it wrought in our hearts by the power of the Holy Ghost. It is not, therefore, by noisy disputation, but by humble waiting upon God in prayer, and a careful persual of his holy word, that we are to expect a satisfactory, experimental, and efficacious knowledge of the truth as it is in Jesus.

I like to share my position from Scripture and maybe stick around for a few questions. But I’ve never found great fruit come from lengthy debates on an issue. If it gets overly heated I can’t just chalk it up to a “I’m just really passionate about this”. I know that it’s the flesh that’s warring (no matter what side of the aisle) and I know that this zeal isn’t from the Lord.

Implications matter but aren’t central

I like what Charles Simeon said to John Wesley. After outlining the things of which they agreed Simeon said this to Wesley:

Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree.

Yes, Calvinism will have certain implications for ministry and living the Christian life that those of a different persuasion will not approve of. The same is true vice versa. These matter. See my post on why Calvinism discussions matter. Yet at the end of the day the implications are not central.

Usually after a couple salient points these conversations degenerate into ridiculous but/if scenarios. Most of the discussion is on implications. “If we embrace this, then…” While some of these might even be true they aren’t central nor is it helpful to any sort of discussion.

Points of which we contend aren’t what the church needs

As I see it the major points of contention are not central to the gospel. Yes there are HUGE implications that come from what you believe on these issues. But they aren’t central and in many instances they aren’t even secondary matters.

Here are some of the major issues that I see:

• Can I tell a lost person that Jesus died for them? While I understand this question and what is behind it, I don’t see why it matters. The scriptural accounts of someone sharing the good news of the risen Christ are pretty simple. They share the claims of Jesus and then say therefore, repent and believe the gospel. “For whom did Christ die?” doesn’t matter when it comes to sharing the gospel.
• What did we inherit from Adam? Again this has quite a few implications. But allow me to ask a couple of questions. Are all men guilty now? So why does it matter so much to debate this? What about babies? Let’s be honest at the end of the day anything that we construct is exegetically flimsy. The best we have is that the judge of the earth will do what is right. That leaves a ton of comfort for me because I know that God is good. 
• Which came first regeneration or faith? Once again several implications from this. But does it really matter? Are there scores of people walking out there that aren’t regenerate but who have faith? Nope. Are there scores of people that don’t have faith but might be regenerate? Even if a Calvinist says yes, won’t this person then have faith? So, why does it matter? Aren’t these really inseparable graces? Are we really going to divide or debate over which inseparable grace came first?
• Are people saved because God foreknew them or because God foreknew they would choose God? Several implications to this one. But at the end of the day do you say that God saves sinners? If you do then perhaps we’re just debating about an eternal decree.

Even if we solved each of these issues and came to an agreement on them I’m not certain that all of our churches would be transformed. What we really need are passionate worshippers of Jesus that obediently live out the truth that they do know. By and large we have an obedience problem far more than we have a doctrinal unity problem. And I believe the sinful way that this discussion is often carried out is evidence of that.

What will transform our churches is a robust gospel of a holy God that is wholly other that has purposed to save sinners. Obedience to that gospel will revolutionize our churches. Falling in love with this Jesus will cause us to boldly proclaim the gospel in the dark places of our world. This same thing will create in believers a heart that treasures Christ more than the lures of the world. And we’ll be about the business of making disciples as the Great Commission compels us AND loving God and others as the Great Commandment exhorts us. 

This is what we need. Not another lengthy argument.

Why the Calvinism Discussion Matters

Last week Dave Miller posted a great article with the hopes of outlining what a productive discussion of Calvinism would require. For the most part I’m in agreement with David Rogers who said in a comment, “Calvinism schmalvinism. I never have understood why we get so hung on this one…I like your suggestions, Dave, but I will probably check out of any new round of Calvinism debate marathons.”

Entering into another season of Calvinism discussions is about as appealing as repeatedly whacking myself in the head with a hammer.

I’m fatigued by unhelpful debates about all things Calvinism/Traditionalism etc. I’m not clear of guilt myself. Though I hit “cancel reply” far more than I actually post a comment, even still I’m not immune to leaving a comment I wish I hadn’t. I’d say that my fatigue has even shown in some posts that I’ve written.

A good part of me wants to only write an article that shows why this Calvinism discussion doesn’t matter and we all ought to just move on. (That article will be posted later today). Yet I do believe that Calvinism matters. I don’t think it’s just some tertiary issue that has no bearing on the Christian life.

I don’t want to surrender the truth of Calvinism. I say that not for the sake of some “ism” but because I believe that it best describes how God saves sinners. You can call it Billy-Bobism for all I care. The name means little. What matters to me is a theology that unblushingly proclaims that God saves sinners. At its core I believe that God revealing how He has saved us is for our joy and comfort and His glory.

If God has revealed Himself to us in this fashion for our comfort far be it from me to say that it doesn’t matter. So in one sense Calvinism does matter. I believe it leads to greater joy and comfort for us and greater glory for the Lord. I believe it is the truth of Scripture and as such it needs to be embraced.

But at the end of the day you can’t make someone swallow it. God can change affections, I cannot. God can mold us to truth, I cannot. Therefore, I want to pursue this balance that John Newton spoke of:

I allow that every branch of gospel truth is precious, that errors are abounding, and that it is our duty to bear an honest testimony to what the Lord has enabled us to find comfort in, and to instruct with meekness such as are willing to be instructed; but I cannot set it my duty, nay, I believe it would be my sin, to attempt to beat notions into other people’s heads.

Later today I’ll show in what way this discussion doesn’t matter…

--

If you dig this article you may also like this one: What Should a Newtonian Calvinist Say in a Pastoral Interview?

Why I’m Not a Fan of Abortion and Gun Control Memes

My Facebook page has been exploding with pictures like that above. They are usually connected with some statistics about abortion killing 1.2 million per year whereas guns kill only around 2,000. The post then ends with challenging Congress or President Obama to fight the real war on women (or assault weapons).

I agree with the logic. I further understand the hypocrisy of turning a blind eye to the 55 million children legally aborted since 1973 while making it a mission to control guns which kill far less children per year. I get that.

But I’m not a big fan of these memes.

Mostly because I fear that by conflating these two issues we are minimizing both the atrocity of abortion and the tragedy of events like Sandy Hook. We are politicizing pain. It is using one horrible act to make a point about another. Regardless of which of the points you intend to make you are minimizing the other.

Abortion isn’t a statistic to be used to make a point about the lack of childhood death by guns. It’s an abominable practice that deserves its own hearing. It doesn’t need to have gun control as it’s bedmate. In fact it’s distracting to do so.

Furthermore, it is insensitive and unfair to minimize the 2,000 deaths that are by guns by comparing them to another evil. It communicates that the tragedy of Sandy Hook isn’t that big of a deal compared to the tragedy of abortion. Numerically, that might be true. But every human life is valuable. To turn people into statistics is practically becoming guilty of the necessary dehumanizing of children in the womb that one must do to agree with abortion.

Let’s mourn the loss of every human life and not use these tragedies to make a political point. The end result of these memes is to say, “your gun laws are dumb”. The heinousness of abortion deserves far more than that. And the victims of gun violence deserve far more grace and compassion.

Controversy and Discipleship

“What’s your opinion on whether or not our wills are free”.

The question wasn’t quite as polished but that was the core of this young man’s question. Had he asked it 7-8 years ago I would have jumped for joy assuming that God was mightily working and this dude was really interested in the really important aspects of our faith. That was then, though.

Now when I hear that question…especially from a young man that hasn’t been a believer for even a year…I cringe a little, answer him as simplistically as I can, trying to divert his attention.

I’ve come to believe that such controversial questions aren’t automatically the work of the Lord. It’s quite possible that it comes from another camp altogether. Controversy destroys new believers. In his excellent work, A Christian Directory, Richard Baxter offers three reasons* why new believers shouldn’t “plunge too soon into controversies”.

1. It will be a great loss to you, because it will distract your souls from what is far greater. It will be more beneficial to your soul—and more pleasing to God—for you to drink deeper in the fundamentals of the gospel than spending your time in controversy.
2. It will corrupt your minds. In place of humility, love, holiness, and heavenly-mindness it will feed your pride, and kindle a heart of division. Controversy will quench your love for others and grow in you a contentious spirit. You will ignore these sins because you assume your doctrine is sound.
3. It can lead to such a deception that you will eventually become erroneous and heretical. You are not yet mature enough to judge of these things because you have not gotten a firm enough foundation in the gospel. Therefore, you are undertaking a work that you cannot do. You will undoubtedly end in error.

What this means for discipleship

I wish that I could say that Baxter was a goober and that he is largely over-reacting. Sadly, I have seen the ill effects of new believers too quickly plunging into controversies. I have witnessed (sadly, even in my own heart) a propensity to pride and division. Early on I believe I cared more about whether someone was a Calvinist than whether they were a good husband and father. That’s just silly.

Because I have learned the hard way from what Baxter is saying I have changed the way I do discipleship. I try to focus on the majors and minimize the minors. I will still share my opinion on various controversial matters but I will do everything in my power to bring back the conversation to the sufficiency and importance of gospel basics.

I want the people that I disciple to know theology because I believe it is the fuel to worship. But I also want them to know be more attuned to their wife’s favorite flower than the difference between infra and supralapsarianism. I’d rather they be able to name every character on their son’s favorite television show than be able to name every millenial theory. That happens by asking tough questions of life and love instead of just theological true/false questions.

Controversy doesn’t usually make good disciples. So let’s be sure that new believers aren’t distracted right out of the gate.

--

*I’ve tried to update and simplify the language as best as I can.

Fear-Mongering and Kingdom Loyalties

I read this article today: Texas Megachurch Pastor Says Obama Will ‘Pave Way’ for Antichrist. The money quote for me in that article is this one:

"President Obama is not the Antichrist. But what I am saying is this: the course he is choosing to lead our nation is paving the way for the future reign of the Antichrist."

Jeffress would go on to say that "it is time for Christians to stand up and to push back against this evil that is overtaking our nation" and to do so via "the ballot box

After reading that article on Jeffress I read through Isaiah 8. It’s amazing how fitting this passage of Scripture is to our current political unrest.

“Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread. But the LORD of hosts, him you shall honor as holy. Let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.”

My point in this article is not really even political. I care little about a discussion on Obama, Romney, or any third-party candidate. What I do care about are those professing to be believers being swept up in worldly fear. The “they” in Isaiah 8 is not talking about Gentiles that are not part of the covenant. The “they” in Isaiah 8 is talking about people like the king of Judah that is wringing his hands in fear because two powerhouse nations are now in cahoots and seeking to terrify Judah.

That would be a scary thing. I do not want to minimize that. Nor do I want to minimize the reality of some of the fear that people have for our nation. There are real issues that ought to cause people real concern. The problem is not with the presence of concern. The problem is with what type of fear and concern is present.

Fear-Mongering Reveals Kingdom Loyalties

What Jeffress said is fear-mongering plain and simple. It is the Christianized version of the fear-mongering that takes place on much talk radio. If A happens then B is going to happen and then we’re all in big trouble. Christians get swept up into this and we start to fear the same thing that the world fears.

Is it wrong that I do not fear the Antichrist? Of course I would prefer that I never have to live during the reign of the Antichrist. I would prefer that my children and grandchildren do not either. But I do not fear his mock reign. Because that is all it is—a mock reign. Jesus will never lose His throne. It is to his kingdom that I am aligned. You can take away my American dream, my American economy, my American freedom and comforts, but you cannot take away Jesus. You cannot boot him out of the schools. You cannot boot him out of our nation. He’s not going anywhere.

Such fear-mongering reveals kingdom loyalties. When we “fight for America” through worldly fear-mongering we subtly reveal where our kingdom loyalties lie. The kingdom that we ought to be “fighting for” through loving proclamation is one that is not built by fear. It is built by love. And it is a kingdom in which such fear is not only wrong headed it is called idolatry. Our fear is reserved for our King alone.

Such thinking misunderstands evil as well. The “evil” in our nation is not the result of dirty politics. The “evil” that we are pushing back against isn’t found on the other side of the aisle. It is found in our hearts. Evil cares less about destroying America than it cares about destroying Americans. In the same way Christ did not come to rescue America; he came to rescue Americans…and people from every tribe, people, nation, and tongue.

Isaiah 8 calls us to fear the Lord. Let’s leave the fear-mongering to worldly politicians and ideologues and use our pastorates for proclaiming a kingdom that cannot be shaken.

Would Jesus Play “Gotcha”?

No.  I’m not asking whether or not Jesus would play the Dutch funk band Gotcha! on his iPod.  Although that is a solid question.  What I am referring to is the new game that seems to be sweeping our nation.  It is a game that is played as frequently by believers as unbelievers.  It can be played anywhere that opposing viewpoints can be found.  Social media sites serve as a massive playing field for intense games of “gotcha”.  Many blogs excel in the game.  Some pastors have even been known to play the game with their congregations. 

What is “gotcha” you ask? 

“Gotcha” is the art of proving your awesomeness and superiority at the expense of someone else’s folly—whether perceived or real.  And there is also the more popular variety of “Group Gotcha” wherein pawns (like you) expose the idiocy and lameness of the other teams leaders, thereby showing that your team is far superior. 

In order to win “gotcha” you do not have to actually accumulate any points of your own.  You win by shaming the other person or group into submission (even if temporary).  Points are accumulated by following a difficult equation.  The equation is as follows:

Number of Facebook shares and likes
+ Number of RT’s on Twitter
- Number of Google +1’s  (plus 1’s exposes your own lameness)
x Buckets of tears by opposition
x pointless and unproven zingers
+ angry and even more meaningless responses from opposition
- FWD’s generated (grandma points do not count)
+ seconds the opposition pauses like a deer in headlights
/ Number of people in the world
= Gotcha Points

It seems like a very complicated game but judging by my television and Facebook feeds it is a riot.  And apparently it distracts us from actually having to worry about real people or to take any responsibility ourselves.  I am trying to get many of my friends to play the game.

As I am thinking about people to invite, I have to wonder whether or not Jesus would play the game.  Seems to me like “Gotcha” might have been a game that the Pharisees played a little more than our Lord.  Looks like Jesus will just have to miss out on all the fun. 

Be sure to share this post as I’m hoping to get a bunch of “gotcha” points off of it.       

In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic OR A Reply to Dr. Eric Hankins

Yesterday, Dr. Eric Hankins wrote a piece for SBC Today concerning The Gospel Project (TGP) and Christ-centered homiletics.  Hankins, recently read the dissertation of Dr. Jason Allen.  Allen, is the new president of MBTS.  Hankins was intrigued because Allen’s dissertation was on contrasting human author-centered hermeneutics of Walter Kaiser with that of the Christ-centered homiletics of Edmund Clowney and Sidney Greidanus.  Hankins was actually surprised that Allen sided with Kaiser and “is calling into question the conventional wisdom of ‘Christ-centered’ hermeneutics”. The point of the article seems to be to question the hermeneutic behind TGP. 

It will be my argument that it is not The Gospel Project’s hermeneutic that Dr. Allen is critiquing.  At the end of the day he might.  I do not know.  But I am going to make the argument that the Christ-centered hermeneutics that Hankins critiques is nothing that I have been exposed to, nor is that which he critiques the Christ-centered hermeneutic that is present in TGP. 

I will readily admit that my exposure to Greidanus and Clowney is limited.  I am also fairly limited in my exposure to Kaiser.  Perhaps that is why what Hankins said seems nothing like the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I employ and it sounds nothing like that which I find in The Gospel Project.

The claims that are foreign

Hankins takes several jabs throughout this piece.  They seem to be directed towards the Reformed community.  Caught in the crossfire of these jabs are the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  I will highlight a few of these jabs.

Hankins refers to those that “pry texts out of context to put in theological presuppositions”.  While I am certain that there are those out there and even those that employ a Reformed Christ-centered hermeneutic I have not been widely exposed to that.  In every class that I have taken and every book that I have read on this topic it is continuously drilled in us to keep the text in its context.  At Southern to accuse someone of eisegesis is like accusing someone with musical taste of being a Justin Bieber fan. 

Dr. Hankins then proceeds to say that such eisegesis will insure that “every text might preach Calvinism”.  That is simply a ridiculous claim.  Sadly, some Calvinists are guilty of this.  But that which I have been exposed to in Christ-centered homiletics and within the pages of TGP such a claim is insulting. 

Throughout the article it is implied that those that use such a hermeneutic are not concerned with taking seriously authorial intent.  At one point he even accuses of “ignoring authorial intent” and “allegorical manipulation”.  Again, everything that I have been exposed to make a huge deal out of the original authors intention.  Goldsworthy, Wellum, Schreiner, and a host of others within the movement abhor allegorical manipulation. 

Lastly, Hankins accuses Matt Chandler of saying that the story of David & Goliath “has nothing to say about faithful living”.  I watched the video three times and did not find Chandler saying that.  Or even implying that.  He is not saying that the Bible is NOT to be used to discern how to live.  What he is saying is that the Bible is not fundamentally a to be sued to discern how to live.  There is a difference between those two statements.  And that is Chandler’s point in the David & Goliath video. 

What Hankins critiques in this article is not the Christ-centered hermeneutic that I am familiar with.  Nor, do I believe that it is that which is employed by the writers and editors of The Gospel Project.  Might some of the writers have been influenced by Greidanus & Clowney?  Perhaps.  But by and large I see them being more influenced by Criswell, Spurgeon, Broadus, and others.  In fact I see the vision of The Gospel Project something similar to the methods employed by those like Dr. Stephen Wellum.

In Defense of a Christ-Centered Hermeneutic

Stephen Wellum argues for interpreting Scripture through three horizons.  The first is the textual horizon.  This is where the interpreter attempts to discover what the original author is seeking to communicate in their texts.  Authorial intent and meaning is the first horizon. 

The second horizon is that of the epochal horizon.  Here the interpreter attempts to read the text in light of where it is in redemptive-history.  This assumes that Scripture is a progressive revelation.  This is not seeing the Bible as made up of different plans or epochs but that there is a unity within Scripture and revelation unfolds in time.  The key here is to see intertextual relationships and to “read texts in light of what has preceded them in reference to God’s redemptive actions and plan”.   

The third, and final, horizon is that of the canonical horizon.  If we are to take serious what the Bible actually is (a unified story) then it demands that we view it in its canonical context.  Therefore, every text ought to be understood in relation to the entire Canon of Scripture.  Wellum argues that “to interpret a given text of Scripture in its linguistic-historical, literary, redemptive-historical, and canonical context”. 

The argument being made for those promoting Christ-centered hermeneutics is that in some form or fashion the central motif of Scripture is the activity of God in providing redemption through His gospel.  Regardless, of how specifically it is worded the argument of those promoting such a hermeneutic are saying that Christ is the center of the revealed Word and everything points to Him (and his redemption) in some form or fashion. 

Exodus 23:19

One commenter on Hankins’ article asked how in the world Exodus 23:19 could be applied to Christ.  I doubt that I would ever choose this as a single passage to preach on, but if for some strange reason I did, here is in sum how I would point it to Christ. 

First, we have to consider the original context (the textual horizon).  Moses’ original intention is quite simple.  Don’t boil a young goat in its mothers milk.  Why did he say that?  Some believe that it had to do with not participating in a Canaanite magical practice.  Others see that it’s a reversal of the created order.  As noted in the ESV Study Bible, “the young goat should drink its mother’s milk and gain life from it, not be cooked in it”.  So, simply put in the text Moses’ intention is to tell the Israelites not to do this particular thing because it inverts the created order. 

But that commandment doesn’t come from nowhere.  It’s found in the middle of a story… 

Secondly, we have to consider its epochal context.  This command is originally given to the Israelites.  We know from the Exodus accounts that the Lord is calling Israelite out from among the Egyptians and other peoples for the sake of blessing them but also as a means to proclaim Himself to the nations.  Part of this means that they must live different from the rest of the world.  So, if this is a Canaanite magical practice then they need to model the ways of YHWH and not the feeble Canaanite gods that really are no gods.  If this is because of an inversion of the created order (which I think it is) then the Israel is to be an accurate representation of the God that redeemed them.  The God that redeemed them out of Egypt is a God that values created order.  Children should be cared for and nurtured by their parents.  As image-bearers of a loving Father this was to be reflected in the redeemed  community. 

But the story doesn’t stop with Moses and the Israelites.  It points to something far greater…

Lastly, we consider its canonical context.  The Israelites were to be image-bearers.  Even down to reflecting God in the way that they boiled goats.  Everything they did in their community was to reflect the Lord.  But as we know from the Bible they did not do that.  We also know that all of humanity is called to be image-bearers.  And just like the Israelites we also fail to accurately reflect God.  We choose instead to worship and serve creation instead of the Creator.  We follow Adam’s suit, as did the Israelites, in spreading our own sinful and rebellious images to the nations. 

Thankfully, Christ came.  Christ is the true Israel.  Christ is the second Adam.  He does what Adam, Israel, and we could not do.  He accurately represents God.  He perfectly obeys the Lord.  Humanity likes to invert the created order.  If our hearts were pure that command would not need to be there.  But it is, because our hearts tend to love what we should hate and hate what we should love.  Christ came to overturn that.  Christ came to provide redemption. 

If I were preaching this sermon (again I doubt I would) then I would be more full in my explanation of what Christ has done.  I would also probably discuss how because of Christ we reflect Him differently in our community than we do in these specific Israelite community laws.  But I provide this here just so that you can see how using these three horizons you can preach a Christ-centered sermon from that text. 

Would Moses be ticked off about that and say, “That’s not what I meant in that text?”  I doubt it.  Because I was faithful to his original command.  I also placed it within its progressive story.  And lastly I showed how Christ fulfilled the command.  Moses wouldn’t be upset by that—he’d be astounded that the One that they were looking for accomplished every piece of the Law even down to reflecting God in the way goats are boiled. 

SBC CP Giving Curmudgeons (Part 2)

Yesterday afternoon I reflected on a sad picture that Jon Acuff posted.  I closed by promising to answer this question:

If an entity no longer serves the local church should they continue giving to that entity? 

That is admittedly, a sticky question, and one that I believe hinges on the meaning of the word “serves”.  It seems to me that the chief purpose of the entities is to serve the kingdom of Christ through serving and strengthening the local church.  We give to the CP to build the kingdom.  The beneficiaries of that giving then go about doing the work of the kingdom through this partnership with local churches.  

We continue to give even when a slice of that kingdom might play the drums a bit too loudly.  Let’s be honest here.  Every one of us could probably point to something within the SBC that we would like to see change.  We could all put our own “drums too loud” on the bottom of our voided CP checks.  But we don’t do that because we have decided that the mission of the kingdom is much bigger than those petty squabbles. 

I am a Calvinist.  I believe that the kingdom is better served and built through embracing the doctrines of grace because I believe that is what the Scriptures teach.  I also know that the entity head of SWBTS opposes Calvinism.  Yet, I have never, nor will I ever, because of this issue seek to divert money away from SWBTS.  As long as they are affirm the BF&M, actively promote the gospel, and train ministers to proclaim Christ then I will gladly partner with them even if we disagree on the doctrine of election. 

Refusing to give money over this issue is about as petty as a curmudgeon voiding a $75 check because the drums were too loud.  I understand that one is a matter of doctrine and one is a matter of personal preference.  But they are both third tier issues, which are differences that can be held between two people and still worship together in the same local assembly.  Therefore, refusing to give for such differences is petty. 

Being “served” by an SBC entity does not mean that they are doing things the way that you want to.  It does not even mean that you are directly influenced or impacted by these entities.  What it does mean is that you share a mutual concern for advancing the kingdom of God. They serve you by doing the same work that you are tasked with doing.  They don’t serve you by putting on a show that you like.  And you don’t give to the CP to advance the kingdom as you want it to look.  You give money to the CP to advance the kingdom as the Lord sees fit at this present time using the broken vessels that He is at present deciding to use. 

When would it be okay to shifts funds away from an SBC entity?

When they abandon the gospel or Baptist distinctives.  Anything else is as petty as a middle school boy taking his ball and going home because the game isn’t going quite the way that he wants it to. 

Pastor, if you are encouraging your people to divert money because of personal preferences and tertiary doctrinal matters then you are training them to do the same under your ministry.  Do not be surprised when carpet color become more important than community.  Model for your people how to partner even while you disagree. 

SBC CP Giving Curmudgeons (Part 1)

Recently Jon Acuff, of Stuff Christians Like, posted this sad picture on his site:

That is a photo of a voided check for $75.00.  It looks as if this curmudgeon was going to give 75 bucks to the church but decided that he’d void the check and keep his money because the drums were way too loud. 

This might be a reasonable response at a movie theater or some other form of entertainment, but this is absolutely unacceptable for a church.  You do not give money to your church to reward them for entertaining you, helping you, or pleasing you.  You give money to your church so that as a collective group you can accomplish the work of the kingdom of God. 

If this chap wants to complain about the loud drums then he should find some other means to do it.  Yes, sadly this is an excellent way to be heard.  This a tremendous way to make a point because churches depend on faithful givers to not only keep their doors open but to further the mission of the church.  But this guy has it backwards.  He thinks that the church is there to serve him; by that I mean that he believes that everyone gathers each week to watch the show and they pool their resources so that they can watch an even bigger show next week.  (Sadly, in some churches maybe this guy doesn’t have it so backwards after all). 

I think about every pastor would be appalled by such a thing…but what about on a denominational level? 

CP Curmudgeons

Part of the beauty of the Southern Baptist Convention is the Cooperative Program (CP).  The CP is a way that all SBC churches can pool together their resources for the sake of furthering the kingdom of Christ.  Whenever you give to an SBC church a good chunk of that money will go to the CP.  From there it will be used for international missions, state missions, local missions, seminaries, children’s homes, and a host of other SBC agencies. 

The SBC is structured in such a way that every church is locally autonomous.  That means that seminaries, state officers, national officers, etc. do not have any authority in the local church.  The President of the SBC cannot tell any SBC church what to do.  It is quite frequently, and rightly, said that the SBC entities are in position to serve us—the local church. 

What happens, then, when an SBC entity (that CP dollars go towards) “plays the drums too loud”? 

If a local church, usually through the leadership of her pastor, believes that an entity is no longer serving them they can allot their giving in such a way that money will not be given to those entities.  This happened many times during the days of the Conservative Resurgence when local churches believed that some of the entities were promoting liberalism instead of the gospel.  Churches can become like the curmudgeon in the photo above and refuse to give money because they do not like the direction of the entity.

Of course within the SBC any church is free to give however they desire.  They can do whatever they want.  The question I am concerned with is whether or not they should.  Come back tomorrow morning and I will attempt to answer this question:

If an entity no longer serves the local church should they continue giving to that entity? 

5 Reasons Why Supporting Abortion Reflects An Unchanged Heart

Earlier I mentioned why I’m no longer indifferent to the issue of abortion.  I also mentioned that it’s a gospel issue and said that I’d explain why.  Before I give you those five reasons (and I could have given more), I want to give you a disclaimer.  I am not saying that if you are not pro-life that you are not a Christian.  I believe that I was not pro-life (not sure I was pro-choice either) for the first couple of years after coming to Christ.  God had changed my heart but He had not yet changed my worldview.  So, I do believe that one can still have faith in Christ and be mistaken on this issue.

Though I could probably give more than five reasons why supporting abortion reflects and unchanged heart here are five:

1. It places my freedom as ultimate.  The way of Christ is to place others before Himself.  It is to lay down personal freedoms for the good of the lesser. While the woman’s choice is very important—and could have been violated, as in cases of rape—the choice and freedom of the lesser needs to hold more weight.  In other words, the Christian way of doing things is to surrender your own personal freedoms and comforts for the good of those that are “weaker”.  You don’t get any “weaker” than an unborn baby. 
2. It preaches that life is found in stuff.  Some argue that abortion should be legal because the child’s quality of life will be terrible.  Often what is meant by that is what I will address in point 3, but some actually refer to opportunities.  At times it is a reference to the opportunity of a teenage girl that finds herself pregnant that will be surrendering many chances in life.  As our President said, “I don’t want my daughters to be punished with a baby”.  Life isn’t found in “stuff” and in “opportunities”.  Christ proclaims that life is found elsewhere.  To believe otherwise reflects a heart that is still infatuated with worldly pleasures.
3. It proclaims that the answer to suffering is death.  Many who support abortion do so while adopting an Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 mentality, which basically says that for some death is far better than life.  But the mentality of Solomon in Ecclesiastes 4 is that of a despairing man that is devoid of Christ.  The gospel gives hope in the midst of suffering.  The gospel proclaims a good purpose of God even in the midst of suffering.  An Ecclesiastes 4 proclaims death as the solution to suffering.  Whereas Scripture says that death is part of suffering and not a solution to it.  The solution that Christ provides for death and suffering is found in His redemptive acts. Abortion on the grounds of an Ecclesiastes 4 mentality denies the power of the gospel.
4. It teaches that it is okay to return evil for evil.  Pregnancy because of rape and incest is horrendous.  It should be mourned and fought against.  Those committing such crimes should indeed be punished, and punished severely.  But arguing (even as many Republicans now do) that it’s okay to abort a child that results from such evil is morally acceptable is backwards.  Scripture proclaims that we should not overcome evil with evil but to overcome evil with good.  You aren’t punishing the perpetrator by aborting your child.  You are punishing the child and even yourself.  A gospel changed heart overcomes evil with good.
5. It looks more like Rome and less like the early church.  Rome paid little regard to children.  As one letter from a husband to his delivering wife shows, “"I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it."  The early church fought against infanticide from a very early point.  They were the ones finding discarded babies and taking them into their communities of faith.  They were the ones that eventually ended the practice.  Those that were closest to the time of Christ reflected the heart of Christ to “let the little children come to me”.  They understood that the gospel is a message of life and should foster a community of life and not one of death. 

Those are only five reasons why supporting abortion reflects and unchanged heart.  In saying that my point is not to say, “therefore, you had better vote Republican”.  Personally, I don’t think the solution is solely political.  Perhaps that will be one means that the Lord will use to end abortion.  But it is not the only way.  What I am saying is that as believers we ought to be involved in fighting this social injustice. 

Check out Abort 73 and get involved.  (Warning: The videos on that site are graphic)

One Thing That Disturbs Me About Propaganda’s Song “Precious Puritans”

I have been listening to Propaganda’s new album and also reflecting on the recent online dust-up concerning his song “Precious Puritans”.  If you aren’t hip to the discussion, a little debate has been going on about whether or not Prop went too far in his critique of the Puritans as slave owners. 

First watch the clip:

Now, if you desire to get you caught up (though I’ll warn you it could take a good hour) then you need to check out these articles.  First read these two from Joe Thorn: Precious Puritans Part 1 and Part 2.  Then go read Owen Strachan’s rebuttal.  (Be sure to also read some of the comments on these).  Steve McCoy then responded to Owen’s critique and also offered a solid exposition of the song.  That’s enough to get you caught up though you can also read this reaction from Thabiti Anyabwile as well as this one from Anthony Bradley. 

The Song Initially Disturbs Me

When I first listened to the song it disturbed me.  And I have to be honest and say that at first I think I missed the point.  I thought I got the point that he was baiting us by piling on the Puritans and then kind of throwing in a switch at the end that said “God even uses crooked sticks like me”. 

But it didn’t sit well with me because I felt that he was encouraging us to just totally drop the Puritans by saying, “why would you quote them”.  As I read his explanation of the song on Joe Thorn’s blog I gave a hearty amen to everything he said.  But I still thought that his critique of the Puritans was too sharp and that he used such a broad brush that it totally made his secondary point outshine his primary point—that God uses crooked sticks.  

In my mind the song wasn’t matching up with his interview with Joe Thorn.  Then I read Steve McCoy’s piece and it helped me see it a little more clearly.  Reading Steve’s post helped the lights flick on and helped me see the “angry poet” in the beginning and the turn in the song when Prop says, “step away”.  It helped me really understand what I believe Prop was saying in the song, “God uses crooked sticks.  Don’t dismiss them in anger but don’t swallow them whole either.  They had flaws, and let’s take those flaws seriously.  But lets also remember that they are crooked sticks and lets give glory to God and not blindly follow a group of men.” 

But something about the song still disturbs me…

What still disturbs me about the song is the word “your”.  I know that this is probably part of the art of the whole thing.  But I have to be honest in how the song makes me react.  It makes me feel like I’m not on the same team as Propaganda.  It makes me feel like a dirty white guy that just casually reads the Puritans but doesn’t think about their racism. 

And his indictment is true.  I think he’s right that in some sense I do “not have to consider race”.  If I’m not careful I can be just as blind as the Puritans that I read.  I can think that racism isn’t still present in our society.  I can think that there are not still battles to be fought and hills to be climbed.  If I’m not careful I can theologically decry racism but in practice I can passively live on the wrong side of gospel reconciliation. 

Yet, I’m still disturbed by the “your” Puritans.  Artistically, go ahead and keep it in the song in the beginning.  That’s all part of the “anger”.  It’d rob the song of it’s power if he referred to them as anything different.  But in that last line of the song I wish he’d have said “our” precious puritans.  Because flawed and crooked as they are they belong to Propaganda just as much as they do to me. 

There is not a white history of the church and a separate black history of the church.  Though filled with a horrible history of hate-filled disunity, in the gospel story of cosmic redemption and reconciliation those two “histories” merge into a beautiful tapestry.  The Puritans, in as much as they were bought with the blood of Christ, belong to all of us—crookedness and all. 

Maybe It Should Still Disturb Me

There is one more thing that disturbs me though.  And that is that I wanted to put on a sentence at the end of that last paragraph that said something like this: “Just in the same way as (fill in the blank with African American heroes) belong to all of us—crookedness and all”. 

But that sentence wasn’t present. 

And you know why?  Because in my office I have shelves lined with Puritans.  I even have excellent books, like Piper’s Bloodlines, that combat the heinousness of racism.  But what I don’t have is a shelf filled with African-American saints throughout the history of the church.  It’s not because I don’t want them or that I would reject them.  It’s simply that I’m not exposed to them.  I tend to only be familiar with the crooked sticks that bend the same way that I do. 

But those that aren’t the same kind of crooked as me should be my heroes too.  The Lord uses them as well.  Maybe Prop has a really solid point after all. 

So help me out.  Help me fill a shelf with African-American brothers and sisters that will benefit my soul just like the Puritans do.  Help me find some Christ-exalting men and women that will help me revel in the excellencies of Jesus. 

My Biggest Problem With the SBCToday Critique of The Gospel Project

It could easily be argued that the Conservative Resurgence was a battle for the Bible.  We fought hard to ensure that Southern Baptists would continue to be a “people of the book”. Through those tumultuous years Baptists displayed that we believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and the sufficiency of Scripture. 

Fast forward to the year 2012. 

Calvinism and Traditionalism is all the talk within the SBC.  The Gospel Project curriculum from Lifeway has been one prominent locale for this battle to wage.  And that is my biggest problem with the SBCToday critiques, thus far, concerning The Gospel Project; it’s more about whether or not it’s written by those with Calvinistic convictions than if its biblical. 

As noted in an article yesterday the first substantive critique from Pastor Ralph Green is filled with logical fallacies.  What bothers me most about that is not the existence of logical fallacies but the prominence of the genetic fallacy.  The genetic fallacy is “committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.” 

The center of the argument so far has been that more non-Southern Baptist theologians (often Reformed) have been quoted instead of Southern Baptist theologians that are not Reformed.  Therefore, the material is Calvinistic and ought to be rejected by Southern Baptists that are not Calvinist. 

It has yet to be considered whether or not what John Piper says in a quote is biblically correct.  Or whether Matt Chandler is proclaiming the gospel and biblical truth.  Or if at this point Francis Schaeffer absolutely nails it.  No, what has been considered is whether or not they are Reformed.  And that bothers  me because it means that we are no longer “a people of the book” because our criteria for accepting or rejecting an argument appears to no longer be the Scriptures but a particular theological leaning.

If you go through the Gospel Project and honestly find that it is not biblically accurate or biblically dangerous then by all means lets reject it.  But if it proclaims biblical truth, exalts Christ, and promotes a solid biblical theology let us embrace it even if we don’t agree with every jot and tittle of the theology of every contributor and person quoted. 

Are we a “people of the book” or a people that are more concerned about someone being Baptist than biblical?   

A Response to @RevKevDeyoung Hiding Above the Fray

I missed a post by Kevin DeYoung a couple of days ago.  In this post he decries those that…

“claim to transcend old polarities. The ones that always claim to be above all the silly nonsense that used to drag us down. The ones that keep their noses clean by putting them high into air. The ones that are never dirty enough for the trenches.”

He freely admits that he has no desire to “turn every skirmish into a war” but there are battles that need to be fought and won.  It’s cowardice to take to higher ground when there is a legitimate battle going on down below. 

I’ve written a fair amount in the past about being slow to engage in controversy.  Yet, I also identify with what DeYoung is saying here.  If I am reading him correctly he is saying much the same that Richard Sibbes said 400 years ago:

And yet often we see a false spirit in those that call for moderation.  Their doing so is but to carry their own projects with greater strength; and if they prevail they will hardly show that moderation to others which they now call for from others.  And there is a proud kind of moderation likewise, when men will take upon them to censure both parties, as if they were wiser than both, although, if the spirit be right, an onlooker may see more than those that are in conflict.  (Sibbes, The Bruised Reed, 30)

If there is a legitimate battle that needs to be fought then the gospel demands that we suit up and contend for the faith.  The problem is we often take swords into an arm wrestling match.  It takes wisdom to discern when there is a legitimate high-road and when silence is the best course.  It takes wisdom to know if the battle is yours.  And it takes wisdom to know what if you should bring a knife, a smile, or a grenade. 

One Critique

I do think that DeYoung takes this a little far when he says, “I am skeptical of those whose first instinct in the midst of theological, political, or cultural controversy is to plead with everyone that there doesn’t have to be a controversy.”  There will be many that are wired in a similar way to Kevin that will give hearty amen’s to this sentiment.  Some are wired to have a first instinct of “fight”.  They will err on the side of getting in fights that they shouldn’t. 

But then again there are also those that could say something very similar to DeYoung but from a different perspective.  John Newton often spoke of controversies and distinctions being against his nature.  His disposition probably would have been similar to what DeYoung responds to with skepticism.  Consider his posture with regards to Andrew Fuller’s newest book which was causing great controversies. 

Indeed it costs me but little self-denial to decline books of controversy, which though well written and even upon important points, seldom (I fear) are very useful.  Especially when the opponents are known and avowed, and the debate is not merely about sentiments, but Mr. A is engaged against Mr. B.  Then it is fighting not merely for truth but for victory; and they usually push each other to extremes.  Whereas if they would explain and qualify there is perhaps a [common ground] in which they might meet at once and be at peace.  (From Wise Counsel, 217)

Newton was skeptical of those whose first instinct was to do battle.  His natural instinct was to “flight”.  And it is no accident that one of the great questions of Newton’s life is that there were controversies that he probably should have engaged in but did not.  Whereas those whose first instinct is to fight will err in getting into fights they shouldn’t, those like Newton will err in taking the “high ground” when they ought to get in the trenches and do battle. 

Yet, I don’t think the error is in “first instincts” but in the actual response (or non-response) to controversies.  At the end of the day those that are wired to be quick to battle will probably look at those like Newton and wonder, “Why isn’t this nancy-boy joining the fight”.  And those that are wired like Newton will look at those that are engaged in many controversies and wonder why they are not more marked by a peaceful and loving spirit.  It would do us well to consider the disposition of our brothers and sisters in Christ and do battle with our own disposition well before we graciously do battle with theirs. 

Proverbs for Christian Blogging: Don’t Pick a Fight That Isn’t Yours

“Do not contend with a man for no reason, when he has done you no harm” –Proverbs 3:30

In other words don’t pick fights that aren’t yours.  That sounds reasonable enough but it kind of begs a question: what fight is mine? 

Consider this example.  I attend The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.  I have a vested interest in what happens there.  Dr. Albert Mohler is our President.  He is someone that I consider to be a very faithful man and a great leader.  In a very real sense he is one of the authorities that the Lord has placed in my life.  So, what happens when bloggers start taking on Dr. Mohler?  Is this my fight?  It involves me…sort of.

Or another example.  I am a pastor at First Baptist Jasper in Indiana.  I certainly have a vested interest in what happens here.  If the local paper began maligning one of our members would this be my fight?  It involves me…sort of. 

Though it is difficult to wade through these questions it is not impossible.  In his commentary on the Proverbs Charles Bridges notes:

We must guard…against causeless strivings.  A propensity to embroil ourselves in quarrels kindles strife, instead of following the rule of peace.  This spirit is a great hindrance to holiness and inconsistent with a true servant of God.  Irritable persons strongly insist upon their rights, or what they conceive to be due to them from others.  ‘Is there not’—say they—‘a cause?’  But impartial observers frequently judge it to be a striving without cause; that no harm has been done; none at least to justify the breach of love; that more love on one hand, and more forbearance on the other, would have prevented the breach; that ‘there is utterly a fault—Why do ye not rather take wrong?’” (Bridges, 39)

From Bridges’ commentary, the rest of Scripture, and my own experience I have developed these ten questions that I at least subliminally consider when deciding to “contend”. 

1. Is this really “harm”?  Will a response from me only ratchet up the offense (add fuel to the fire)?  Sometimes we make things a bigger deal simply by pointing them out or challenging someone on them.  If it’s not actually harm then don’t ride your sled down the slippery slope and make a big deal out of nothing.
2. How directly involved am I?  Is this my wife being maligned or is this a friend of a guy I knew in college?
3. What is my heart in this?  Am I going to contend just to show how masterfully I can argue my points?  Is my contention just to gain notoriety or to win an argument?  Do I have a natural propensity to unnecessary controversy?  If I do, then I had better proceed with caution.
4. Does my opinion matter?  Of course, like your grandma says everybody’s opinion matters.  But some opinions matter more.  That’s just life, sorry granny.  Per the above example concerning Dr. Mohler.  At this particular time in my life even if I “defended” Dr. Mohler from negative blogs—my opinion carries such little weight on these issues because I’m so far removed from his position that I probably should just let others closer to the situation deal with it. 
5. Is this a “fire” issue?  Am I defending the deity of Christ or am I defending what prison Paul was in when he wrote Philippians? 
6. Can the offense be covered in love?  Seriously, can I reasonably just drop this or will it continue plaguing my soul.  If you aren’t sure wait a day before responding to that blog comment.  If you “lost your chance” or you aren’t as fired up about it tomorrow it’s probably a good thing you hit “cancel reply”. 
7. What do impartial observers say?  I know in our instant online society you post a tweet—it’s awesome for about 20 minutes and then nobody really remembers it.  But perhaps before entering a contention you should ask a few people that are distant observers. 
8. Is it helpful to simply “eat this one”?  Most controversies will die out if you don’t respond to them.  Is that helpful?  Can you just not respond?  So what if a guy leaves a comment and thinks that my article was really dumb and he is upset that I misused a comma. 
9. Do I have the right to interject truth?  I’m a little more quick to “contend” or give my opinion if it is with someone that is in my church.  I have “won the right” to interject truth.  But I don’t have any plans to write Rob Bell and tell him to repent.  Others have “won the right” to interject truth.  There are some issues that I should just leave up to a guys pastor or accountability group to deal with. 
10. Should my contention be public or private?  Even if I do decide that I ought to contend I still cannot just type up a response and hit send.  I need to make sure that my contention should go public.  And that is an entirely different issue.

You might be thinking, “Wow, this seems tedious.  I probably would never comment if I followed through on all these”.  My response?  Good.  If it’s not your fight don’t bring boxing gloves and start throwing left hooks. 

Should the Scarecrow Scream?

“Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person”.  (Matthew 15:10-11)

Translation: All foods are clean.  I, Jesus, am declaring by my own authority that the ceremonial laws of Leviticus 11:1-47 no longer apply. 

We eat our pork chops and read through this very quickly without thinking about the offensive and sweeping claims that Jesus is making here.  He is overturning over a millennium worth of history and tradition.  That would be like going into a deeply traditional Southern Baptist church and declaring fellowship dinners and “Just as I Am” as no longer relevant. 

It’s hard enough to change the carpet in many churches—much less tip over some of these sacred cows.  But Jesus is doing more here than just tipping over the sacred cow—he’s carving it up and serving it to his disciples for supper. 

It is not surprising then to read verse 12:

“Then the disciples came and said to him, ‘Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying’? 

You think?!?!? 

Keep in mind here the influence that the Pharisees had with the people.  And also note that they probably voiced their displeasure to far more than just Jesus’ disciples.  Labels like blasphemer, Sabbath-breaker, Law-breaker, etc. were being stuck on Jesus as the people tried to turn the popular opinion against Jesus. 

Should Straw-men Defend Themselves?

What then should Jesus do?  Should he try to save face?  Should he clarify their misrepresentations and make certain that the populace gets Him right? 

Have you ever been in this spot, when people are wrongly labeling you, or wrongly labeling a doctrine that you adhere to?  How do you respond?  Have you ever been the victim of a good straw-man beating and subsequent torching?  

Typically, my first instinct is to defend myself or my position.  If I am going to be attacked or labeled I at least want my position to be rightly attacked or rightly labeled.  If I’m going to burn at a stake I want it to be me that is burning and not me as a straw-man.  Certainly, Jesus would not suffer to be mislabeled, right? 

He answered, ‘Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.  Let them alone; they are blind guides.  And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.  (emphasis mine)

If I am understanding Jesus correctly what he is saying is that the only ones that will follow the Pharisees misrepresentations are those that are blind.  True disciples will see right through it and follow Jesus.  Those that have been planted by the Father will not be rooted up.  But all those that the Father has not planted will indeed be rooted up.

Therefore, just leave them alone.  Do not answer them.  Do not get distracted from the mission trying to make sure they rightly understand your position.  It doesn’t matter if they are attacking a straw-man or the authentic Jesus—they are blind and they’ll never really “see” the authentic Jesus anyways.  So, leave them alone. 

Certainly this does not mean to be silent when truth should be spoken.  We know from other Scripture that we are supposed to teach people in error with gentleness and respect.  There is a time to speak and defend.  But there is also a time to leave Pharisees alone. 

Why Christian Unity is Not as Simple as White People Loving Michael Bolton

Yesterday I posted a book review of The Cross.  Before posting these reviews I typically check out Amazon.com reviews to see whether I am totally off base in my opinion.  This is one instance were I would be the only one giving the book a 1 out of 5 stars.  If certain people read the review I will probably get much criticism for my review.  I will probably be labeled as unspiritual, hindering the Spirit, and criticizing “God’s man”. 

Apart from the shock of no other person agreeing with me on Amazon, something else caught my eye.  The only other person to give the book a 3 out of 5 is an unbeliever.  This person noted that all of the unbelievers she asked actually liked the book.  The only ones that offered criticism were those that were believers.  This of course is by unbelievers as a reason to not believe.  “You think you have the truth market cornered and yet you cannot agree with one another about simple things”.

This argument is appealing.  Partly because it has some truth.  Our love and unity is perhaps our most powerful apologetic (John 13:35).  But unity is not as simple as everyone with the name Christian gets along and loves one another.  To me this would be like saying Michael Bolton is a white guy, therefore all white guys have to like Michael Bolton.  Or better yet, Hitler was German, therefore, all German’s should get along with Hitler.  That is appalling, especially that part about Michael Bolton. 

Christianity unity is found in our union with Christ.  Christian unity is centered upon the truth in Christ.  Whenever you stray from truth you stray from Christ.  Whenever you stray from Christ you stray from unity with one another as well. 

Christians are in union with one another.  This unity means covering over a ton of junk with love.  But Christians are not in union with unbelievers or those merely professing Christ.  Furthermore, unity does not demand absolute conformity.  I can be in unity with Arthur Blessitt in as much as he loves Jesus and is centered on the Cross.  In every way in which he (or I for that matter) strays from the faith delivered we cannot be in unity. 

Newton: On Controversy

This might be an especially well timed article amidst the present controversy in the MBC. In a letter, to what appears to be a young man, John Newton advices him on engaging in debate with another over the issue of election. It is the typical Calvinist/Arminian debate. You get the idea that maybe this "young man" that Newton is addressing is a "caged-Calvinist". As I read this it rebukes me of some of pride and arrogance. It also convicts me of a spirit of superiority in doctrine which leads sometimes to bitterness towards my other brothers that "don't get it". This also serves to temper me in the recent Acts29/MBC controversy. I have included points 1 and 3. The entire letter can be found at Grace Gems:

Dear Sir,As you are likely to be engaged in controversy, and your love of
truth is joined with a natural warmth of temper, nay friendship makes me solicitous on your behalf. You are of the strongest side; for truth is great, and must prevail; so that a person of abilities inferior to yours might take the field with a confidence of victory. I am not therefore anxious for the event of the battle. But I would have you more than a conqueror, and to triumph, not only over your adversary, but over yourself. If you cannot be vanquished, you may be wounded. To preserve you from such wounds as might give you cause of weeping over your conquests, I would present you with some considerations, which, if duly attended to, will do you the service of a coat of armor; for you will easily perceive it is taken from that great armory provided for the Christian soldier, the word of God. I take it for granted, that you will not expect any apology for my freedom, and therefore I shall not offer one. For method sake, I may reduce my advice to three heads, respecting your opponent, the public, and yourself.

1. As to your opponent, I wish, that, before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord's teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write. If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab, concerning Absalom, are very applicable: "Deal gently with him for my sake." The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself.

In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul,with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. But if you look upon him as an unconverted person, in a state of enmity against God and his grace, (a supposition which, without good evidence, you should be very unwilling to admit,) he is a more proper object of your pity and compassion than of your anger. Alas! "he knows not what he does." But you know who has made you to differ. If God, in his sovereign pleasure, had so appointed, you might have been as he is now; and he, instead of you, might have been set for the defense of the Gospel. You were both equally blind by nature. If you attend to this, you will not reproach or hate him, because the Lord has been pleased to open your eyes,and not his.

Of all people who engage in controversy, we, who are called Calvinists, are most expressly bound by our own principles to the exercise of gentleness and moderation. If, indeed, those who differ from us have a power of changing themselves, if they can open their own eyes, and soften their own hearts, then we might with less inconsistency be offended at their obstinacy; but if we believe the very contrary to this, our part is, not to strive, but in meekness to instruct those who oppose, "if perhaps God will give them repentance to the acknowledgment of the truth."
If you write with a desire of being an instrument of correcting mistakes, you will of course be cautious of laying stumbling-blocks in the way of the blind, or of using any expressions that may exasperate their passions, confirm them in their prejudices, and thereby make their conviction, humanly speaking, more impracticable.

3. This leads me, in the last place, to consider your own concern in your present undertaking. It seems a laudable service to defend the faith once delivered to the saints; we are commanded to contend earnestly for it, and to convince gainsayers. If ever such defenses were seasonable and expedient, they appear to be so in our day, when errors abound on all sides, and every truth of the Gospel is either directly denied, or grossly misrepresented. And yet we find but very few writers of controversy, who have not been manifestly hurt by it.

Either they grow in a sense of their own importance, or imbibe an angry contentious spirit, or they insensibly withdraw their attention from those things which are the food and immediate support of the life of faith, and spend their time and strength upon matters which at most are but of a secondary value. This shows, that, if the service is honorable, it is dangerous. What will it profit a man if he gains his cause, and silences his adversary, if at the same time he loses that humble, tender frame of spirit in which the Lord delights, and to which the promise of his presence is made! Your aim, I doubt not, is good; but you have need to watch and pray, for you will find Satan at your right hand to resist you: he will try to debase your views; and though you set out in defense of the cause of God, if you are not continually looking to the Lord to keep you, it may become your own cause, and awaken in you those tempers which are inconsistent with true peace of mind, and will surely obstruct communion with God.

Be upon your guard against admitting anything personal into the debate. If you think you have been ill treated, you will have an opportunity of showing that you are a disciple of Jesus, who, "when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not." This is our pattern, thus we are to speak and write for God, "not rendering railing for railing, but, contrariwise,blessing; knowing that hereunto we are called." The wisdom which is from above is not only pure, but peaceable and gentle; and the lack of these qualifications, like the dead fly in the pot of ointment, will spoil the savor and efficacy of our labors.

If we act in a wrong spirit, we shall bring little glory to God, do little good to our fellow-creatures, and procure neither honor nor comfort to ourselves. If you can be content with showing your wit, and gaining the laugh on your side, you have an easy task; but I hope you have a far nobler aim, and that, sensible of the solemn importance of Gospel truths, and the compassion due to the souls of men, you would rather be a means of removing prejudices in a single instance, than obtain the empty applause of thousands. Go forth,therefore, in the name and strength of the Lord Almighty, speaking the truth in love; and may he give you a witness in many hearts, that you are taught of God, and favored with the unction of his Holy Spirit.

Brothers, may we heed the wise counsel of this dear man that is now with Jesus. May we especially take heed to his last two paragraphs. It is my prayer as well as we engage our brothers that we might, as the word of God says, speak the truth in love.

My Stance on Halloween

This might be somewhat controversial in our church...therefore I want to begin by saying that my opinion is not necessarily the opinion of our church as a whole nor is it necessarily the opinion of anyone else in our church. Tim Challies who has an excellent blog posted an article today entitled Trick or Retreat? which I believe is worthy of a visit. My personal stance is very close to that of Challies. Should we have a Christian "alternative" at church? Should we forget the whole issue and participate fully? Should we turn our lights out and declare an all out war and retreat from the pagan holiday? Should we use it as an opportunity for missions?

It seems that the most common responses by Christian people is to declare an all out war against Halloween. In this war we either decide to combat it with our Reformation Day, Harvest Festival, etc. or we decide that the best way to win this war is for our people run away from it and not be influenced by evil. What is my opinion? I believe that the "run away" approach is usually not a good one. And I believe that Reformation Day might be a good idea but could be counter-productive.

Why do we not use this open-door invitation that our community has given us to be good neighbors, to share the love of Christ with those who visit our house, or to even go a step further and dress up and give out gospel tracts, candy, etc.? Last year our youth group did a Backwards Halloween. Instead of getting candy from people we blessed the community with some candy of their own.

My personal stance is that costumes are not innately evil (it is probably best not to do that which affirms the occult--witches, devils, etc.). Candy is not evil unless you want to preserve your teeth. Certainly going out into our community, getting to know people, and enjoying fellowship is certainly a good thing. So, in a nutshell my personal stance is that Halloween is an open door for missions and we should take it!

What is your opinion? Is this friendship with the world? Or is this being missional?