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? 

A Quick Note to Those Who Gave Money to Their Church Yesterday

Just a quick note to those of you that put money in the coffer of your local church on Sunday.  It’s quite possible that the Lord did not move in your heart to show your faithfulness so that now he can bless you with a houseboat.  It might be that he stirred up in your heart to give, so that when I (or your pastors) get a call on Monday morning from a family that is about to be homeless we have the resources to help. 

Give the King a carrot and not yourself a horse. 

If you gave in the hopes of getting a houseboat, I must confess I’m praying that the Lord blesses you far more than you can imagine.  That might mean no houseboat.  But it may be that He gives you something far more valuable; namely, Himself. 

Thanks for your faithfulness and your love for Christ.

Take it away, Jesus

I am not certain where this little gem came from, but I have seen this “powerful prayer” pop up all over facebook, emails, and a few other places:

WALK THROUGH MY HOUSE AND TAKE AWAY ALL MY WORRIES AND ILLNESSES; AND PLEASE WATCH OVER AND HEAL MY FAMILY IN JESUS ' NAME.. AMEN

I understand the heart behind this.  Nobody wants worry.  Nobody wants illness.  Everybody wants their family to be healed (emotionally, physically, spiritually, etc.).  And you have to commend the underlying reliance on Jesus in this prayer.  It is assumed in this prayer that it is only Christ that can heal worry and illness. 

Yet, something about this prayer rubs me the wrong way.  It’s not that I deny the Lord can take away worry, illness, etc.  Nor is it that I think his intention is to ultimately redeem us and heal us in Jesus’ name.  What bothers me, I think, is the focus and “Americanization” of this prayer.  Compare it to this one:

And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” (Acts 4:29-30 ESV)

This prayer is on the lips of a persecuted church.  Notice that they do not pray for the Lord to take away the persecution, to cure them of illness, or anything like that.  They do pray for healing but notice its focus.  It’s missional. 

The Americanized church prays to be relieved of suffering for the sake of comfort, security, and peace.  The gospel church prays that God will use suffering and equip them with boldness and power for the advancement of God’s kingdom.  HUGE difference.  One views God as the means to an end (prosperity).  The other views God as the end, and suffering as a means to more fully enjoy Him. 

The Americanized church thinks that the best life is now—or at least that if God had his way then we’d all be healthy, wealthy, and worry free.  Our health, poverty, and pain is the result of demonic influence.  If we would only let God be the center of our lives and trust him with these prayers then we would not be in the grip of Satan and we would have prosperity. 

Small problem with that, though.  God IS on the throne and Jesus-loving Christians get cancer, have mental breakdowns, and starve.  And unless you want to embrace dualism ALL of this happens through the goodness of a God that is actively ruling the world as He sees fit. 

God will eventually heal.  There will be a day when no child of God will suffer.  Cancer will be no more.  Illness will be gone.  Death will be defeated.  And we will have wealth--real wealth--that is immeasurable. 

But that doesn’t happen in this age.  In this age suffering has a mission.  Make sure that your prayers reflect that.

Luxury and Preaching

Richard Baxter speaking to pastors, encouraging them to model self-sacrificial living:

Think not of being rich; do not seek great things for yourselves or your [descendants]…If you believe that God is the safest [keeper of goods] and that to [be spent] in his service [yields the best interest], show them that you do believe it. [I know that flesh and blood will complain against this] but mark this, that man who has any thing in the world so dear to him, that he cannot spare it for Christ, if [Christ] calls for it, is no true Christian.  (The Reformed Pastor, 66-67, modernized by me)

A few points to consider:

What does my lifestyle display that I believe about the value of God?  When you see the things that I spend my time and money on does it show that I believe heaven is the greatest treasure—or am I building a personal kingdom for myself and my descendants?  I think the American dream has taught us that God is actually cool with both…in fact he is quite happy to “bless us” with luxuries so long as we thank him for it.  I’m simply not convinced that many of my “luxuries” are not more the result of sin than they are a result of “
"God’s blessing”. 

Is there anything in my life that Christ is calling me to expend for His kingdom?  If I am not careful I will quickly dismiss this question.  Because I do not hear a “still small voice” telling me to buy a smaller refrigerator I may assume that He is not calling.  But perhaps He is calling!  Perhaps if my eyes are open to the reality of world hunger, the darkness of nations without the gospel, and my brothers and sisters without adequate provisions I will hear the thunderous voice of Jesus asking for water, dying children asking for food, and blind men begging for the light of the gospel.  The better question may be, “what will it take”, rather than “what can I do without”. 

If we are not careful topics like this can lead to deep feelings of guilt (sometimes false—sometimes real).  There is one statement I have been saying to myself as I consider these things: “Let us not stop until we are obedient”.  That is what I think Richard Baxter is calling for—scratch that—that is what Christ is calling for.  I do not want to stop changing things in my life until I am obedient.  Baxter said it this way, "we must have nothing but what we have for God".

Review of The Gospel-Filled Wallet by Jeff Weddle

Author: Jeff Weddle

Pages: 80pgs

Publisher: Transforming Publishing

Price: Free or 9.56

Genre: Christian Living

A Quick Word about Transforming Publishing:

Transforming Publishing is a great idea. As it says on the website:

Transforming Publishing was founded to publish Bible study and preaching resources for helping Christians understand and proclaim the transforming Word of God. Electronic copies of all publications will be available free online, and hardcopy publications will be available on-demand for what we hope to be very modest prices--less expensive in many cases than users will be able to print on their own printers.

Great idea! I am happy to be a small part of this.

Quick Summary:

Jeff Weddle hopes to paddle upstream against the current flow of “Christian” books on money. His claim is that many of today’s books use biblical “principles” to do unbiblical things with money. This book is an attempt to consider what the Bible really does say about money: both how we should handle it and our general attitude towards money.

There is one basic question in this book. Do you love God or do you love money?

What I Liked:

The best chapter, in my opinion, is Weddle’s chapter on How to Hate Money and Love God. This section is practical, biblical, and hard-hitting. His first chapter and conclusion are also well-written and informative. From the beginning Weddle lets us know what is at stake:

“Our lives are consumed with money. All of our life is centered on the pursuit, acquisition, and spending of it. Our lives prove that we love money. You show what you love by where you put your time and energy. Money consumes us. We love money. Thus, we hate God.”

And the driving force behind all of this is what our author states on page 69, “the soul was created for more.” A life spent trying to acquire more money and more possessions is a rip off. But the best thing you can do for your soul is to get rid of your money as quickly as possible for the glory of God. I like this.

What I Disliked:

The one major critique I have of this book is that for a book called The Gospel-Filled Wallet it majors on emptying the wallet of money but minors on filling it with the gospel. Do not misunderstand; the gospel is in this book. But a more compelling gospel vision would drive Weddle’s major thesis home with Spirit-empowered force.

I do not think that legalism would be the proper charge for this book. I think that is made clear when Weddle answers this charge on page 74. He rightly points that the motivator is the heart. It is not as if the author is saying do these things so that you can be acceptable to God. But the gospel seems to be assumed throughout this book and is not given as the major driving force behind giving your money away.

This book will convict but I’m not sure it will heal.

Should You Buy It?

Well, it is free so you should at least read it.  It is well written and a quick read.  You could probably read it in about an hour.  You will benefit from this book.  If you want a hardcopy you can get it for under 10 bucks. 

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Great Commission Resurgence and Church Buildings

On Tuesday I asked, where do churches come from?  To which I answered, “Elaborate and decorated church buildings came from the time of Constantine.  Functional church buildings came from a time prior—perhaps a century before.”  I promised that today I would try to draw out some implications of this.  Before we do this it may be wise to think about whether the early disciples would have built church buildings had they the opportunity. 

Would the Early Church Have Built If Given a Chance?

To answer that question we will have to engage in some speculation as to why they did not build church buildings.  Perhaps it was economic reasons.  Or maybe it was because of their relatively small number.  But that does not square well with history.  There were indeed a decent number of believers living in Jerusalem shortly after Pentecost.  Certainly, enough to necessitate a church building.  And some of these (see Joseph of Arimathea) were quite wealthy.  Yet, they chose to meet in the synagogues and houses instead of building a distinctly Christian building.  Why? 

My guess, and it is only a guess, is that they did not build a distinctly Christian building because they were not quite ready to “break with Judaism”.  It is only after persecution that they were spread and subtly began to see the chasm between Christianity and Judaism . 

But why did they not build exclusively Christian buildings (assuming they did not) in larger metropolitan areas where they were not yet persecuted?  Perhaps it was for financial reasons.  Perhaps it was for missional reasons or even social reasons.  I doubt they were fundamentally against functional buildings designed exclusively for Christian worship.  But, my guess is that the elaborate Constantine-type of buildings would have been appalling to the early disciples—but that is simply a guess. 

Two Beliefs Driving the Early Church

I say this because there were two beliefs that seem to have driven the early church: A detachment from “this world” and a strong belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of the Old Testament expectation. 

Because of their detachment from “this world” and belief that Jesus was coming any day building an elaborate dwelling place would seem foolish.  They would soon be living in the New Jerusalem and all of their resources would be given to announcing the coming Kingdom. 
Sojourners don’t build mansions. 

Secondly, their strong belief that Jesus Christ was the fulfillment of Old Testament expectation would probably cause the early disciples to shy away from recreating the temple.  In the Old Testament you went to a building to meet with God.  But Jesus obliterated that.  The curtain is torn.  Jesus is our Immanuel.  Temple worship is offensive to Jesus’ mission of rescuing a blood-bought community of redeemed believers.  The temple was elaborate because it was a display of the greatness of the God that dwelled therein.  God doesn’t live there anymore.  The indwelling Spirit creating holiness and unity in diverse peoples is now the cosmic display of the manifold wisdom of God (see Eph. 3). 

From Constantine to Church the Noun

Enter Constantine.  He was concerned with creating a “this world” type of empire.  Therefore, spending empire money on creating a place to worship was not foolish to him.  Secondly, he was converted (which could be argued that he was not) out of paganism.  The One that rescued Constantine was to be considered the superior God.  You displayed that by building elaborate temples to show this.

Fast forward some 18 centuries and we have church buildings that might shame Constantine.  Through the centuries the Church (now a noun) has labored to make all things bigger and better.  One church recently began 130 million dollar renovation plan.  Their justification for doing so?

As I look around downtown Dallas, I see spectacular temples of commerce, of culture and of government – many new, some restored to former glory, and all intended to stand for generations. The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them – a spiritual oasis in the middle of downtown.”    (HT: Ken Eastburn)

Sound familiar? 

“The Kingdom of God needs a home to equal them”.  No, it doesn’t.  The Kingdom of God has within it a home that shames them, and it is not found in Dallas, Texas.  It’s one thing to look at a 130 million dollar renovation plan and consider it extreme, but the average church has 40-60% of its budget sucked up in building and maintenance. 

I am not against church buildings.  Let me rephrase that, I am not against functional church buildings.  I just do not buy the “Our God deserves the best” argument that I typically here to excuse elaborate expenses on church buildings.  I agree that our God is absolutely awesome and deserves the absolute best from us.  I just do not buy that “our absolute best” is a temple made with hands.  Rather, I think it is lives marked with single-minded devotion.  

Undoubtedly there are those leading churches with large buildings and those attending large churches that have a single-minded devotion.  Just like Constantine I doubt very seriously that these believers intend to do anything wrong.  And maybe they are not.  But my heart breaks that our church buildings are state of the art while children starve to death and a large part of the world lives in the darkness of no gospel knowledge. 

Maybe the Great Commission Resurgence should involve selling church property (like state of the art sound, lights, seats, etc.) to fund a missionary, support a family desiring to adopt, feed the hungry, or engage in other mercy ministries.  I have said it once before and will say it again, something is wrong with this:

On Trusting God; and an exploration of why we need to study the wise counsel of John Newton

It is no secret that I love John Newton.  His wise counsel On Trusting God is ample reason for a deep love and respect for Newton.  This may end up being a rather lengthy post but I want to slowly work through this letter to hopefully show you why the writings of Newton is a treasured jewel to me; and hopefully encourage you to read more of him. 

This letter is the first in his 41 Letters On Religious Subjects.  It appears that a young man, passionate about giving, has recently gotten married.  This has caused a conundrum for him.  He desires to continue giving but at the same time knows that he needs to provide for his wife.  Should he lessen his giving to better provide for his new family? 

Before, we begin going through this letter pause and consider how you would answer this young man…

Here is how Newton began:

There is doubtless such a thing as Christian prudence; but, my friend, beware of counterfeits. Self-love, and the evil heart of unbelief, will endeavor to obtrude upon us a prudence so called, which is as opposite to the former as darkness to light.

Newton wisely cautions the man that there is a type of prudence (wise use of resources) which is really not noble but rather selfish and miserly.  There are some that would never be so bold to counsel in such a way.  Newton has a deep knowledge of the depravity of man and he will not rule out that something that sounds holy is actually a guise for sin.  But Newton is also a balanced man.  He realizes that he could be wrong and he is also sensitive to living by gospel instead of Law.  So Newton balances with this:

I do not say, that, now that you have a wife, and the prospect of a family, you are strictly bound to give to the poor in the same proportion as formerly. I say, you are not bound; for everything of this sort should proceed from a willing heart…if you find yourself very unwilling to be one sixpence in the year less useful than you were before, I could not blame you or dissuade you from it.

Then Newton writes the major thesis of this letter: “that when the Lord gives such a confidence [a heart to give], he will not disappoint it.”  In other words if God has given you a passion to give then he will provide the means to do so. 

After this Newton begins encouraging towards generosity.  He speaks of “mere professors” and his picture of them seems to be an accurate picture of the American way (and this perhaps before there was an American way): 

For the most part, we take care, first to be well supplied, if possible, with all the necessaries, conveniences, and not a few of the elegancies of life; then to have a snug fund laid up against a rainy day, as the phrase is, (if this is in an increasing way, so much the better), that when we look at children and near relatives, we may say to our hearts, "Now they are well provided for." And when we have got all this and more, we are perhaps content, for the love of Christ, to bestow a pittance of our superfluities, a tenth or twentieth part of what we spend or hoard up for ourselves, upon the poor! But, alas! what do we herein more than others? Multitudes, who know nothing of the love of Christ, will do thus much, yes, perhaps, greatly exceed us, from the mere feelings of humanity.

We make certain that we have everything we need, then that our kids are well supplied, then that we give to Christ.  Do you see what Newton is doing here?  He is considering the trajectory that this young man may be setting himself on.  He is in danger of refusing to give because he is not trusting that God will provide for his family.  But again Newton is a balanced man, so he considers the question at hand—is it not right to provide for my family? 

Newton’s answer is quite simple—lending to the Lord IS a surefire way of providing for you wife.  In a brilliant couple of sentences Newton shows how the Lord provides:

He has more ways to bless and prosper those who trust in him, than we are able to point out to him. But I tell you, my friend, God will sooner make windows in heaven, turn stones into bread, yes, stop the sun in its course, than he will allow those who conscientiously serve him, and depend upon him, to be destitute.

Knowing this Newton probably believes the man will continue in his present state of trusting the Lord and giving freely to the poor.  But perhaps after weighing what Newton says “prudence will be heard”.  Newton then offers two points to consider.  First, buy nothing unnecessary.  “You cannot, I trust, in good conscience think of laying out one penny more than is barely decent; unless you have another penny to help the poor”.  Secondly, let your friends in good circumstances know that you can no longer entertain them.  If you do not have enough money to help the poor then you do not have enough money to entertain your friends. 

He then quotes Luke 14:12-14 and comments thus: “I do not think it unlawful to entertain our friends; but if these words do not teach us, that it is in some respects our duty to give a preference to the poor, I am at a loss to understand them.” 

So as to prove that he is not just doling out theoretical advice Newton provides a testimony from his own life:

I was enabled to set out upon the plan I recommend to you, at a time when my certain income was much too scanty for my own provision, and before I had the expectation or promise of assistance from any person upon earth. Only I knew that the Lord could provide me with whatever he saw needful; and I trusted, that, if he kept me dependent upon himself, and desirous to live for his service only, he assuredly would do so. I have as yet seen no cause to repent it. I live upon his promise; for, as to any present ways or means, everything here below is so uncertain, that I consider myself in the same situation with the birds of the air, who have neither storehouse nor barn. Today I have enough for myself, and something to impart to those who lack: as to futurity, the Lord must provide; and for the most part I can believe he will. I can tell you, however, that now and then my heart is pinched: unbelief creeps in, and self would much rather choose a strong box, or what the world calls a certainty, than a life of absolute dependence upon the providence of God. However, in my composed hours I am well satisfied. Hitherto he has graciously taken care of me; therefore may my heart trust in him, and not be afraid.

He then places the man in a similar situation as himself and encourages him to “beware, therefore, of that reasoning which might lead you to distrust the Lord your God, or to act as if you did.” 

We now learn that this young man is a minister.  And he is a minister that has on occasion complained that those in his congregation have “much of an expensive taste”.  Obviously, if this young man is going to be used of the Lord then he needs to set a good example:

If you set yourself to discountenance this, and should at the same time too closely shut up your hands, they will be ready to charge you with being governed by the same worldly spirit, though in another form. If you have been hitherto tender and bountiful to the poor, and should make too great and too sudden an alteration in this respect, if the blame should not fall upon you, it probably would upon your wife, who, I believe, would be far from deserving it. If the house which has been open to the poor in former times, should be shut against them, now that you live in it, would it not open the mouths of those who do not love your ministry, to say, that, notwithstanding all your zeal about doctrines, you know how to take care of your own selfish interest, the same as those whom you have thought indifferent and lukewarm in the cause of the Gospel? Would it not?—But I forbear. I know you need not such arguments. Yet consider how many eyes are upon you, watching for your halting.

Newton closes by showing his confidence in the young man to do what is right and he also encourages him to decide in his mind now what is fitting for him to do.  “It is easier to begin well, than to make alterations afterwards.”  And I think towards the end Newton (a very tender man) desires that this young man know his love for him and that even though he speaks with “much strictness” he does so out of deep love. 

This is but one example of why I love John Newton.  You can tell even in this letter that he has deep humility.  He does not just give advice and say, “Follow my advice.  I’m John Newton, fool.  Booyah!”  Neither does he shrink from giving hard advice.  He loves deeply and because of that he rejoices in the truth.  He has solid evangelical theology but it is married to a heart overwhelmed by grace.  We would be wise to sit under such godly counsel. 

And that is why I share insights from Newton every Thursday…

Borrowed Light: Today in Blogworld 12/19

Today seems to be a little slow in blogworld.

Of all the books I have read one of the most frustrating has to be Frank Page's Trouble with the Tulip. Of all the articles I have read one of the most encouraging has been Frank's Page's recent article in the Baptist Press: Calvinism and Southern Baptists. (HT: Founders) Page will be the first to admit that he is not a Calvinist. In fact he believes it is a manmade doctrine. He is cited in his Tulip book as saying, "It is also important to remember that man-made doctrines always hurt God's work" (74). Also he believes that, "manmade doctrines always give way to God's Word" (75). Yet in all of this Page also says, "Most everyone who knows me knows that I am not a Calvinist. However, I have made it clear that I would be fair to those who are Calvinists in appointments in our convention. I have been true to my word. I believe that the issue of Calvinism is one that can be discussed within the family of Southern Baptists. I believe we need to have honest, open dialogue." Although I must question why a man, convinced that Calvinists hinder God's work and give way to God's Word, would appoint them to important posts in the Convention. I still respect his willingness to be open and to dialogue. I praise God for this and pray along with Page that we might have a Christ-like spirit and be diligent in our studies.

Do you ever wonder what the answer to church-wide immorality is? Brian Thornton offers a suggestion. His answer? Simple. Regeneration. Thornton also gives 9 suggestions for combating church-wide-immorality. Of his 9 suggestions one I especially like is #4, "Teach kids the same things as the adults". One that I might have worded differently is #7, where he suggest making the center of our worship the Word and Sacraments. I know that by making Word capital he is pointing us to Jesus, but I would have worded it a little differently. My suggestion: "make the Triune God as revealed in the Scriptures and displayed in the Sacraments the center of our worship".

Also today, Josh Harris continues his study on Affluenza, we are now on Part 4.

That's it so far today.

Today in Blogworld 12/17

The first article I read this morning is probably the most sad. Dr. Mohler addresses a new agenda-filled T-shirt worn by toddlers. The T-shirt reads "My Daddy's name is Donor". No, that's not Donner, one of the 8 reindeer; it is a reference to a sperm donor. What is communicated to this little guy is that his daddy does not matter. Mohler sites Catherine Bruton of The Times in London who says: The T-shirt is offered by a company called Family Evolutions, founded by a lesbian couple whose son modelled the shirt. The co-founder, Stacey Harris, says that the T-shirt is empowering. "We want to lift the taboo surrounding donor conception so that kids don't feel that their coming into the world is a shameful secret," she says. "Kids who are empowered will grow up well-adjusted." Despite my concern over the political agenda behind this, I am most pained for this little child and the host of other little boys. What does it communicate to a male child when he is told that daddy doesn't matter? It means men do not matter. It means your masculinity does not matter. Truly sad.

John Piper reminds us that we need to feel homesick: "The likelihood of dying because you are a Christian is closer than it used to be for Americans. The freedom from such threats has generally existed in this country for a tiny portion of history (about 400 years). We have gotten used to it. It seems like the way things must be. So our first reaction to the threat that things might be otherwise is often anger. But that anger may be a sign that we have lost our sense of being aliens and exiles (“Beloved, I urge you as sojourners and exiles . . .” 1 Peter 2:11). Perhaps we have settled in too much to this world and this country in particular. We don't feel as homesick for Christ as Paul did..." Continue reading

In Acts29/MBC news, Founders has posted an interview with Kevin Larson. Larson is one of the 3 churches that will be deeply affected by this decision. The St. Louis Post has ran an article as well. My friend Sam of Believers Church, also deeply impacted by this decision, was interview for this article. My only regret is that in the Post article the author refers to these churches as "Emerging". That is not helpful to the discussion.

Josh Harris has parts two and three now posted on his affluenza series.

Pulpit Magazine attempts to answer a very good question about being unequally yoked: Question: Some people have told me that being unequally yoked is talking exclusively about marriage. Others have said that it applies also to business partnerships and other situations. Could you please expand on this? What does it mean to be unequally yoked and what type of a guideline should I have if it is okay for me to have a business partnership with a non-believer? Read the answer here.

And finally Thabiti Anyabwile, from Pure Church, tackles the Satan (I mean Santa) Claus debate. I am hoping that my friend Will accepts my invite to begin writing on this blog. If he does I would love to see him address this issue--I appreciate his stance on Christmas. As for Thabiti he says Down with Santa Claus. Here is his conclusion: "I'm not arguing a dogmatic causality here. I'm simply asking the question, "Why include Santa Claus at all?" Is the imagined upside of following the culture here worth what we think it's worth? And are our justifications helping us to point our children to Christ or masking the reality that we may be pointing our children away from Him? Personally, I doubt Santa Claus is worth it, and pointing our kids away from Jesus at Christmas may be the worst form of child neglect I can imagine."

Today in Blogworld 12/14

In less than a month I will get to see my son for the first time. How exciting. Articles like this one, "Delighting in Delight", are especially dear to my heart. I am anxiously awaiting God to teach me more of his gospel through my son. "Delighting in Delight" is the story of a father giving an expensive gift to his son. Especially gospel is this line: "I explained to him that it was my privilege to give him the castle as a gift and that he could show me gratitude not by attempting to pay me back, something he could not do despite his best efforts, but by playing with the castle and receiving from it a great deal of joy." I pray that we remember that our "great gift" is not a castle (as was Tim's son's) but God Himself! What a great gift that Christ has secured for His sheep!

It's flu season, and has been since the day after Thanksgiving. I'm not talking about the type of flu you think though. I am talking about affluenza. Josh Harris gives us part one on affluenza.

You should also check out a really interesting article by Anthony Bradley: Preaching to Smothered Mama's Boys. It's a good one for mothers to read (to know what NOT to do) and for men and fathers to read (to know the need to rescue the young men entrusted to you).