Christian Thought

It's All New!

2008-08-27T11:42:00.002-04:00

Is new better? I guess it can be sometimes. Hopefully you like my new page better. We're still working out a few of the bugs, but so far, so good (at least in my humble opinion).

Feel free to offer any feedback. We're still very flexible here.

For those of you who subscribe, you'll want to note that the new rss feed is here. Please update your readers accordingly!

Special thanks to Ryan at Strider for helping a technical dummy like me move over to a new host and new blogging software.

The Purpose of Pain

2008-08-27T10:31:00.000-04:00

The other day Stacey returned home with a special purchase for Susannah. It was a bottle of bright-coloured, foaming hand soap. Susannah has reached an age where we want her to be able to do more things (like washing her hands) on her own.

Susannah took to this task with joy! She stood at the sink (on a stool) like a big girl. She got her hands all soaped up, and then her daddy said, 'Put your hands under the water and rinse them off.' So she put her hands under the water... only to quickly pull them out and yelp, 'Hot!'

I had accidentally left the tap turned a little too far too the left. She wasn't badly hurt at all, but looked at me as if to say, 'I'm not doing that again!'

That got me thinking about pain. I thank God that Susannah is able to feel pain. Not because I like the thought of my daughter hurting, but because I know God's purposes in pain are good.

Medically speaking, it seems that the purposes of pain are generally straightforward: Pain alerts you to the fact that something is wrong in your body and needs attention. Something must be done now to avoid greater consequences later. Pain is a warning.

In James 5, James is alerting his audience--people who are undergoing suffering--that they must be patient to endure hardship and pain. He gives them several reasons. He argues that those who persecute them will be finally judged, and that the Judge stands at the door. He also refers to the prophets, and then to Job.

When he gets to Job, James becomes more specific and says,

you have seen the purpose of the Lord, how the Lord is compassionate and merciful.

The Lord's purpose in Job's suffering was compassionate and merciful. At the end of Job's turmoil, not only did he receive back more than he ever lost, he said these words:

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ... I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust ashes.

The Lord's purpose in Job's suffering was to reveal more of himself to Job--and then ultimately to us, thousands of years later. God was revealing himself as one who is compassionate and merciful, even in suffering.

There are things which are eternal and there are things which are temporal; things which will matter when the Judge appears, and other things that won't. At least a part of the purpose in our pain in this life is to warn us of a bigger problem: that this world and everything in it is cursed because of sin, and already under condemnation. We suffer pain, things fall apart, tragedy happens, all to warn us of a potentially greater tragedy to come: eternal condemnation and wrath against sinners for sin.

If Susannah didn't feel pain at the little bit of hot water, she might leave her hands there until they were scalded and then permanently damaged. The pain was uncomfortable, but it let her know that if she didn't act, worse would result. The Lord's purpose in pain is--like his purpose in everything else--compassionate and merciful. He desires to show us that there is no ultimate life, no hope, no safety in this world. Those things can and must be found in him alone. He wants to ween us off our selfish joy-seeking in the creation so that we might pursue true joy-seeking in the Creator.

How to Love More

2008-08-26T08:56:00.003-04:00

Even though we've moved on to chapter 5 in our study on James at GFC, I'm still marvelling at many of the things my Lord has been teaching me from his word.

Preaching big passages like I've had to do is great for seeing the big picture and covering more of God's word, but it necessarily means that there are lots of stones left unturned in each passage. Particularly, I've been thinking through James's promise in chapter 4: 'Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.'

One thing that amazed me the other night as I sat and thought this through is the similarity between this saying and that declaration of Jesus that the one who is forgiven most loves most. On the surface, they don't seem that connected, but I think there is a profound connection.

Every Christian wants to know how to love God more. The first and greatest commandment we have is this: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.' The reason why we still sin, why we become discouraged, or why we fall back into old patterns of living is because our love for God falls short of our love for ourselves.

The devil is our enemy. His greatest goal is to stop us from achieving our greatest goal, which is love for God, resulting in joy in God. We want to love God, but he'll do anything to stop that. Every Christian wants to love God more; but how do you practically increase your love for God?

James connects resisting the devil's work with drawing near to God. In response to our drawing near to God, God draws near to us. What kind of drawing near does James have in mind? He clarifies for us in the next couple of sentences, where he describes radical repentance, open confession of sin and sinfulness, and proper humility. In other words, draw near to God in humility, repentance, and brokenness, acknowledging the greatness of your sin.

We can begin to connect the dots here a little with Jesus' saying. We will love God more if we acknowledge more readily the reality of what we've been forgiven. But our enemy will have none of that--which is why we need to resist him. How do you resist Satan? By confessing your sins and drawing near to God.

It is the work of Satan to get you to think little of your sins. He desires that you not confess specific sins, that you not be heart-broken over the ways you've denied God. He wants you to just ignore sin in your life and not confess to brothers and sisters. The smaller you think your sin is, the less your love for God will grow, and the happier your enemy will be. 'He who is forgiven little, loves little.'

If your love for God has grown cold, you can probably draw a straight line back to your lack of confession of sin in your own heart, to God, and to others. When you don't realize what you've been forgiven, you don't love.

How do you grow to love more? Draw near to God in repentance. Acknowledge how horrible and ugly your sin is. Confess to him that you deserve death and hell. The more you draw near to him, the worse you'll see your sin is, the more you'll see how much you've been forgiven and the more you'll love--which will overflow into a life of God-glorifying joy in obedience.

Bob Kauflin on David Powlison on the Imprecatory Psalms

2008-08-21T13:35:00.002-04:00

Bob Kauflin (lead worshiper at Covenant Life Church) has posted notes on what looks like it was an awesome session from the WorshipGod '08 Conference. He's also got a link to download the mp3 of the sermon.

Check it out: David Powlison on the Imprecatory Psalms

(Isn't it interesting how much Powlison looks like he's imprecating someone? You gotta love a preacher that gets into character.)

Blacks, Whites, and Greys

2008-08-20T08:09:00.001-04:00

It's a funny thing to me how lessons seem to weave themselves into our lives at seemingly 'random' points in time (which, of course, shows me that they're not random at all). Over the past eight weeks or so, as I've been preaching through James, I've been amazed at how clearly he contradicts our contemporary worldview and way of looking at life. In our culture there are no black and white issues, only greys. Members of PETA, who say it's wrong to kill for food, probably still smack mosquitoes. What's wrong in one situation may be okay in another. There are all kinds of greys.

James, however, continually teaches by setting up worldviews as opposed to each other. Either you're steadfast or you waffle, either you are a doer or a hearer only, either you have a pure religion or a worthless religion, your source of speech is either a fresh spring or salt water, your wisdom is either from God or from Satan, and so on. You're one or the other, black or white. There is no middle ground, no fence to sit on.

The funny part about all of this is how I've been growing in my understanding of the many issues where thoughtful, biblical, Jesus-loving Christians disagree about moral issues. Do you drink or not? Do you do home-school, public school, or Christian school? What kind of language is okay and what is not? What type of guidelines should we use when we dress? These things are anything but black and white, and real Christians really disagree.

So what do we do? Do we respond with insisting that there is a 'black and white' answer for every issue? Do we argue incessantly about it until people see it our way? Do we just stress privately because everyone else is wrong?

I think the answer of humility is found in a passage like Romans 14:

Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgement on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgement on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

In other words, your brother or sister who sees things differently than you isn't your servant, and you're not his or her judge. They do have a master and a judge, but you're not him. To judge them as if they need to give an account to you is to contend for supremacy with God. It's pride.

Not judging is only the beginning, however. More than not judging, we must also be careful to be proactive in love:

Therefore let us not pass judgement on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

To flaunt your freedom is the opposite reaction to judging and condemning, but it's equally unloving. 'If your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love.'

The admonition comes again: 'Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.' What Paul is saying here is that when we value our freedoms so much that we're not willing to give them up for the sake of loving a brother or sister and 'not grieving' them, then we've valued our own freedom more than we've valued one of God's children.

The humble, Christian response to the 'greys' is to lovingly refuse to judge, and then to lovingly resist the urge to flaunt our freedoms in front of others who don't enjoy the same freedoms.

This calls for love and humility all around. On different issues I've found myself sometimes being the one tempted to judge, and sometimes being the one tempted to stumble. I can say from experience that neither side is easy. But Christian community is a beautiful thing when, by the power of the Spirit, Christians are walking in this kind of self-denying, self-sacrificing love, living out humility. It's been a delight to see it in action at GFC, and I can only pray for more.

Dinner Conversation

2008-08-19T19:21:00.002-04:00

Okay, maybe this is only funny if you know us, but here's an excerpt from tonight's dinner conversation.

Julian: 'Having a wife is like living with a post-modern literary critic: the only meaning that matters is the one determined by the hearer.'

Stacey: 'Living with you is like living with a geek.'

I laughed pretty hard.

7 Reasons to Say 'God Willing...'

2008-08-19T10:39:00.004-04:00

These are some notes taken from the sermon I preached this past Sunday at GFC. I was preaching from James 4:13-17 and the necessity of realizing our absolute dependence on God before we do any planning--even mundane, day-to-day planning. You can listen to the whole sermon here to get the context for the notes that follow.

Under the final point, I suggested the following seven reasons why Christians should be intentional and deliberate to refer to future plans with the caveat, 'God willing' (or 'if the Lord wills,' or some other variant).

It Will Humble You.

Every time you say 'If the Lord wills, I'll live, and then I'll...' or something like that, you'll be reminded of your own essential contingency. In other words, you're not necessary, and there's no reason to presume that you'll live. You'll be reminded by your own voice that you don't have the power to bring about what you plan any more than you have the power to determine if you'll keep living or not.

It Will Give You Opportunities to Witness.

People will figure out pretty quickly that you're not normal if you're using this kind of language. Eventually, someone will ask why you're always mentioning God's will. When they do, you'll already be on the topics of the Creatorship and providence of God, and the fact that life is a mist and death is imminent--your life hangs on his will. Here is an open door for the gospel!

It Will Give You Opportunities to be Ridiculed / Persecuted.

Christ himself pronounced blessing on all those who are reviled and persecuted for the sake of his name and for the sake of righteousness. Why would we expect the world to look at the future the same way we do, when all through James he has insisted that we have different perspectives and different kinds of wisdom? Being persecuted and reviled, then, becomes another opportunity to grow in the humility of obedience in submitting ourselves to God.

It Will Change the Way You Think.

The way we speak is of utmost importance (as James always insists). As Lloyd-Jones has so famously said, we need to spend more time talking to ourselves than listening to ourselves. The way that we speak will effect ourselves more profoundly than anyone else. By being deliberate in the type of language that we use, we're training ourselves to think in biblical categories. When we change our words, it will change our thoughts, which will change our feelings, which changes us over time.

It Will Reveal Idols.

If there is something that you're planning, or something that you desire for the future, and you're not willing to attach the thought, 'God willing' to it, then you're clinging to it too tightly. That fact alone reveals that you are looking to that future possibility to bring life, hope, joy, or peace--things we must find in God alone. Whatever you're not willing to give up for God (to hand over to his control to determine whether it will come to pass or not) that is an idol to you. It is a false god and needs to be put to death.

It Will Force You to Think in Ethical Categories.

Sometimes we can think through future plans or situations without any reference to moral / ethical categories. Saying 'God willing' makes us ask, 'Would God be willing?' Once God--the standard of righteousness--is brought into the equation, we're forced to think in standards of righteousness. You can say 'I'm going to go to the party this Saturday night and not think anything of it. But you can't say 'God willing, I'll go to the party' without thinking about whether or not God would be willing for you to go. All of a sudden we're forced to reckon with God's thoughts on drunkenness, revelry, debauchery, etc., and that may inform our plans to go or not go.

Silence Can be Sin.

James 4.17 is a verse that most of us have heard and know well, but have never applied to its context. James warns that to not take seriously the notion of God's will when considering our future is to sin. Simply saying these words is one way we can flee sin and pursue righteousness by acknowledging God, his providence, his will, his plan. Not saying it can be sin; but saying it can help safeguard our hearts from neglecting to consider God's will before our own.

Male Modesty?

2008-08-14T13:14:00.004-04:00

A good friend of mine, whose opinion I respect greatly, has some different views than me on the issue of a woman's modesty in dress. One of the objections he will bring up in conversations on this issue is that there is no male equivalent; a man's modest or immodest dress doesn't affect women.

What he means in this: If I wear an unbuttoned shirt, the effect will be to gross people out and drive them away, rather than cause them to stare... unless they're staring like people stare at a car wreck on the 401. Either way, I doubt they're sinning (unless they're becoming angry at being forced to look on such a sight). The point, however, is this: If men are speaking about what types of guidelines women should have for dress, it is necessarily hypocritical (at least to some degree) because those are issues and standards that don't apply to us. They are rules that are necessarily other-centred, which just about always will lead to legalism.

I concede his point that my wearing short-shorts won't cause women to lust, but I disagree with the notion that there is no such thing as male modesty. In Sex is Not the Problem, Lust Is, Joshua Harris writes:

Have you ever interacted with an immodestly dressed girl and really wished she had a clue about how much her clothing affected you? Well, as a guy you need to realize that certain things you do and say to girls are the equivalent of male cleavage--they just aren't helpful to our sisters. We need to get a clue!

Josh argues that since a woman's desires are generally more rooted in emotional longings, things like flirting and physical touch--anything that can make a woman feel like she is being pursued or singled out for attention--are potential stumbling blocks for them. A guy who wants to love and protect his sisters in Christ will want to watch his 'male cleavage' (an almost disgustingly vivid image, I must say).

Here's a more extended quote that I think is quite good on this issue. It's taken from I Kissed Dating Goodbye.

The Guy's Responsibility
Guys, its time we stood up to defend the honor and righteousness of our sisters. We need to stop acting like "hunters" trying to catch girls and begin seeing ourselves as warriors standing guard over them.

How do we do this? First we must realize that girls don't struggle with the same temptations we struggle with. We wrestle more with our sex drives while girls struggle more with their emotions. We can help guard their hearts by being sincere and honest in our communication. We need to swear off flirtatiousness and refuse to play games and lead them on. We have to go out of our way to make sure nothing we say or do stirs up inappropriate feelings or expectations.

…

I want to weep when I think of the many times I have neglected my responsibility to guard girls' hearts. Instead of playing the role of a warrior, I played the thief, stealing their focus from God for myself. I'm determined to do better. I want to be the kind of friend to whom girls' future husbands could one day say, "Thank you for standing watch over my wife’s heart. Thank you for guarding her purity."

Amen! Men, let's set our sights here to protect the hearts of our sisters.

I Don't Get It

2008-08-13T09:00:00.002-04:00

The further along in the book of James we go, the more points there are when I think, '...Huh?'

It's a bizarre experience to look ahead in the book, know that there are only a few weeks left to finish the last chapter and a half, and realize that you don't really understand what they mean. It's humbling and exciting.

I pray that our Lord would use these last few weeks to teach the saints at GFC through me... as he has taught me! Because if he doesn't teach me, I'll be in trouble.

My prayer now is that he'll keep me back from trying to force my assumed interpretations on the text in a panic to say something. I know that 'those who teach will be subject to stricter judgement,' so I pray that he'll show me how to 'rightly divide the word' in the coming works. If you get a chance, please remember to pray for me.

For Christian Husbands

2008-08-12T11:00:00.000-04:00

As I lamented yesterday, preaching through James 4.1-12 quickly made me a little sad because I wasn't able to pursue some rabbit trails that I would've loved to go down. One of those was how this passage should instruct us guys in our husbandry.

In verse four, the people of God are referred to as 'adulteresses.' Why? Because, in the metaphor of the passage, God is the husband of his people, but their affections and longings are for other lovers. They seek their joy, their pleasures, etc., in the things that this world has to offer. They are cheating on their spouse.

How does God respond to this unfaithful, disrespectful, immoral wife? The next verse tells us: He 'yearns jealously' for her. He remains unchanged in his devotion to her, even though she doesn't long for him. He loves her with a steadfast love, even when she refuses to love him and treats him in the most horrible of ways.

That ought to teach us men something about the way we should husband.

It is Good and Right for a Husband to Long for the Affections of His Wife.

all

Our Affections Must Not Be Determined by Hers.

while we were still sinners

We Must Not Give Up.

Take Heart, You Are In Good Company.

Joshua & Amy Do a Duet

2008-08-12T07:03:00.003-04:00

In honour of our friends Nick & Alicia, at their wedding. Enjoy!

Overwhelmed

2008-08-11T16:21:00.003-04:00

There are benefits and drawbacks to preaching large portions of text. The benefits are too numerous to get into, but one of the drawbacks is that you don't get to stop and to meditate for as long as you'd like on a single thought expressed in your passage, because there are so many other things to get to.

Yesterday I preached on James 4.1-12. As usual, I talked too long and said too little, but the text itself is absolutely amazing. The thought that gripped me the most, personally, as I laboured through the text last week (and even while I preached) was verse 5:

Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”?

That thought absolutely blew me away.

How could this be? The God of the universe not only puts up with me when he should obliterate me, but 'yearns jealously' for my devotion to him? He yearns with a jealousy of a husband for his bride (according to the analogy of the passage).

What an absolute shame that we take so lightly the thought that God loves us. Of all things in Scripture, this should be the thought that amazes us the absolute most.

God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5.8)

And again,

By this we know love, that [Christ] laid down his life for us (1 Jn 3.16).

In our chapter (James 4), James does something amazing: He contrasts our desires (which are at war within us, and bring quarrels and fights) with God's desire for his people (which is singular, faithful, loving, and brings peace). This truth ought to humble us, amaze us, and increase our love for him.

Where the church's desires are many, and illicit, and have grieved our groom, his desires are single, and faithful, and pure, and have brought our joy.

Where his one desire produces peace, our many desires have yielded enmity between God and us, and fights between us all.

And yet, he loves us still. And he 'yearns jealously' for our affections... what an overwhelming love! What an amazing God!

I guess I'm a loud sneezer...?!

2008-08-07T13:18:00.002-04:00

Picturing this conversation had me laughing pretty good.

Check it out at Janis's blog: Progression of a Conversation between a 3.5 year old and a 2 year old.

Thoughts on Baptism

2008-08-07T11:08:00.003-04:00

In the life of our church, there is no greater highlight (in my mind) than when we celebrate baptisms. The baptism of a believer is the rite of inauguration into the church of Jesus Christ. When we celebrate baptism, we celebrate that one more soul has been delivered from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of Christ, in whom there is true redemption, the forgiveness of sins (Col 1.13-14).

Over the years our Lord has continued to save people at Grace Fellowship Church, and we absolutely glory in that! As I prepare to meet in the near future with some of these individuals who are preparing to be baptised, I have had opportunity to study the doctrine of baptism from Scripture all over again.

What did I find this time? I found that it's even more glorious than I remember. Here are three things that impressed me this morning as I studied baptism.

The ultimate importance of baptism.

In the book of Acts, I was amazed to see where baptism is placed, and how careful Luke is to include it wherever the gospel is preached. What I found really amazing this morning is the connection of baptism with the growth of the church.

Most people are familiar with the fact that the book of Acts is recorded as the fulfilment of Acts 1.8, where Jesus says that 'you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.' Acts, then, proceeds to show how the church does in fact spread through all those places.

What I noticed this morning, however, is that wherever the church spreads in accord with this promise, baptism figures prominently. In Acts 2.37-42, Peter preaches to the Jews in Jerusalem and when they ask how to be saved, he says, 'Repent and be baptized!' In Acts 8, when Philip preaches the gospel in Samaria, and many there believe, Luke records that 'when they believed ... they were baptized, both men and women.' Then, finally, in Acts 10 when Peter brings the gospel to the Gentiles (representative for the rest of the non-Jewish world, i.e. 'to the ends of the earth'), he sees that they do believe, and once they are converted he declares, 'Who can withhold water for baptism?' From Jerusalem to Samaria, to the ends of the earth, where the church goes forth, so does baptism of believers. That is seriously important!

The intimate connection of baptism with salvation.

Baptism in the New Testament is intimately connected with salvation / regeneration / conversion / belief / the work of the Holy Spirit. This is seen first in the proclamation of Peter in the first New Covenant gospel presentation, where he openly declares that to be saved, the Jews must 'Repent and be baptized.' This does not mean that baptism is a work that must be done to be saved, but rather it shows that in Peter's mind the 'repentance and belief' (the phrase that is used through the rest of the book) is so inextricably tied up with baptism, that he conceives of the two as being inseparable.

We see this not just with Peter's preaching on Pentecost, but also in 1 Peter 3.18-22. Here Peter speaks of 'baptism ... which saves you.' In the context we see that Peter is speaking of the whole process of being delivered from judgement through identification with Christ by faith--but in his mind, baptism, the symbol of this salvation, is so intimately connected with the salvation process that he can speak of this baptism as the deliverance from the 'waters of judgement' (i.e. God's wrath).

To speak of turning to Christ in faith for salvation from the judgement of God is to speak of the salvation process which involves baptism of believers--the two are intimately connected.

The profound symbolism of baptism.

In the 1 Peter passage above, there is a profound symbolism associated with baptism (Noah and the ark passing through the waters of God's judgement). Elsewhere in the NT there is other profound symbolism associated with baptism as well. For example, in Romans 6 Paul teaches that our physical descent into the water, submersion under the water, and then rising up from being underneath the water symbolizes Christ's death and resurrection. As we descend under the water, and ascend from out of the water our unification with Christ in his death and resurrection is symbolized. Just like he died to sin and was made alive to God, so are all who have faith in him.

Colossians 2 uses similar imagery. Verse 12 says that we have 'been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.' In other words, in baptism, we are giving public testimony to the reality that we have died and been born again by the powerful working of God. The same power has worked in us as was worked on Christ, when he was raised from the dead, and this we bear witness to when we are baptised. Just as he has been raised, so also we will be raised.

Now that is some profound symbolism.

I can't help but think that in too many churches, the importance of baptism is underrated. If it was this important for the early church and meant this much to the inspired apostles, we should make it our aim to value it no less than they did!

For further study on the doctrine of baptism, feel free to download and use our 'Preparation for Baptism Worksheet.'

Be Cool: Be Natural

2008-08-07T10:57:00.002-04:00

The 'all-natural' fad is in full-swing. Stephen Altrogge comments:

Here’s your “How To Be On the Cutting Edge of Coolness” tip for the day: get into natural stuff. It seems that if you want to earn any cool points in today’s world you need to be embracing a natural, organic lifestyle. You must buy naturally grown plants, drink shade-grown organic coffee, wear all-natural cotton garments, and maintain a natural diet that includes at least 43 servings of fruits, vegetables, and humus every day. You’re not going to get a lot of takers when you host a ‘processed’ dinner party, with lots of Velveeta cheese, Spam, and Coca-Cola on the menu. ...

Read his continued thought here...

From Legalism to Licentiousness (and back again...?)

2008-08-05T10:30:00.004-04:00

Over the last few Sunday evenings at Grace Fellowship Church, my friend Paul McDonald has been opening up Galatians 5.13 for us. The verse reads like this:

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

Over the flow of the book of Galatians, the apostle has been arguing that we are now free from bondage to the law and from all forms of legalism. This is fantastic news! For Christians of my generation, I often think that we take our Christian liberty for granted. We haven't had to fight the battles for allowing women to wear pants, or for instruments other than piano / organ; we haven't had to deal with the real rabid KJV-only types or the 'don't drink, don't play cards, don't watch movies' mentality of the previous generation.

We have our freedom. We enjoy our freedom. But I often think we take it for granted.

The trouble is that when we take our freedom for granted, it's only a very small step from freedom to licentiousness. Having moved on from legalism, much of our church culture now seems to glory in the fact that there is 'no law over us,' so we can do as we wish.

In Galatians 5.13, Paul seems to be saying, 'Don't give up your freedom (since that's why you were set free), but don't glory in your freedom at the expense of your brothers and sisters.' Just like everywhere else in the NT, the old, written code is replaced by the law of love.

No one in the early church understood and lived this balance better than the apostle Paul. As he would argue in his epistles to the Corinthians, he had every freedom and every right to take a wife, to eat what he wanted, drink what he wanted, accept payment from them for his ministry, etc. He had those freedoms! But, because he knew that he could better serve his brothers and sisters in love if he denied himself those freedoms, he didn't take them.

One really practical area where this works itself out in church life (as Paul McDonald taught), is modesty in women's dress. Just like the apostle Paul, women could rightly declare that they have freedom from outside rules in terms of what they wear. There are no NT regulations on skirt length, sleeve length, how far a blouse should be unbuttoned, etc. But the NT rule that does exist is love and service. Just like the apostle, women who love and seek to serve their brothers (and sisters) in humility, will limit their freedom for the sake of love and wear what is helpful in order to serve.

Of course, once this is understood, this gives opportunity for legalism again, because our flesh hears 'Serve by dressing modestly' and applies that to our hearts as 'Since I (or my wife) dress(es) modestly, we should judge those who don't.' We then create a new set of standards to determine what is 'modest' and what is not, and measure other people against that criteria. And the circle is then completed: we've moved from legalism, to licentiousness, back to legalism again.

So what do we do? Well, first we must work on the log in our own eye. Examining our hearts must take first priority. Do I really believe in Christian freedom? Do I impose standards on people that the Bible doesn't? Am I looking to things like dress to help ensure that I am justified?

Second, we should seek to apply the love of love. Am I grasping and clinging to my freedom at the expense of hurting brothers and sisters? Is my love of my freedom to dress and act how I wanted prohibiting me from serving? Is giving others occasion for sin (Lk 17.1-2)?

Third, we must remain humble and charitable. Just because the Lord is working on my heart and convicting me of sin in a particular area doesn't mean that he has to work on other people in the same way at the same time. We need to remember that we didn't use to know what we're now convinced of, and apart from a work of grace we never would have known it. We must not use our convictions as a throne from which we can cast judgement on other believers.

Fourth, pray for grace to find the balance. I pray that God would give me grace in every area (not just dress) to find the balance between glorying in my freedom and giving up my freedoms for the sake of my church family. I pray that I would never return either to legalism or licentiousness--but that when I do, that God would forgive me again, just like he always has before.

Listing of Tom Schreiner's Sermons Online

2008-08-01T14:14:00.001-04:00

While several have made admirable attempts to catalogue all the free online D.A. Carson sermons they could find, this is the first such list I've come across for Dr Thomas R Schreiner.

You can view the list here. Make sure that if you know of any others, you point them out in the comment section.

Two Random Thoughts

2008-07-31T09:32:00.003-04:00

Line of the Day:

I'm not insecure... I just want everyone else to think as highly of me as I do.

Thought for the Day:

Remember when you were little and a friend would have a birthday party? You'd watch the mother cut all the pieces of cake and hand them out to each child. Secretly you'd be inspecting each piece for consistency of size. Inevitably, somehow you ended up with the smallest piece. Or, even if it wasn't the smallest, it was definitely smaller than your brother's.

The other day I was sitting at my brother's computer, as we were looking at some ideas for some web page designs. The whole time we were there, I kept thinking to myself... 'Man, his monitor is so much bigger than mine... that stinks--I want one this big!' That night he came over and we sat at my computer and continued the same process. Finally I couldn't take it any more and blurted out something to the effect of 'How big is your monitor anyway?'

Turns out, his monitor is the exact same size as mine. And to top it all off, while he had been sitting at my computer, he had been thinking to himself that my monitor was bigger. I suppose that says something about our hearts, eh?

'Folly is bound up in the heart of a child.' Some of us just take longer to grow up, I guess.

My Girls

2008-07-30T11:23:00.003-04:00

My girls... In their PJ's, all calm and quiet, ready for bed. Or not.

Christian Wedding Vows

2008-07-28T17:08:00.002-04:00

It's wedding season... which is great! I love thinking about weddings. Their whole point, after all, is to point to my Saviour and his love for his bride--and I like to think about that!

Since staying married is not about staying in love, but about reflecting the covenant-keeping love of Christ, the centrepiece and focal point of a Christian wedding is the vows.

What a couple views marriage as is reflected in what they promise to each other. As I've suggested before, I think Christian couples should at least endeavour to memorize their vows, so as to be able to speak them clearly, forthrightly, and meaningfully when the moment comes, looking their partner in the eyes as they speak.

Just for fun I thought I'd post the vows that Stacey and I spoke to each other in the presence of God, family, and friends on June 19, 2004, when we were wed. I keep a copy of mine posted with a wedding picture right beside my desk so that I can regularly reflect on the meaning of what I've promised.

Here are our vows.

Julian

I, Julian, take you, Stacey, to be my wife.
In the presence of God and these witnesses I pledge my love and devotion to you and to you alone for as long as God grants us both life.
I promise to be faithful, patient, kind, humble, and gentle; to serve you and to give myself up for you, as Christ has given himself up for his bride.
I will love you as my own body; endeavouring to lead you and help you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus.
As God grants grace, I promise to make our home one where Christ is exalted and God is glorified in our love for each other and in our devotion to him, above and beyond all else.

Stacey

I, Stacey, take you, Julian, to be my husband; to share with you God’s will for our lives. As we journey through this life, with both its joys and hardships, I promise to love and be faithful to you.
I will obey, trust and encourage you, Julian, as long as we both shall live.
I promise to follow you as you follow God, believing all things and hoping all things.
I will pursue godliness in all areas of my own life, that together our lives and home may bring glory and honour to our Lord.

Thinking About How You Read

2008-07-24T14:42:00.002-04:00

A few years back I was struck by the realization that the way I read the Bible was being handicapped by the way the pages were laid out. Here are just a few examples.

The pages are laid out in columns. What other book is laid out like that? When I read the Bible, I was subconsciously aware I was reading the Bible, and that affected the manner in which I read. It occurred to me that I couldn't really read the letters like they are letters or the stories like they are stories because I was thinking 'this is the Bible' while I was reading.

There are chapter and verse numbers everywhere. This means that all the problems from above apply, and more. Now I'm subconsciously inserting breaks in thought in wherever there are numbers on the page. But the writers of the Bible didn't put the numbers there, and so very often the numbers are in awkward spots, creating divisions where there shouldn't be one. I wasn't seeing connections between sentences and paragraphs because my eyes were reading artificial breaks into the text.

There are paragraph headings. While these are sometimes useful if I'm trying to find something in a hurry, they are a pain more often than not. They tell me the point of what I'm about to read before I read it--which necessarily limits my own ability to process the text and analyze it on my own, which would result in better learning, and longer-lasting ability to recall what I've read.

The spelling is wrong. This only applies to those of us north of the border, and you can call me crazy or say I have OCD or whatever, but I do notice when a book spells words the American way (i.e. 'Savior' instead of 'Saviour'). It just catches my eye and distracts me.

And then on top of these things, there is never enough room on a page of the Bible to write any good notes or draw lines connecting thoughts, or things like that.

So what have I done about it? I've taken matters into my own hands and created my own Bible. Sacrilegious as it sounds... it's not. I go to the ESV website, adjust the preferences so that it doesn't show chapter & verse numbers or paragraph headings, and then display a whole book. Copy and paste that into your word processor with Canadian spell check and bingo-bango, there ya go.

Once the doc is in your word processor, you can lay it out on the page however you want. I generally will do 1.5 line spacing, and leave large margins on the top, bottom, and sides of the page. Hit 'print' and you've got your own copy of the book to read, mark-up, and learn from.

Try it once and I guarantee it changes the way your read the book.

The way you lay out the words on the page will have a lot to do with your personality and the way you like to read and mark-up your Bible, so try a few different ways. Think hard about what distracts you from focusing on the words on the page and try to eliminate those to enhance your ability to freely read and understand the biblical text.

The only thing you need to do is respect copyright laws. Don't distribute copies of your books. I think you're okay to do this for your own personal use though (from the little I understand of copyright laws).

I've uploaded a couple pages of the book of James of my version, so that you can see it, if you like. I've only done the first little bit of the book here though, because I can't reproduce more than 50% of the book.

Download the pdf of the first part of James.

Let me know if you meet with any success!

What in the World is a Knol?

2008-07-24T11:25:00.003-04:00

I haven't quite figured out how these things work yet, but I've attempted to create some knols. You can check out my bio here. It has a links to the articles I've posted so far.

I'm not really sure if the knol thing will take off or not, but I thought I'd throw some stuff out there and try it out. Let me know if you've got any thoughts.

Psalm 16

2008-07-16T09:54:00.003-04:00

In a previous post I suggested a four-level approach to interpreting some of the Psalms along the lines of redemptive-history. Here I hope to model that in an abbreviated form, using Psalm 16.

1. Read the Psalm as David sings.
David cries to God as king of God's people, in dependence on him alone. As leader of the people his delight is in the saints (the holy ones). As their leader he won't participate in the worship of idols which leads only to destruction. Rather, he will worship and follow the Lord, because in him he has beautiful inheritance (the promise of a son to sit on his throne). As a man after God's own heart, David could indeed rejoice in the counsel and leading of the Lord. He knew that as a follow of Yahweh, he would not be abandoned to utter destruction, but that the Lord would finally redeem him. He looked forward to the 'pleasures forevermore' in the presence of God.

2. Read the Psalm as Israel sings.
The righteous of the people of Israel would rejoice that their king called on the Lord for help, and they would follow his example. The warnings of verse four (sorrows for following another God) contrasted with the promises of verses five and six (joy in God) served as general admonitions to each other to follow hard after their God, since there was no joy to be found elsewhere. As a people they could rejoice in the inheritance of the land that they had been promised. The Lord had given them his counsel in Torah and said he would dwell in their midst if they followed him. As a promise of God, they knew that the 'holy one' (those who were righteous) would not be abandoned by God in death, but would be saved from judgement.

3. Read the Psalm as Jesus sings.
In his human life, Jesus continually and perfectly sought refuge in his Father. The life that he had in himself was the Father's life, the words that he spoke were the Father's words, and the works that he did were what he saw the Father doing. He takes delight in the saints (the righteous) who hear his word and believe. He would not give in to the idolatry of the world, but perfectly fulfil the law in a perfectly pure life. His chosen portion and his lot were the person of his Father, through the mediation of the Spirit--his food and drink was to do the Father's will. In a truer sense than any mere human could ever know, when Jesus spent whole nights in prayer he could sing 'the Lord gives me counsel; in the night also my heart instructs me.' Because God was at his right hand, he was not finally shaken--even through all his suffering. His faith in his Father did not waver, so he was glad and rejoiced, knowing that his soul and flesh would be secure in the end. As Paul saw in Acts 13.35, this generic 'holy one' who would not be abandoned is specifically and ultimately fulfilled in the 'Holy One' who is Messiah, crucified and then resurrected. He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life endured the cross for the joy that was set before him--he can sing more than any other: 'in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.' He can sing this as the one who has entered into God's presence in a way that none of us ever have or could.

4. Read the Psalm as Christians sing.
God, in Christ, is our only refuge from sin, Satan, and death. We have nothing but sin apart from the work of the Spirit of Christ, which he sent. The 'saints' are those who have been sanctified (set apart) by Christ's blood--and in our church we delight. We know that the sorrows of those who run after other gods will multiply because we have seen the ultimate sorrow for sin: the cross of Christ. We know that God is for us, and we know we have a glorious inheritance in Christ: we have been blessed with all the blessings of the heavenly places, and God didn't spare even his own Son, so how will he now not freely also give us all things? If he is for us, who can be against us? We surely cannot be shaken, because Christ was not and cannot be forsaken--we are ultimately secure. Since 'the Holy One' was not forsaken, we know that his 'holy ones' will not be forsaken; he has gone before us to make a way. Christ has secured for us pleasure forevermore and fulfilment of joy because he has prayed for us, that we would be with him, where he is, to see his glory and not die. There is therefore now no condemnation, but only joy in the presence of God.

What a glorious thought! What great reasons to sing!

Too Cute

2008-07-15T13:08:00.004-04:00

I just had to post these. They're some pictures taken from the nursery of our church on a Wednesday night. The older kids in nursery are longingly watching the GraceKids classes outside playing games. It's awesome. (At least I thought they were looking at the other kids playing... on second thought, maybe they were trying to catch a glimpse of celebrity blogger Tim Challies at play. If you look close enough, you can find him too!)

Things I Love

2008-07-14T13:38:00.005-04:00

Aside from my Saviour, my greatest love is for my family. So, of course, this post brings me great delight.

My wife, Stacey, has been blogging for a few months now--and I love it! This post is just reciting a few of our favourite memories of our kids from over the past few weeks. They grow up so fast... it's so much fun to think of all the different things they're learning.

Hope you enjoy it half as much as I did!

Read the full article here: Precious Moments

A Redemptive-Historical Approach

2008-07-09T09:15:00.003-04:00

I thought that this morning I could offer another method I enjoy using while meditating on the Psalms. I don't really have a name for it, but it takes a sort of Redemptive-Historical approach. Using this method I'll read through the Psalm on four levels--which usually means reading through the Psalm at least a few times.

One mistake I've seen people make a lot of times is try to jump straight from the Psalmist's experience to their own. While this can be done sometimes without doing harm to the text, I think it generally misses the point of the Psalm, which is always to illustrate some truth about God, and how to live under his revelation (which, for the Christian, is often different than it was for David).

So here's what I do. Read through the Psalm once as David (or whoever the psalmist is). Think through his experience and his actual life situation (especially if there's an ascription). What did these words mean to him, in that moment of his life? This step seems overly simple, but it's something we often overlook in our rush to apply the text to ourselves. We forget that there was an actual psalmist who actually lived, who actually went through the things he's writing about. We don't want to forget that.

Second, I read through the Psalm from the perspective of Israel. This book was their collection of worship songs. How would they have sung these songs over the different periods of their history? Think through the stages of Israel's development, decadence, destruction, and return from exile? How would these words have taken on new life for them as they clung to the deliverance of God that they had seen (the Exodus) and the promises of God for the future for hope, salvation, a land, the presence of God, etc. Put yourself in their shoes and think through these words and they take on new life.

Third, read the Psalm as if it is a prayer of Jesus. Now, we want to be careful here because not all of the words of the Psalm may rightly be seen as Christ's. Confessions of sin and the like must be seen as the words of the psalmist and those who followed him only. This shouldn't stop us from seeing the heart of Christ in the Psalms, though. Very often, as David pours out his heart (which is a heart after God's), it reflects Christ's own situation and feelings very well. This is typology at its greatest! David's words are fulfilled--their meaning is 'filled up'--by Christ's experience. At the same time, they are heightened (e.g. if it was true for David that he was hated without cause, how much more for Christ!), and crystallized (e.g. Psalm 69.21: 'for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink'). The Great King who really has the heart of God, who was known as a man of prayer, who was a Warrior in the truest sense, who was ultimately hated without a cause and betrayed by his friends is Jesus. He ultimately fulfils the Psalms.

Finally, we get to us. How do the Psalms relate to us? They apply to us as followers of the one who has fulfilled them. Jesus taught that those who follow him will be associated with him, and therefore suffer persecution for righteousness' sake. Where the Psalms speak of forgiveness, atonement, the presence of God, the temple of God, we know even better than the psalmist how we ought to rejoice because of these things! The psalmist knew that the Lord made atonement for sins (Ps 65.3), but we know how he has done it! What the psalmist looked to and hoped in as promise, we look back on Christ and see as fulfilled promise. Our God has kept his word, and so our hope is sure. Even more than the psalmist ever could we can rightly call our God our hope, strength, shelter, tower, and refuge.

For the sake of length, I'll end here and hopefully give a concrete example from a Psalm soon.

Sermons on James

2008-07-07T10:32:00.003-04:00

For those interested, I've added an rss feed on the sidebar for the sermon-series I'm preaching through the book of James. Whenever sermons from that series are put online, it will be posted here as well. As always through sermonaudio, the sermons are free to download, or else you can stream them directly from the website.

Our sermonaudio homepage is here.
The homepage for the series on James is here.

A Friday Meditation on the Psalms

2008-07-04T08:00:00.002-04:00

In keeping with our current theme, I wanted to post something on interpreting the Psalms today. That being said, I am scrambling to get up to the cottage, so I didn't have time to write something new and thoughtful. But I came across this in my journal from a while ago, and it 'just happened' to be a meditation on one of the Psalms I'm reading today.

This is a model, but not an explanation, of one method that I've found helpful in interpreting and applying the Psalms to my heart. I pray through the Psalm using the 'How Much More' method.

The Psalms are reflections on living life before God under the law. They are offerings of praise and prayer to the God who has revealed himself in the Old Covenant. We, however, worship God in the New Covenant, so our worship--while it is still to the same God--is more informed, because God has been ultimately revealed in Christ. Our praise and prayer, then, must be a reflection of living life under the New Covenant.

The 'How Much More' method just finds a place where God has revealed an attribute of himself, or where the psalmist speaks of the deliverance or judgement of God, and says: 'If this was true for them, how much more have we seen this in the New Covenant, now that Christ has come.'

What follows below is a journal entry. It's a personal meditation from Psalm 34. Please only take it for what it's worth. I highly recommend you read the Psalm before reading the prayer below.

-------

The psalmist makes his boast in the Lord and admonishes the humble because he has been humbled. He was delivered by the Lord's mercy through his humiliation. How could he be proud? How could he boast of delivering himself by his might, worth, or wisdom? Far be it from me to boast of my salvation and my deliverance when I was humbled far beyond him.

David declares that he sought the Lord in his fears--and not without tears--and that God heard him and saved him from all his troubles. What were David's troubles but earthly concerns and cares for his life? My God, these are dire, but what of my soul? If David should cry and seek with tears, then how much more should I? David was afraid of those who could kill the body, but I am numb to the fear of him who could destroy body and soul.

David found God's deliverance super-abundant. The Angel of the Lord encamped and delivered him from his greatest needs. Therefore, he admonishes me today to taste and see. What can he mean by this except that I should call on the Lord in my fears and tears, even as he had done? He is confident of this: having tasted, none will be disappointed.

How true have I found this? Millions have called on the Lord in their distress and not been disappointed. The Angel of the Lord--Jesus Christ, God himself--encamps around me, delivering not just my body, but my soul from its greatest enemies: sin and death.

And now, Lord, I pray that in my current need, I would still find that as I taste, I find you good. My God, in your grace, be my delight, be my joy, be my soul's rest. For you alone are Delight, Joy, and Sabbath. I know this because I have tasted.

To what shall I compare this heart of mine which restlessly seeks its joy? It is like a cup that must be filled by either air or liquid. As the filling of a cup with coffee expels the air, so my desire for you--when it fills my heart--expels every earthly desire. Likewise, if I fill my cup with air, it necessarily means there is no liquid present. My heart cannot be full of you and desires for this world, its toys, and its pleasures.

Or perhaps these things may be compared to a man's appetite. Lord, I know that the only thing limiting my joy is my capacity for experiencing you. Just as a man at a buffet is limited only by the size of his stomach, so I find that my joy is only limited by my finite capacity for you who are Joy.

How can a man increase his joy in you? Only by experiencing you. As a man increases his appetite over time by eating, so my capacity for joy will only increase as I fill myself continually with you and your joy.

What a marvellous thought! I can taste and see, eat my fill, be completely satisfied in my eating, and all the while find that I am increasing my capacity for the joy I'll find in you tomorrow. No wonder David says, 'Taste and see..'.

The discipline of regularly finding my joy in God today is an investment. It secures a supply of joy for tomorrow. What a glorious God!

But then, how tragic to waste today...

Thoughts on Reading the Psalms

2008-07-03T10:36:00.003-04:00

Here are just a few things that I find helpful on a very basic level with regard to reading the Psalms as a Christan.

Read the Psalms regularly. One of the reasons the Psalms can be so little help to some Christians in their time of need is simply this: We're not familiar with them. They're a different type of literature than we're used to reading or hearing preached (usually a gospel or an epistle). When times of hardship and suffering, or feelings of guilt and depression, or seasons of joy and exuberance come, we don't know how to use the Psalms because we don't know where to look in the Psalms to find a suitable song for our emotions. Familiarizing ourself with the basic contents of the book and the different types of songs in the book will help us be quicker to flee to the Psalms in whatever season.

Think hard through the Psalms. There are some tough passages and some tough expressions of anger, some strong words of love, some passionate promises to God... how much of this can we agree with? Can we apply it all? How much of what David writes is simply poetic expression (i.e. hyperbole, simile, metaphor, merism, etc.) and how much of it is 'literal'? Is it appropriate to pray these particular things as a member of the New Covenant? These are good questions to ask regularly--they are tough issues that each Christian will need to work through. Unfortunately, since there are some tough questions attendant with reading the Psalms, this often scares some Christians away. But it shouldn't!

Develop a plan for reading the Psalms. Here's mine, that I've used several times. To read through the whole book of Psalms (a seemingly daunting task) really isn't that hard. You can do it no problem in a month. On the first day of the month (i.e. July 1), I read Psalms 1, 31, 61, 91, 121. On the second, I read Psalms 2, 32, 62, 92, 122. Today I read Psalms 3, 33, 63, 93, 123. There are 150 Psalms, so 30 days at this pace will get you through quite easily. Reading this intensely will help with both 1. and 2. above as well.

Get help. Pick up a commentary if you need to. Ask one of your elders or a mature Christian you know well to help you through some of the tough questions that will come up.

Pray. It's the word of the Lord, and therefore, it is the job of the Holy Spirit to illuminate and to apply. Ask him in faith, with no doubting, and he will.

Ask to identify, not just understand. Sometimes we can become accustomed to just trying to 'understand' the words of the Bible. The Psalms will have nothing of that. If you're not affected in your heart by the truths of God and his work in revelation and redemption, then the Psalms won't make sense to you. Pray that the Spirit of God would give not just insight, but a heart that is genuinely affected by what it sees. Hearts affected by God's truth, for God's glory is the goal of the Psalms.

Hopefully I'll be able to post more on the interpretation of Psalms and how to 'get to Christ' from the Psalms shortly.

Thinking and Feeling with God

2008-07-02T08:00:00.000-04:00

It seems that the Psalms are the centre of much attention in evangelicalism in North America these days. The Psalms is one of my favourite books, so this is exciting to me.

It has saddened me over the years to see how many Christians are somewhat unable to understand, identify with, and apply the Psalms to their own spiritual walk. This just makes me even more glad that great preachers are spending time there these days!

Here are some valuable resources:

John Piper has just finished up a six week study in the Psalms at Bethlehem Baptist. You can download those messages for free here. I recommend beginning with the first one because Dr Piper gives some insight into the Psalms in general before jumping into the text of Psalm 1.

At Covenant Life Church, they've taken a team approach to teaching a series on the Psalms. Stacey and I were blessed by Greg Somerville's message when we visited the church back in May. You can see a listing of the sermons available for free download or for streaming here.

Bob Kauflin's 'Worship God '08' conference that is coming up will focus on the Psalms as well. Perhaps the most fantastic thing about this is that they'll be releasing a new CD in conjunction with this conference.

I'm hoping to post some more of my own thoughts on how the Psalms ought to be interpreted and applied to the hearts and lives of Christians in the next few days.

Do Hard Things... Like Thinking Through Modesty

2008-07-01T11:41:00.007-04:00

At a meeting last week we decided that it would be a good idea for the youth of our church to go through the book Do Hard Things by Alex & Brett Harris. It looks awesome, and I'm really excited for our youth to study it. Here's the thrust of the book:

Combating the idea of adolescence as a vacation from responsibility, the authors weave together biblical insights, history, and modern examples to redefine the teen years as the launching pad of life and map a clear trajectory for long-term fulfillment and eternal impact.

In preparation for this meeting, I was doing some research on books that the youth could do when I found the website for this book.

It's great!

They offer all kinds of stuff. There's info on the book, a blog, info on the conferences they put on, etc. There's even a study guide that you can download as a pdf to use the book in group contexts, like we want to do.

One of the great things that I found was this: A modesty survey. I was sceptical at first, but it is really useful! I would gladly add it to my list of recommended resources on the modesty issue. I love that they're tackling this issue with young ladies--again, aiming to 'set a clear trajectory for long-term fulfillment and eternal impact.'

Here's what the site says about the survey: 'Hundreds of Christian girls contributed to the 148-question survey and over 1,600 Christian guys submitted 150,000+ answers, including 25,000 text responses, over a 20-day period in January 2007.' The different ways you can look at and analyze the results gives some great insight. Take some time and look it through.

'It has been endorsed by Shaunti Feldhahn (best-selling author of For Women Only), Nancy Leigh DeMoss (author, Revive Our Hearts radio host), Albert Mohler (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), Shannon Ethridge (best-selling author of Every Woman's Battle series), and C.J. Mahaney (Sovereign Grace Ministries).'

What they (and the guys filling out the survey) hope to affirm to Christian ladies is this:

As a Christian guy with a deep appreciation for feminine modesty, I hereby affirm and commend the following biblical truths to my sisters in Christ:

Please, approach the survey as a resource, not a list of rules.
Always honour your parents above the results of the survey. (Ephesians 6:1-3)
Seek personal feedback on your attire from the godly men and women in your life.
Remember, modesty is first and foremost a matter of the heart, not the wardrobe.
Faithfully pursue the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit. (1 Peter 3:4)
Let your good works outshine your outward appearance. (1 Timothy 2:10)
Dress for the glory of God. (1 Corinthians 10:31)

What better goals could their be in dressing than honouring parents, esteeming brothers, and desiring the glory of God?

Preaching for Consistency

2008-06-30T09:55:00.002-04:00

Yesterday, by God's grace, I was able to begin our summer series of sermons from the book of James. I've titled this series 'A Call to Consistency.' I figure that's about as close as I can get to a base theme that unites all the different emphases in James. Doug Moo refers to it as 'spiritual wholeness.'

The first message in the series introduced the book of James (author, date, recipients), and then dove into the letter's introduction from 1:1-18. The title of the message was 'Steadfast Joy in Suffering.' If you like, you can download it here or listen to it directly from the flash player below.

Egalitarian or Complementarian: How to Decide?

2008-06-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

Both the complementarian and the egalitarian positions ultimately must stand or fall based on their interpretation of Genesis 1-2. Both sides agree that male and female were created alike, with the same human nature, both created in the image of God with equal dignity and value; but was it God’s intention for there to be distinction in role or was it not?

One basic rule for the interpretation of Scripture that is adopted by the majority of evangelicals is that Scripture must be allowed to interpret Scripture. In other words, where an issue is dealt with in obscure places and then again in clearer places, we must allow the clearer revelation to interpret the less clear. Also, it is standard hermeneutical practice among evangelicals to allow the newer revelation to give clarity to the older (since Christ is the mystery proclaimed in the OT, but revealed in the NT, which has implications for everything!).

This issue is a good place to employ this helpful rule. While scholars may debate the validity of seeing a distinction in role in Genesis 1-2, the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has already given us a clear and authoritative interpretation. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15 Paul argues that women must not teach or have authority over a man in the local church, and he cites Genesis 1-2 as his rationale: “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” Lest we think this was an appeal only relevant in a particular situation in a particular local body of believers, Paul uses the same logic again, in 1 Corinthians 11. In this passage he argues that within the kingdom of those redeemed in Christ (therefore, among those spoken of in Gal. 3:28), “the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband”. His defence of this position is drawn from the same text in Genesis, and he says “man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” To these passages must be added Ephesians 5:22-33. In this glorious text, the apostle looks back at the “profound mystery” of two becoming one flesh, which is spoken of in Genesis and says that the original human marriage is patterned after the loving authority-submission relationship of Christ and his bride, which God had purposed to establish from before the creation of the world.

In these decisive passages, where Scripture interprets itself, we are able to see clearly that it was God’s intention for there to be a distinction in role, including a loving authority-submission structure within marriage, and therefore within the local church. Many other details of many other arguments from both sides could and should be examined where time and space allow, but here it suffices for us to know that the testimony of Scripture is on the side of the complementarians. Throughout the Bible, from creation on, through the fall and ultimately through redemption, God has testified that he has a plan for male and female, equally created in his image, equal in essence and value, yet distinct in their roles in the home and in the church.

For the Kerux...

2008-06-26T10:22:00.001-04:00

When I saw this I just had to...

This Week's Fighter Verse

2008-06-26T09:55:00.003-04:00

I've been re-impressed over the last few weeks in particular by how important it is to be memorizing Scripture. Our Fighter Verse programme at Grace Fellowship Church has been a huge help to me in my own walk. This week's verse is one each of us would do really well to memorize as we seek to live other-worldly in a culture of materialism, that finds life, joy, peace, and security in credit cards and chequing accounts.

Here's our Fighter Verse for this week. You should memorize it too:

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, 'I will never leave you nor forsake you.' So we can confidently say, 'The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?'
-- Hebrews 13:5-6

The Gender-Issue Landscape

2008-06-26T08:00:00.002-04:00

Seeing as how I've been giving some really broad, yet really brief overviews of theological positions this week (dangerous at the best of times, but necessary just about always), I thought I'd continue with that pattern but on a different issue.

So, we approach again the gender debate. Are women free to take any office in the NT church, or are they restricted by their gender? Are men more valuable than women? Did God create men & women with difference in roles, or is that result of sin or some construct of society? Does redemption in Christ undo gender distinctions? These are just some of the numerous questions involved in the gender issue.

Despite how some argue, there are only two positions on the issue of women in ministry in the local church: one is either a complementarian or an egalitarian. This is so because it must be decided, Is being a woman (just having this gender) a disqualifying factor at some point for some positions of ministry or is it not? Regardless of where one draws the line, as soon as a line is drawn, one becomes a complementarian at some level. What follows is a brief sketch of both the egalitarian and complementarian arguments.

Egalitarians

Complementarians

What's Important to Canadians?

2008-06-25T11:07:00.003-04:00

A recent Angus Reid study has revealed some interesting (even if not surprising) things about what Canadians value. Here are a few highlights.

96 per cent of respondents say having enough free time to do what they want is very important or moderately important to them. Achieving career success (89%), volunteering (74%) and having children (72%) are also high on the scale of accomplishments.

Following their religious beliefs (46%), being wealthy (53%) and tying the knot (55%) are not valued as highly by Canadians across the nation.

More men (58%) than women (53%) view marriage as an important part of life.

What to make of this? There are lots of things that could be said, but I'll leave it at this for now: There is a profound irony here.

The trendy emergent crowd says that evangelicals are out of touch, fighting yesterday's battles about things like marriage, feminism, and other family issues. Yet, these seem to be the very areas where our culture needs to be challenged and corrected.

The ironic twist is completed when we notice that most of the excitement in the emerging crowd is directed to issues like social justice (with a high emphasis on volunteering), not being a religious zealot, and fighting against the drive to be rich. Yet, none of these seem to be out of line with what secular people in Canada already think.

While the conservative evangelicals are accused of being out of touch, the hip emerging crowd preaches what the culture wants to hear--and what they already believe. Why would we expect anything else?

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.

The Blame Game

2008-06-25T09:38:00.003-04:00

This summer, while our pastor is on sabbatical, I'll be preaching (God willing) through the book of James. This week I'm studying to preach James 1:1-18. Today, over at the Desiring God blog, they've got a great application of James 1:13-15.

I heartily recommend you check out this post: '12 Sins We Blame on Others'

Here are the 12 sins they list:

Anger
Impatience
Lust
Anxiety
Spiritual Apathy
Insubordination
A Critical Spirit
Bitterness
Gluttony
Gossip
Self-Pity
Selfishness

Blaming others is an easy way to justify self in attempts to remove shame and guilt without even realizing it. May God give us grace to see our sin and accept our sin for what it is... and then flee to the cross!

Biblical Support for Penal Substitution

2008-06-25T08:00:00.001-04:00

As promised yesterday, here is what amounts to a super-brief (again) presentation of the biblical support for penal substitution. Despite what the critics will posit, it's not new, it's not western, it's not because of Augustine, and it's not even modern; penal substitution is biblical.

We'll borrow our definition of 'penal substitution' from Wayne Grudem (579):

Christ's death was 'penal' in that he bore a penalty when he died. His death was also a 'substitution' in that he was a substitute for us when he died.

The biblical support for penal substitution is so prevalent throughout the storyline of redemptive-history that it is hard to express with concision. Our approach will be to sketch a few examples of the foreshadowing of Christ’s penal substitutionary work from the OT, and then examine the corroborating evidence from the NT.

The penal substitution of Christ is foreshadowed at least as early as Genesis 22. In this story Abraham is called to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God. When Abraham demonstrates his faith in God by preparing to offer his own sin, God intervenes—surprisingly and miraculously—by providing a substitute; a ram was sacrificed in the place of Isaac, so that he could live. Again, in the miraculous redemptive work of God in saving Israel from their captivity in Egypt, penal substitution is prefigured. On the night of the Passover, the people are to slaughter a spotless lamb (just enough for each household). During the night, the Destroyer would come to take the lives of all the firstborn sons in the land. Only those who were in the homes where the lamb had been slaughtered were preserved; the lamb had died in place of the son. The book of Leviticus (chs. 4-7 indicate specifically the nature of the cultic rites) teaches that where sin has occurred, whether intentional or not, a death must result. Here it is made clear that an animal had to die in place of the human who had sinned, and therefore deserved death. The prophetic writings reflect back to the Israelites the nature of that law, as well as looking forward to the coming of Christ, which is why Isaiah 52-53 portrays the penal substitutionary work of Christ perhaps more clearly than anywhere else in the OT. There it is put bluntly and undeniably: “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5).

The NT evidence is no less scarce. In fact, one approach to displaying the NT evidence is by a simple study of the preposition huper (ὑπερ). It has been argued that huper has a simple meaning of “for one’s benefit.” When studied in individual passages, however, it has been demonstrated that there is a much stronger meaning contained in the word, which may be explained as “for one’s benefit, by being in one’s place.” This stronger meaning is evinced in the following passages. In John 10:11, Jesus teaches that he is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. The very nature of the metaphor requires the stronger meaning. Similarly, in Galatians 3:13 we are told that Christ redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. This simply cannot mean only “for our benefit”; in this instance it is clear that he becomes the curse in our place, that we might benefit. Again, 1 Peter 3:18 states that the righteous one suffered for the unrighteous, which clearly indicates that we receive the benefit only by having a substitute. Aside from the meaning of huper, a plain reading of passages like 2 Corinthians 5:21 (where Christ was “made to be sin” on our behalf) and 1 Peter 2:24 (where Christ “bore our sins in his body”) militate against any argument that penal substitution is unbiblical or unnecessary.

Vanity 'Wordle'ing

2008-06-24T13:12:00.003-04:00

I thought it would be interesting to wordle my blog... I wordled the archives for each year. The top is 2005, moving along to the bottom, which is 2008 (so far). It's interesting to note the progression of themes. I like that the things that are consistent, however, are the things I hope to major on in my thoughts and writings.

Some Objections to Penal Substitution

2008-06-24T08:00:00.002-04:00

In keeping with our theme of atonement from yesterday, I thought I'd outline some of the more common objections to penal substitution offered in contemporary 'evangelical' literature. Again, these are very brief descriptions of the arguments, but they are simply intended to familiarize us with what is being said by self-proclaimed evangelicals today.

God willing, we'll examine some of the arguments for penal substitution tomorrow, but for now, here are some of the most common contemporary objections to it:

Penal Substitution and Divine Love

Penal Substitution and Divine Justice

Penal substitution and the Trinity

Penal Substitution and Violence

On Momming, part 2

2008-06-23T14:05:00.003-04:00

My brother (over at his newly up-and-running blog) has a rather comical (and incredibly geeky) version of my 'on momming' post. You can read it here.

Maybe it's just funnier for me because I can actually envision the whole thing. Or maybe I can just envision it because it could very well have been a description of life in my house instead of his!

The Atoning Work of Christ

2008-06-23T11:44:00.004-04:00

It is a charge often brought against those who hold to penal substitution that we miss the dynamic presentation of the atoning work of Christ through Scriptures. In other words, if you hold to penal substitution, you miss the many ways that the Bible speaks about the atonement.

I've had some opportunity lately to think through the atonement, and I believe that this charge is patently untrue. As one who holds firmly to the notion that penal substitution is at the root of all benefits that come to us through the cross of Christ (biblically and historically), I still am able to see that the picture of Jesus' cross-work is not monolithic.

In an effort to flesh this out, and show that this charge is incorrect, here is a super-brief examination of six facets of the biblical presentation of the atonement aside from penal substitution.

Sacrifice

esv

Redemption

Propitiation

Reconciliation

Christus Victor

Christus Victor

result

Christus Exemplus

Christus Exemplus

Rejoicing in Four Years of Grace

2008-06-19T11:15:00.006-04:00

Today I am rejoicing. Stacey and I are celebrating our fourth anniversary this very day. As I look back over the four years, I have to marvel at God's grace... in so many ways!

On this anniversary I'm rejoicing in God's grace in these three ways in particular:

God looked at me, liked he looked at Adam, and said, 'It is not good for that guy to be alone.' I could not possibly agree more! The Lord provided a bride for me--out of all men, the most undeserving. Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh. She has become one with me. She is my partner, my friend, my lover, my helper, my companion, my counsellor. She listens, she shares, she opens herself up to me, and she lets me open up my heart to her. I am grateful for God's grace in giving me my wife. I couldn't do 10% of what I do if I didn't have her.

God has preserved our marriage through his love and by his grace. Love keeps no record of wrongs. Love hopes and believes all things. That's God's love... and it's been poured out into our hearts and into our marriage by the Holy Spirit through the example and work of Christ. This is amazing... and so needed! Maybe other husbands are just better husbands than me, but I don't see how any marriage could last without the love of Christ, present and active. I have needed my wife to forgive me countless times. I have needed her to continue to open her heart to me time after time when I've hurt her or let her down. She's never failed, because of God's grace. Her love for Christ is powerfully evident in her faithful love for me, no matter how many times I mess up. I am thankful to God that my wifes 'hopes all things' and 'believes all things' for me now, even more than she did four years ago today. That is evidence of God's grace, and so I'm thankful to God for my bride.

My wife has grown in beauty. Over the five years that I have known her, I have watched Stacey grow in remarkable ways as she seeks to live in 'respectable and pure' ways. She has worked hard to make sure that her adorning is not external, but is an 'imperishable beauty' of the inner person, which is precious in God's sight--and a husband's! She has been a faithful testimony to me of God's Spirit active and working in the heart of a woman... and that is a beautiful thing indeed. And on top of all that, she has flourished in external beauty as well. How could I have imagined that? I don't know... but it sure makes me look forward with great anticipation to our fiftieth anniversary!

So, Stacey, thanks for four wonderful years. Here's to many, many more!

Randoms

2008-06-06T10:02:00.002-04:00

It's hard to know sometimes what to blog about when there are so many different things going on in life. Here's a few things I've been thinking about.

Humility
I've thought about this on this blog before, but I was blessed with the opportunity to teach on it recently at a men's meeting at our church. The more I look into my heart, the more it seems the Lord is pleased to reveal to me the hideousness of my own pride-filled, arrogant heart. You can download the pdf of the handout and application questions I gave to the guys here, if you like.

Letting Others Serve
It's a funny thing, but you'd think that not wanting others to serve you would be a sign of humility. As I've been noticing in my own heart lately, though, it's more a sign of pride. Why don't I want others to help? For one thing, because I don't want anyone to think I need help. CJ says part of pride is refusing to acknowledge our absolute dependence on God. I like to think I'm self-sufficient. That's pride.

Another thing I've been confronted with a few times now is other people wanting to take over jobs for me, since I've become an elder at church. They want to employ biblical wisdom and free their elders up from other tasks so that we can focus on the word and prayer. But I don't want to give these things up. Why? Because somewhere in my heart I feel like I do a good job at what I do and if someone else were to do it, they wouldn't do it just the way I like it. Well that's a load of hoogly. Just because something's the way I like it doesn't mean it's best. And in reality, they'd probably do it way better than me anyway! What's best for the kingdom is me moving aside and letting others serve.

Leadership Can Be Nerve-Wracking
We're in what's probably the busiest time of year for the leadership of GFC--annual meeting time. We're looking at numbers, praying through plans, and discussing endless possibilities for future directions. This is my first year as an elder working through these things. Whenever I begin to think that any of these things--and therefore the welfare of the church--depends on us, as humans, I get stressed, worried, and fretful. This has been a good exercise for me in learning to pray things through, and trust Christ to build his church. I am learning (painfully slowly, but learning nonetheless) to trust in the Spirit to give wisdom. I am learning to trust the Father's providence. He has given us much responsibility, and we will be held accountable for our leadership, but the worst mistake we can make is thinking that it all depends on us and our wisdom, and then forge ahead un-prayerfully.

How Big Are Your Phylacteries?

2008-06-02T08:00:00.001-04:00

What are phylacteries? They're the Greek word used for Tefillin. Not helping? They are boxes with straps that the Jewish people have made for millennia. They contain pieces of Torah and are worn on the arms or foreheads.

Where would they get an idea like this? Try looking up Exodus 13.9, 16; Deuteronomy 6.8; 11.18.

Each verse on its own, isolated from its context, could be taken in such a way that these Tefillin could be defended. More fitting, however, is the idea that the Lord is calling his people to preach to themselves and their children. His word is to be so central to their thoughts, meditations, and conversation that it would be as if they have the word bound to their foreheads--you can't help but notice it! To run into one of these people is to come face-to-face with the Law.

As I've said before, what excites you is what you pass on. God is calling his people to show their passion for his righteous Law.

When it comes to phylacteries, one could make the case that they are legitimate, even as physical things. But they were to be peripheral things, not central.

What did Jesus think of phylacteries? Well, he mentions them in Matthew 23.5, in condemning the religious leaders of his day. In that case, Jesus was condemning their actions because they had taken a peripheral, non-necessary element of their faith and made it central. They had made it a show. It wasn't enough to rejoice in the Law like all the rest of God's people--they had to figure out something extra that they could do to make themselves stand out from the crowd. They wanted to show themselves as different and better in some regard.

The temptations to do this in the Christian life are legion. As Don Carson is wont to say, 'It is easy to sound prophetic from the margins; what is desperately needed is to be prophetic from the centre.' What he means is simple. It is easy to make yourself seem more spiritual, more noble, more informed, more mature than you are by dealing with side issues. It makes you look like you're further advanced. If you're forever preaching about things that others hear and say, 'wow, I hadn't even thought about that...', then it makes you seem like a prophet. You are exalted.

What I want to suggest is that in the Christian life, our pet issues will often become our phylacteries; the extra things we add on to the centre of the Christian faith to make ourselves seem further advanced in Christian living than we are. They make us stand out in a crowd of 'normal Christians.'

As Christians who know the gospel, it is always a temptation to assume the gospel. When that happens we exalt secondary (or even tertiary) issues to levels of primary importance, and determine levels of standing within the church based on our pet issues (our phylacteries), rather than our faithful love for and proclamation of the gospel.

What kinds of things do Christians make into phylacteries? How about new books that you've read / are reading? Understanding all issues of deep theology, or being the first to discover some hip 'new' theology that no one at church understands yet. For many in our day it is social justice or 'ministering to the community at large.' For some it is on-demand breast-feeding, while for others it could be scheduled feeding. Many Christians get caught up with new diets or types of food that they swear will make all the difference. Some Christians make a career out of arguing for home schooling, Christian schooling, or public schooling. The list could go on and on! All this is not to say that these are bad causes, but it is to say that we need to fight with everything in us to make sure we're known first and foremost for loving the gospel (like we wear it on our foreheads!), not for being some social justice advocate, or some home-school promoter.

What Carson has said is true, that it is easy to sound prophetic from the margins. What is most concerning about this, however, is that Jesus says pride is living in these attitudes and working through them. Pride destroys opportunities to be workers for the kingdom, since Jesus himself says 'Whoever exalts himself will be humbled.' God opposes the proud. You're not working for the kingdom if you're promoting another cause more than the gospel.

The second part of Carson's quote is equally true: 'What is most needed is to be prophetic from the centre.' You can't do that when you're shouting from the peripheries. The gospel gets drowned out. If we're always known for being passionate about secondary issues, how will we ever be able to express that we're more passionate about the gospel?

So how about you? What are you known for? What do people see on your forehead and arms? Is it obvious to those who know you that the gospel is your first love and primary passion?

It is my prayer that my phylacteries would shrink; that I would speak boldly and passionately about the gospel, and never be more passionate about anything else than Christ and his love for me. I want to be slow to express my opinions on secondary matters. I want to be known for loving what all Christians are called to love: the gospel. Never some other cause.

On Momming

2008-05-29T08:00:00.006-04:00

The things in life that we are most prone to take for granted are generally not the things we should take for granted. The things we presume on are usually not those things which are ordinary, but rather, the things which we most regularly see.

The funny thing about what we most regularly see is that it becomes what we actually notice the least. When you see a friend's kids everyday, you don't notice how much they're growing and changing, but when you don't see them for a long time, you notice every little change. What I see the most is what I tend to notice the least.

In my life, the place I spend most of my time is at home. As a student, I do most of my work from my desk at home. Since our church has no official office, my desk functions as my office for my job as well. All this combines to make me a genuine homebody (though I'm not as bad as Tim Challies... rumour has it he was born with quite a dark complexion, but has only turned pasty over the past 185,342 consecutive days of blogging).

In my world, then, the things that I am most likely to not notice are the things that happen at home, since it's where I spend most of my time.

Here's one thing I take for granted all the time, that I never should: my wife works hard.

Stay-at-home moms get a bad reputation in lots of circles, but let me tell you, it is a hard job. All the worst aspects of all the worst jobs are combined in this one. Low (no) pay. Repetitive tasks. Very little by way of immediate results. Everything you do needs to be redone in a few hours, tomorrow, or next week. You're forced to multi-task in ways that no human should ever be able to multi-task. No one appreciates you. No one sees the work you do. There is very little by way of intriguing conversation over the course of a day. Loud noises and crying that would drive anyone else nuts in about five minutes are your background music. There is almost no imposed structure on your day (which is bad for scatter-brained people like myself who need order). The hours are long and irregular. When everyone else takes vacation, it only means more work for you. Your job is literally never done. Then a husband wants dinner, time together, and then romance at night when you're ready to fall over you're so tired.

Then whenever you're at dinner parties or meeting someone new they ask, 'What do you do?' You answer, and they say, 'Oh...'. Who has it harder than all this?

I see it everyday, but how often do I notice it? More often than not I take it for granted. I think my busy-ness means it's okay to let her work hard and be busy too. I think it gives me an excuse to presume on her work. I think that she should be able to handle it... she always does, right? I end up taking for granted the very one whom God has given me to enable me to do my ministry. I could accomplish nothing without her, but how often do I stop to think about that and thank her? Or better yet, help her?

I am a slow learner. I hope that you men who read this are not as slow as me.

Honour your wife. Tell her how she's a blessing to you. Explain to her how you see God's grace active in her life. Point out the fruit that God is bringing about through her labours. Encourage her with a note or a written prayer for her. Speak highly of her ministry to others. Look for new ways to help her with her job. Care for her as you would your own body. Kiss her, tell her you love her. Do something... do anything! Just don't take her for granted.

In doing this, you'll be valuing what God values, and thus, he will be honoured as you honour the one who is your glory.

How Simple and Shrewd Viewed Sage

2008-05-28T08:00:00.001-04:00

I wrote this a few years ago for a different forum. I thought I might as well post it here as well. Hope you enjoy!

--------

In a place far from here three men, each on a pilgrimage met each other as they were travelling down a forlorn path. Conversation quickly revealed that the three were all desirous of reaching the same destination. One was an old man named Sage who said he had himself carved these paths many years ago. The second man was Simple, a smithy by trade, who often seemed quite pliable. The third man, a young noble named Shrewd, was wise in his own eyes and often desired to forge new paths, even as he imagined Sage had done when he was young.

As the three travelled on for some days, Sage offered direction time and again as he led them through grounds neither of the younger men had seen before. Every time he provided direction, no matter how unlikely it seemed, his word proved to be true and they found themselves to always be headed in the right direction.

Eventually, when the two young men awoke one morning, they found Sage already dressed for travel. He informed them that he had to depart for some time, but that if they followed his directions, he would meet them at the end of their journey. After some days on the path, he said, they would come to a cave. Despite what they saw, no matter how difficult the path through the cave would become, they were to keep going and not give up. This was the only route, he warned, that would take them to the land they desired.

Sure enough, after two days of walking, Simple and Shrewd found themselves at the mouth of a cave. Shrewd took a good long look at the cave, examining it from various perspectives. He warned Simple that caves such as this had been found to be perilous traps before for clueless pilgrims. Simple, however, was convinced that this was the cave he had been told they would find. Seeing that Simple would not be swayed, Sage reluctantly said he too would enter, but that Simple must go first.

As they entered the cave, they found that it travelled only down. Further and further it went, and the air got increasingly frigid. Soon it was totally black and both Simple and Shrewd were in despair for their lives. Looking ahead as far as he could, evaluating the little of the contours of the cave his eyes could discern, Shrewd began to speak:

'Simple, this is all wrong. Anyone with a half a brain knows that a cave which leads to open land lets in light from both ends. If it is day time outside, and there is a way out of this cave, then we would be able to see light. It makes sense. To follow this path any longer is illogical. We can see that with our eyes. If you insist on staying here anymore, you will have to go it alone, because wisdom advises me to turn around.'

Simple reasoned, 'The man Sage has never lied to me. He has led me safe this far, and even his words about this cave proved true; the way is difficult. Would it not be more foolish now to turn back, having seen that his counsel has been good thus far?' And so he spoke to Shrewd, 'I cannot see the light we both know we should see. But I know the man Sage, and I trust him. I will not turn back.'

So Shrewd and Simple parted ways.

Shrewd quickly, since he was moving towards the light, found his way out. Once out into the forest again, he surveyed the land, checked his compass, and headed off to forge his own path; to take the road less travelled and make his own mark. Not a mile from the cave, as he was looking at his compass, thinking hard about which way made the most sense to him, he happened to walk in between a family of bears, separating a mother from her cubs without even knowing it. He was mawled, and there he died, compass in hand, never having reached his desired land and never having carved the paths he had wanted.

After Shrewd left, Simple continued slowly through the cave. Shortly he had to feel his way along with only his hands as his sight completely failed him in the dark. Several times he hit his head or stubbed his toe, and many times he even began to question whether or not Sage's words had been correctly spoken--or perhaps they had been misunderstood on his own part? He was, after all, an unlearned man.

But after some time of following the dark, damp, cool walls of the cave, Simple noticed that the wall on his right side disappeared and he realized that he was at a corner. Turning the corner, he caught a glimpse--could it be?--just a glimpse of light ahead. The more he walked toward it, the brighter it got, until he was finally able to walk with ease.

Coming out the other side of the cave he found his old friend, Sage to guide him the rest of the way home to the land of rest he had always desired.

Parenting and My Heart

2008-05-27T08:00:00.001-04:00

Sometimes it's good to do what's counter-intuitive. In fact, I've found that the longer I've been a Christian, the more I need to second-guess and examine every motive. Sure enough, there is deep-rooted sin in there somewhere. I've found God's evaluation of humanity in Gen 8.21 ('the inclination of their minds is evil from childhood on') to be absolutely correct in my case every time I'm willing to consider for longer than 23 seconds.

This examining and cross-examining of motives and actions is almost nowhere more necessary than in parenting. What can on-first-blush appear to be 'for the baby' can really be simply for my immediate gratification ('I made her feel nice, now I feel better about my ability to parent'). What is really sad about this, though, is that what is often for my immediate gratification as a parent will more often than not be to the child's long-term harm.

So, for example, we're in a store and Susie really wants something, but I already told her she can't have it, I had not planned on buying it, we haven't budgeted for it, and she doesn't need it. What do I do as a parent? The ball is only $1.99 or something silly like that. She is sad if I don't get it. She's happy if I get it. Why not just 'make her happy' and get it? Wouldn't it also make me happier to just buy something for my daughter that I know will make her happy?

Because we teach by example, I'm teaching Susie something in that situation when I give in and buy it. I'm teaching her that it's okay to make unplanned purchases, on an impulse, whether you have the money or not. I'm teaching her that when you complain and fuss in life, you get want you want. I'm teaching her to look for happiness in 'stuff' that can be purchased. I'm teaching her that it is okay to strive against an authority. In all these ways I'm doing my daughter tremendous spiritual harm by 'making her happy' in that moment.

If that's true--and I know it is--then why would I give in to her? Why would I cave when she has a fit? Why would I leave her undisciplined when she breaks rules? Why would I let her go to bed late, get up early, eat what she wants, etc., when I've thought it through and prayed it through ahead of time? Why would decisions that my trusted counsellor (my bride) and I have talked through at length be discarded in a moment?

Because I love my daughter? Far from it. That's the opposite of love.

Why would I be willing to 'do whatever it takes' to stop our baby from crying and make her 'happy'? Because the inclination of my heart is evil from my childhood on. Because my heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all else and I cannot understand it. Because my near-sighted selfishness is willing to sacrifice the long-term spiritual welfare of my child for the immediate gratification I get from feeling like a good parent; or maybe so that I can congratulate myself on how gracious I am.

I believe it. Now all I need to do is continue to preach it to myself as I make the moment-by-moment decisions I need to make in parenting. God give me grace to be faithful!

Rich Man's Vacation

2008-05-26T14:56:00.002-04:00

Well this afternoon I'm back in the office, sorting through e-mails and trying to figure how to begin catching up after two weeks of vacation. The highlights were (among other things) a trip to DC to visit Covenant Life Church, and a trip to the cottage this past weekend.

More than just doing stuff though, this vacation was great because I got to spend time with my family. In a song called 'Home', Paul Brandt says 'Time just flies no matter what you do.' That's true. Especially when your kids are as young as ours are. I can't believe how quickly they change. What a blessing to be able to have this time with them!

And then there's my amazing wife. Stacey is so patient to put up with me and my schedule. Without a doubt one of the things in life that never ceases to amaze me is how my wife can just keep going, doing job after job (though it's more like job-during-job, piled on top of job) around the house, and with the kids, yet she always seems to be able to do it well and do it with grace. She ministers to me in amazing ways, even though our schedule doesn't allow me to be able to spend as much alone time with her as we'd like. So this vacation was a blessing in that regard as well.

I'll post a few pictures from the vacation below, after the words of one of my favourite Paul Brandt songs. While our house is not 'run down' and our bills have yet to 'pile up', I can totally identify with what he's saying.

Rich Man
I look in the mirror, don't see much
Fashion sense a little out of touch
The house is run down as the bills pile up
But I'm a rich man

Breakfast table, morning rush
Sometimes it seems we barely have enough
But if it's true that all you need is love
Then I'm a rich man

When she smiles or they call me Daddy
All the worries of the world just seem to fade away
I'm alive and I know what matters
If this is all I ever have
Well, that's ok
'Cause I'm a rich man

So every morning, and brand new day
With each and every single breath I take
I'm blessed and I'm thankful, yeah I've got it made
Oh, I'm so glad life turned out this way

I've loved, I've been loved,
Show me someone else with as much as me

Yeah, I'm a rich, rich man
Yeah, I'm a rich man
Oh, I'm a rich man
I've got it made
What matters, what matters
I know what matters
Oh, I'm alive

Don't Believe Them

2008-05-23T08:00:00.002-04:00

When people tell you that families are a drag, that kids are a sacrifice, that it's too much work, or that you should wait and have fun before having kids... don't believe them.

We're heading to the cottage this morning, so I just thought I'd post some pictures from a couple of our cottage trips last year. Nothing but delighting in God through the bounty he's given us. What an amazing blessing to have a family that enables you to worship God better! What a wonderful end to our vacation.

Passing It On

2008-05-22T08:00:00.000-04:00

An old professor of mine used to say 'The teacher's questions become the students' dogma.' In other words, what the teachers fancies with, the students accept and develop.

Don Carson puts it a slightly different way. He relates the American Mennonite experience as somewhat paradigmatic of what can happen in any church setting. He says, roughly, that the first generation of Mennonites believed the gospel, and saw that it had certain social entailments. The next generation assumed the gospel and believed in the social entailments. The third generation denied the gospel, but was committed to the social entailments.

Every Christian parent and every Christian teacher I know wants to pass gospel-belief on to the next generation. But how do we do that? I would suggest, based on the above insights, that the way to pass the gospel on is to be excited about it.

As Carson has often related, he understands that as a teacher, most of what students hear will be forgotten. But what do students remember? Ultimately, students remember what excites their professors. Children will have impressed on their hearts and minds what was most important to their parents.

Do you want to pass gospel-belief on to the next generation? Then let me ask: What excites you? What occupies your thoughts? Your time? Your imaginations? Do you spend more time on hobbies than on developing gospel-passion and gospel-living?

Everyone laughs when children first begin to imitate their parents and do things we unwittingly do, but they clearly see. It's funny. They are observant, they notice what we do, even when we don't. Why would we expect any less when it comes to our spirituality?

What do you speak about most at home? What issues get you most passionate? What causes get you to get excited at the drop of a hat? What habits in your life are the most consistent? What priorities are evident in your home?

These are the things you will pass on... whether we are intentional about it or not.

So let's be intentional! May it never be said of us that we passed on causes or diets or health-awareness or gender equality or views on parenting or anything that is less important and less eternally significant than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

It's Better to Be Christian

2008-05-21T21:10:00.002-04:00

Life is better as a Christian... for so many reasons.

The other night, when Stace and I got back from our trip to Washington DC and our visit at Covenant Life Church, I had the pleasure of putting my girls to bed.

Susannah and Caitlyn have both had special songs that I sing to them when I'm putting them to bed since the time they were born. As I sing to them I pray for them while they fall asleep. These are precious, spiritual times that I know I'll always remember.

Here's what non-Christians have to sing:

Rock-a-bye baby, in the treetop,
When the wind blows, the cradle will rock,
When the bough breaks, the cradle will fall,
And down will come baby, cradle and all.

Compare that with what I get to sing to Susannah:

I will praise You all my life
I will sing to You with my whole heart
I will trust in You
My hope and my help
My Maker and my faithful God

O faithful God
My faithful God
You lift me up
And you uphold my cause
You give me life
You dry my eyes
You’re always near
You’re a faithful God

And here's what I get to sing to Caitlyn:

O great God of highest heaven
Occupy my lowly heart
Own it all and reign supreme
Conquer every rebel power
Let no vice or sin remain
That resists Your holy war
You have loved and purchased me
Make me Yours forevermore

I was blinded by my sin
Had no ears to hear Your voice
Did not know Your love within
Had no taste for heaven’s joys
Then Your Spirit gave me life
Opened up Your Word to me
Through the gospel of Your Son
Gave me endless hope and peace

Help me now to live a life
That’s dependent on Your grace
Keep my heart and guard my soul
From the evils that I face
You are worthy to be praised
With my every thought and deed
O great God of highest heaven
Glorify Your Name through me

Need I say more? Life is definitely better as a Christian.

'O Faithful God' by Mark Altrogge © 1987 Sovereign Grace Praise (BMI)/Dayspring Music (a division of Word Music).

'O Great God' by Bob Kauflin © 2006 Sovereign Grace Praise (BMI).

CJ May Be Done...

2008-05-21T10:14:00.004-04:00

As I posted before, CJ Mahaney's blog has been featuring parts of his chapter on modesty from the forthcoming Crossway book called Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World.

You can read the summary post here. It contains an index with links to each of the seven sections and some additional application questions as well. The application questions are broken down into three categories: For your mind, for your heart, and for your life. Go check it out; it will be well worth your time.

While CJ may be done posting on this topic, I thought I'd point out some further resources on modesty of dress and why it is so absolutely important to the Christian walk.

Mary Mohler, wife of Al Mohler has a booklet called Modelling Modesty available for free download from the Southern Baptist website. You can get it here.

Al Martin, pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in New Jersey has an excellent pastoral appeal to th women of his church for 'decided modesty' available for free download here (video or audio). He argues (I think quite well) for the urgency of the matter as one of gospel importance. Check it out.

John Piper, who needs no introduction to anyone has a couple good little articles you can read on his website. One asks: 'Is modesty an issue in the church today?' Another asks: 'Why is a daughter's modesty a dad's responsibility?' Both are well worth the read.

It is my hope that these resources will help you form a biblically informed worldview, which encompasses clothing as a representation of what is going on inside the heart (of both women and men).

Fellowship

2008-05-13T21:12:00.005-04:00

When our TAG ('Truth Application Group') finished up last week we were sharing with each other what we had learned through the group and during the time period of the group. For me, the answer had several parts, but one of the main things that I've been thinking about since we started meeting (and one of the things that's been the greatest blessing to my heart!) is the topic of fellowship.

Too many people use the word and never think about what it means. 'Fellowship' is roughly synonymous with 'participation'; in fact, one Greek word is translated as either 'fellowship' or 'participation' throughout the NT. To have fellowship, then, means something like 'to participate in something along with another person who is also participating in the same thing.'

Christian fellowship is even more specific, though. 1 John teaches that because we're in Christ, we have fellowship with God (within the life of the Triune God himself). We have fellowship with one another, then, when we each participate in the life of God and share that experience with each other so that each of us can better experience the life of God (by sharing the other's experience of the life of God).

That's all really wordy and convoluted, so I asked my cousin and really cool graphic designer, Josh Rivers, to do a little graphic for me. It's below.

What I want to highlight from the above picture is this: shared life experiences does not equal fellowship. Just having things in common in this life (ie. being the same age, same marital status, same life stage, etc.) is not fellowship. Fellowship is sharing in each other's experience of the life of God. It is necessarily God-centred and God-focused.

The lesson from that is this: If we choose our Christian friends the same way the world chooses their non-Christian friends (ie. how are you like me? what earthly things do we have in common? are we the same age / gender? do you have the same interests?) we're missing out on more than just fellowship with each other. We're missing out on wonderful, new experiences in the life of God. What a shame!

Below is another graphic from Josh. This one simply shows how as each one grows closer to God and experiences more of his life, it increases the true fellowship that each person can have with each other.

Do you want to be a good friend to a brother or sister? Grow closer to God and you will be inviting them into the life of God, revealing God to them. This is the essence of friendship.

Children (of) Believers

2008-05-13T14:19:00.007-04:00

A little while ago, the Challister posted some thoughts he'd been working through on why it is that children of believers are more likely to believe the gospel--and in particular, why they are likely to believe at a young age.

Here's a part of his conclusion:

A person’s spiritual condition, it seems, is much like the condition of a patient with systemic sclerosis. While all humans are born sinful, children have less of the pollution and less of the hardening of adults. While the extent of our depravity cannot change, for from the moment of conception it encompasses all that we are, the degree will and must change. Life without God progresses much like the disease. It causes increased hardening. What was once soft becomes hard; what was once supple becomes stiff and stretched. The longer a person denies God and the more his internal pollution increases, the more hardened he becomes against God and against His gracious offer of salvation.

I agree with what Tim wrote in this post, and recommend you give the whole thing a read.

I was thinking about another reason today, though. The gospel is 'good news.' It is good news of the grace and mercy of God. The trouble is that most people in our world find grace and mercy irrelevant anyway, since they don't need them (at least from their perspective). I think another good reason why children of Christians might well be quicker to receive the gospel is simply that they have categories for thinking of issues like right and wrong, sin and holiness, law and justice.

A little while ago Stacey and I were at a playground with our kids. One of the kids that were there playing had decided to go run and jump in a big mud puddle. He played around in it for a little while, getting himself into a disgusting mess. When the mother / caregiver / guardian / nanny / keeper of some sort saw what had happened, she was upset. She yelled at him from across the playground: 'Didn't I tell you not to do that? That's not a good thing to do!'

I thought to myself 'That's not a good thing to do'? Why would she say that? And then it occurred to me: 'What else could she say?' Without God, categories that are absolutely necessary for raising children disappear. If that had've been Susannah, we would've had a talk about authority and obedience. We would do everything in our power to enable her to understand that there is a definite 'right' and a definite 'wrong' in that situation (obeying being right and disobeying being wrong), that she had chosen what was wrong, and that the necessary consequences would be meted out.

What would we be doing there? Is the important thing mud on the clothes? No, not at all. The important thing is her heart. If we are going to have useful inroads into her heart for discussions about the gospel, she'll need to be able to understand that there is an authority over her who has established right and wrong, that she has chosen what is wrong, and that apart from grace and mercy, the consequences will be severe.

The Christian parent who takes biblical categories like discipline, instruction, authority, obedience, submission, law, etc. seriously is building avenues into their child's heart everyday so that someday they'll be able (by God's grace) to think through their impending judgement and their need of mercy from the Judge.

Obviously, none of this will guarantee that a child will come to know the Lord. But I think if we're faithful to use the Lord's appointed means (discipline and instruction, establishing authority and obedience, etc.), he'll be honoured by our choices--and what's more important than that? But in addition, it gives us opportunities to preach the gospel to our children now--before the hardening is finally fatal.

Love, Part 2

2008-05-08T09:23:00.003-04:00

In my most recent post on love, I offered this working definition of love:

that affection or passion which motivates me to pursue another's ultimate good, regardless of the cost to myself.

After that post a friend commented on the use of the words 'affection or passion' and just wondered if maybe love might be more about doing than feeling.

Many of us, I think, have been in Christian culture circles long enough to remember the DC Talk song Love is a Verb (if you don't know it, you can get the lyrics here). As a younger person that song had me reevaluate my definition of biblical love, so that I'd see that love isn't what culture says it is... too often, when I read of love in the Bible I used the world's definition (something roughly equivalent to warm-fuzzies; something that you can 'fall' into or out of on a whim, without your control).

But as I matured (at least I hope that's what I've done) even more, I came to understand that there is much more to love than mere 'verbing'. In other words, love is more than 'doing', although doing is definitely involved.

I think there's a balance somewhere here: Love the (outer) action is motivated by love the (inner) affection.

So that when Jesus teaches about love at the end of Matthew 5, for example, he shows that God's love is a love that involves action (he sends rain & sun). Now, are we to assume that such loving actions come from a heart that is not in a favourable disposition to the people being loved? Absolutely not. And we are called to be like the Father. Jesus teaches here that to love someone (like your enemy) means to pray for them. How can you pray for someone without any affection for them? However small, it must be there in some measure if you are going to intercede for them before the throne of grace. You are asking God to bless them with life, forgiveness, the alleviation of their troubles. Why would you ask this if there was no root for it in your affections? Surely Christ is looking for more than rote obedience devoid of heart-affections when he says 'be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

Again, if we examine a passage like 1 Corinthians 13, we find the same thing. Love is that which bears, believes, hopes, and endures all things. It is hard indeed to picture how these things could genuinely come about in a heart devoid of affection for the person being loved. In fact, the only way I find I can genuinely love someone in these ways is to ask God to produce affection for them in my heart, so that my actions of love will be true--not faked or forced.

This is why I've thought it best to say that love is that affection or passion which produces... . In other words, love is not merely a feeling, but a God-wrought ability to have some of the same affection in my heart for one of God's creatures that God himself has. And just like God's love moves him to action, so this God-wrought affection in me will always motivate me to action.

Of course, this is always done absolutely imperfectly in my life. Sometimes life calls for us to just do what is right even before there is genuine affection in me. That's just because of my hardness of heart and slowness to be affected by God's truth and God's heart. Where I need to grow is in my continual experience of God's affections (his love for people, his hatred for sin, etc.) so that when situations come, the first affections to arise in my heart are God's own, so that my impulse will ultimately be genuine love.

Love

2008-05-07T16:26:00.003-04:00

I love our church. So does my pastor. A while ago he posted 34 things he loves about our church.

One Sunday night, when the weather was nice and the service had been over for more than an hour, and people were still hanging around talking to each other outside (because those of us responsible for locking the building had kicked them out), I began to wonder to myself if a church could ever get to a place where her people love each other too much.

I suppose in one sense, that could happen. If our love for each other ever superseded our love for Christ himself, or if our delight was in people, rather than in the God whose image is displayed in those people.

But when I thought about it more, the silliness of such a thought became apparent rather quickly. One can never love another person too much. No one could ever love more than Christ has loved (since this is how we know what love is) and clearly, Christ did not love too much.

But that got me to thinking that I needed a clearer definition of love. You see, when we think of love for another, we think of something which could supersede our delight in Christ, or something which could be taken too far, so that it is not in the other person's best interest. But really, at that point, it's not love at all... it's selfish delight in another person for the gratification of my own fleshly desires for entertainment or companionship or a sense of belonging or whatever else.

So here's the working definition of love that I came up with to help me evaluate whether I'm really loving someone, or whether I'm just having nice thoughts about them for my own benefit.

Love is

that affection or passion which motivates me to pursue another's ultimate good, regardless of the cost to myself.

Feel free to comment on that, if you like. I'm hoping to elaborate on that some more in the days to come.

CJ on Modesty

2008-05-02T15:09:00.003-04:00

There are few Christian authors who can combine real cultural and spiritual insight, genuine love for the gospel, and humility while addressing everyday situations and life issues. One who I love as a preacher and a writer is CJ Mahaney.

CJ is currently through 4 of what will be 7 posts that are excerpts from the forthcoming book Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World (Crossway, Sept. 2008), which CJ is editing. In this series CJ is giving excerpts from his chapter on modesty.

CJ focuses on the heart behind the clothes--which I love! Choice of clothing is like any other decision a person makes: it reveals something about a person's desires, motivations, etc. Pastorally, there are all kinds of issues surrounding modesty that can be addressed both in guys and girls.

Here's are a couple of the comments I've appreciated so far...

Any biblical discussion of modesty begins by addressing the heart, not the hemline. We must start with the attitude of the modest woman.

...

Modesty is humility expressed in dress. It’s a desire to serve others, particularly men, by not promoting or provoking sensuality.

Immodesty, then, is much more than wearing a short skirt or low-cut top; it’s the act of drawing undue attention to yourself. It’s pride, on display by what you wear.

...

There’s an inseparable link between your heart and your clothes. Your clothes say something about your attitude. If they don’t express a heart that is humble, that desires to please God, that longs to serve others, that’s modest, that exercises self-control, then change must begin in the heart.

For modesty is humility expressed in dress.

...

A woman’s taste for beauty can be an imitation of God’s character, but it can also become corrupted. And such was the case in this first-century church. Paul exhorted the women who professed godliness: “You should not dress in a way that resembles those who are extravagant, or worse, intent on being seductive or sexy. You must not identify with the sinful, worldly culture through your dress.” Paul was writing not to condemn attractive attire but to address its corruption by association with worldly ideals and goals.

...

Please know that I don’t write as a self-appointed critic. I am simply a concerned pastor who charitably assumes that most Christian women who dress immodestly are ignorant of the war with lust that men confront on a daily basis. They probably don’t have a clue what goes on in a man’s mind and what effect their bodies have on the eyes and hearts of men young and old.

But I want no one to be ignorant after reading this chapter. ...

And I don't want you to be ignorant. So go check out CJ's blog and follow this series as he posts. It will be well worth your while!

Follow-Up Thought

2008-04-30T13:54:00.002-04:00

I thought I should follow-up on the previous post with a note about why I think it's so important that we stay balanced on the whole issue of environmentalism and the role we play as Christians in this world.

In the conclusion to the WSJ article previously cited, Dr Michaels writes:

This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there's little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you're liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn't such a threat, who needs all that funding? Who needs the army of policy wonks crawling around the world with bold plans to stop climate change?

Here's why it's so important that we stay level-headed here. Something that seems so certain to so many in our day is still built on the shakiest evidence. We need to be discerning in our thinking, lest we be found to be building a house on sand.

But there's more to it than this. If there is any truth in what Dr Michaels is saying, then we're spending our time and our energies as Christians fighting for a cause built on a political agenda, rather than advancing the gospel of Christ crucified and raised for sinners. What could be a greater shame?

And in light of the charge I've recently received, I am renewed in my passion for keeping the gospel at the centre--which is where the NT would have it as well. You'll notice that in that whole list of things that the elder of the NT church is to do (which is a long list!) 'fighting against climate change' is not there! That's not to say it's bad, but it is to say that it's not central.

Here's why I want those of you in ministry positions in particular to consider this: we've been given a charge by our Master, who will be our strict Judge (Jas 3.1; 2 Tim 4.). He's given us a task. I do not want to be the one to stand before him and say, 'I know you said "preach the gospel," but I took that to mean "save the icebergs... which weren't really melting in the first place...".' It is a serious charge we have been given, and we must keep the centre the centre, in fear of the living God.

A Convenient Lie

2008-04-30T13:31:00.002-04:00

Tim Challies linked to a very interesting article from the Wall Street Journal on the topic of global warming / climate change, and how we get the numbers that are used to 'prove' that the earth is, in fact, getting warmer. Here's a little excerpt:

The fear of a sudden loss of ice from Greenland also makes a lot of news. A year ago, radio and television were ablaze with the discovery of "Warming Island," a piece of land thought to be part of Greenland. But when the ice receded in the last few years, it turned out that there was open water. Hence Warming Island, which some said hadn't been uncovered for thousands of years. CNN, ABC and the BBC made field trips to the island.

But every climatologist must know that Greenland's last decade was no warmer than several decades in the early and mid-20th century. In fact, the period from 1970-1995 was the coldest one since the late 19th century, meaning that Greenland's ice anomalously expanded right about the time climate change scientists decided to look at it.

Warming Island has a very distinctive shape, and it lies off of Carlsbad Fjord, in eastern Greenland. My colleague Chip Knappenberger found an inconvenient book, "Arctic Riviera," published in 1957 (near the end of the previous warm period) by aerial photographer Ernst Hofer. Hofer did reconnaissance for expeditions and was surprised by how pleasant the summers had become. There's a map in his book: It shows Warming Island.

The mechanism for the Greenland disaster is that summer warming creates rivers, called moulins, that descend into the ice cap, lubricating a rapid collapse and raising sea levels by 20 feet in the next 90 years. In Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," there's a wonderful picture of a moulin on page 193, with the text stating "These photographs from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes now happening on the ice there."

Really? There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.

You can read the whole very interesting article here.

What I Already Knew

2008-04-29T22:26:00.003-04:00

On the eve of what essentially amounts to a 'do or die' game, the Canadian Press is reporting today what the enlightened of us Canadians have known for some time. The Montréal Canadiens (aka Les Gloriuex) are Canada's Team.

So much for 'Leaf Nation.' Maybe they'll have more luck getting support on the golf course?

How Can I Become Wise?

2008-04-25T09:55:00.004-04:00

One of the greatest questions I think any young Christian (whether young as a person or young as a Christian--or both!) can ask is this: How can I become wise?

To say that the Scriptures speak highly of wisdom is an understatement indeed (see here for just one example). So how does one attain it?

Here is a very incomplete list. I compiled it a little while ago when reading through the book of Proverbs. I wanted to take note of everywhere the book gave instructions on how to become wise.

The funny thing about wisdom is that it's not just attained by anyone. It begins with a humble heart and is wrought in us only as we diligently and continually look for it.

Wisdom, in the biblical sense, speaks more of the ability to skilfully live a godly life in a fallen world than it does to the mere amassing of knowledge. To be wise is to be blessed: a life that is approved by God is a happy life indeed (in the truest sense of happiness).

So how does one become wise? Here's my (ever-growing) list. Feel free to make any additions from verses I've missed!

How Can I Become Wise?

Prov 10 ⁸The wise of heart will receive commandments, but a babbling fool will come to ruin.

Prov 10 ¹⁷Whoever heeds instruction is on the path to life, but he who rejects reproof leads others astray.

Prov 11 ²When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom.

Prov 12 ¹Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Prov 12 ¹⁵The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice.

Prov 13 ¹A wise son hears his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke.

Prov 13 ¹⁰By insolence comes nothing but strife, but with those who take advice is wisdom.

Prov 13 ¹³Whoever despises the word brings destruction on himself, but he who reveres the commandment will be rewarded.

Prov 13 ¹⁴The teaching of the wise is a fountain of life, that one may turn away from the snares of death.

Prov 13 ¹⁸Poverty and disgrace come to him who ignores instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is honoured.

Prov 13 ²⁰Whoever walks with the wise becomes wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.

Prov 13 ²⁴Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Prov 14 ¹⁵The simple believes everything, but the prudent gives thought to his steps.

Prov 15 ⁵A fool despises his father's instruction, but whoever heeds reproof is prudent.

Prov 15 ¹⁰There is severe discipline for him who forsakes the way; whoever hates reproof will die.

Prov 15 ¹²A scoffer does not like to be reproved; he will not go to the wise.

Prov 15 ³¹The ear that listens to life-giving reproof will dwell among the wise.

Prov 15 ³²Whoever ignores instruction despises himself, but he who listens to reproof gains intelligence.

Prov 17 ¹⁰A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool.

Prov 18 ²A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.

Prov 18 ¹⁵An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.

Prov 19 ²⁰Listen to advice and accept instruction, that you may gain wisdom in the future.

Prov 19 ²⁵Strike a scoffer, and the simple will learn prudence; reprove a man of understanding, and he will gain knowledge.

Prov 20 ¹⁸Plans are established by counsel; by wise guidance wage war.

Prov 23 ¹²Apply your heart to instruction and your ear to words of knowledge.

Prov 24 ⁶for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counsellors there is victory.

Prov 25 ¹²Like a gold ring or an ornament of gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear.

Prov 27 ⁶Faithful are the wounds of a friend; profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

Prov 27 ⁹Oil and perfume make the heart glad, and the sweetness of a friend comes from his earnest counsel.

Prov 28 ⁹If one turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination.

Prov 28 ²³Whoever rebukes a man will afterward find more favour than he who flatters with his tongue.

Prov 28 ²⁶Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

Prov 29 ¹He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.

Prov 29 ⁵A man who flatters his neighbour spreads a net for his feet.

Prov 29 ¹⁵The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

Prov 29 ¹⁷Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.

If you want, you can download a pdf version of this list to print or for further mediation here.

For more thoughts on the connections between humility and wisdom, you can download a sermon I preached a while ago, called 'From Poverty of Spirit to Riches of Wisdom.'

Expelled

2008-04-21T10:38:00.004-04:00

Tim Challies' a la carte has some insightful reviews today of Ben Stein's new documentary called Expelled. They are here and here. I'll embed the trailer below. It definitely looks like it's worth checking out! (Try the super trailer...)

Free Sermons to Download

2008-04-07T10:33:00.002-04:00

Check out the website of Toronto Baptist Seminary for some nice online resources, including audio messages from D.A. Carson, Michael Haykin, Bill James, and--most recently--Liam Goligher.

Dr Goligher has two messages posted: (1) 'The Emergent Church: Reinventing Liberalism', and, (2) 'Preaching the Cross Today.'

Click here to see the list of messages.

I Love My God

2008-04-07T09:20:00.002-04:00

This morning I was reading from Leviticus 19. In the midst of a long string of commands, where God's people are told what they must either do or not do in order to be holy as their God is holy, God gives these instructions.

When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God.

In these books of Law we find all kinds of laws that we would expect: Don't murder; don't steal; don't take someone else's wife; if you're a judge, don't take a bribe; if you kill an unborn baby, you are guilty before God; all kinds of laws like that. But then there are times when we come across passages like this one that can just seem totally unexpected.

Our God's justice is not like our justice. Intrinsic to the founding of 'the City of God' is this notion that the poor, the widow, the orphan, the sojourner must find a home. They must be taken care of. Why? Because it is a reflection of God's heart for the downtrodden. If God's people are to be holy, as he is holy, they must reflect the same heart as him: the poor must be comforted.

So how does that translate into the new covenant? I would suggest that we see this fulfilled in no less than three ways as we live in the current 'City of God'.

Jesus' message could be summarized this way: 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matt 4.17). This call to repentance is filled out a little more in this way: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven' (Matt 5.3). In other words, the kingdom of heaven has come, and is possessed by those who are poor--in spirit. These are the ones who are broken over their sin before a holy God (Matt 5.4); the ones who realize they are not perfect as God is perfect (Matt 5.48). They are therefore quick to show mercy, as God has shown them mercy (Matt 5.7; 39-47; 6.14-15; 7.1-5). This is the exact same calling as those citizens of the City of God in the OT received (Lev 19.33-34).

Just as the thrust of the commands throughout the OT were to be kind to the poor in their midst, so in the NT, kingdom citizens are to be abundantly merciful and generous to meet the needs of other kingdom citizens. The early church did not miss this at all, but saw it quite clearly (Acts 2.44-45). The emphasis must be placed here: the first place we must give and look after the poor is in our own midst--this was so in the OT, just as it is in the NT (see also Gal 6.9-10).

The Christian must be known as one who does not withhold the wages of the labourer, but gives to each what is due. The cries of even the unbeliever, when he is oppressed, will reach the ears of the Lord and the one who has withheld good from him, will bear his guilt (Jas 5:1-6). The Christian must never be known as one who values his money more than he values people; this would not reflect the character of our God at all.

I love my God because he cares for the spiritually poor (broken) and the destitute. He is a God of mercy, compassion, and grace--this is clearly revealed in both testaments. If we are to be his 'City' then we must reflect his character, his person, his passions. We must show mercy to others, as he has shown mercy to us.

On Being a Christian in the Workplace

2008-04-03T14:57:00.004-04:00

My brother (Ryan) and my brother-in-Christ (Jim) are hard at work building an SEO (search engine optimization) company. I thank our Lord for putting Christians in every sphere of work and society today. I want Christ to be honoured from every type of job, from every level of employment in our city, country, and world. These guys are doing their part, by the grace of God.

Last week Jim wrote an excellent post on what it means to be a Christian SEO. He gives nine answers, and all of them are great. While some are specific aspects are specific to being an SEO, there is much application there for any Christian in any line of work.

Here's an excerpt:

1. It means that we do everything whole-heartedly. Whatever work we have to do, Christ has given to us. As we enthusiastically and faithfully review websites and write lines of HTML code, we bring honour to Him.

2. It does not mean that we are automatically the best SEO's in the world. God has given talent and abilities to all men, not just Christians. Some are gifted more than us.

Those are the first two... you'll have to go here to read the rest...

Whitefield on the Celebration of Christmas

2007-12-12T14:58:00.000-05:00

Quite contrary to Spurgeon's take on the same holiday, here are Whitefield's thoughts on the necessity of Christians celebrating Christmas:

Therefore, if we do but consider into what state, and at how great a distance from God we are fallen; how vile our natures were; what a depravity, and how incapable to restore that image of God to our souls, which we lost in our first parents: when I consider these things, my brethren, and that the Lord Jesus Christ came to restore us to that favor with God which we had lost, and that Christ not only came down with an intent to do it, but actually accomplished all that was in his heart towards us; that he raised and brought us into favor with God, that we might find kindness and mercy in his sight; surely this calls for some return of thanks on our part to our dear Redeemer, for this love and kindness to our souls. How just would it have been of him, to have left us in that deplorable state wherein we, by our guilt, had involved ourselves? For God could not, nor can receive any additional good by our salvation; but it was love, mere love; it was free love that brought the Lord Jesus Christ into our world about 1700 years ago. What, shall we not remember the birth of our Jesus? Shall we yearly celebrate the birth of our temporal king, and shall that of the King of kings be quite forgotten? Shall that only, which ought to be had chiefly in remembrance, be quite forgotten? God forbid! No, my dear brethren, let us celebrate and keep this festival of our church, with joy in our hearts: let the birth of a Redeemer, which redeemed us from sin, from wrath, from death, from hell, be always remembered; may this Savior's love never be forgotten! But may we sing forth all his love and glory as long as life shall last here, and through an endless eternity in the world above! May we chant forth the wonders of redeeming love, and the riches of free grace, amidst angels and archangels, cherubim and seraphim, without intermission, for ever and ever!

What Spurgeon Thought about Christmas

2007-12-05T13:49:00.000-05:00

I find very few people funnier than CH Spurgeon. When delivering a sermon on December 23, 1855, Spurgeon opened (what would you get in your homiletics class if you used this as an introduction?) with these words:

This is the season of the year when, whether we wish it or not, we are compelled to think of the birth of Christ. I hold it to be one of the greatest absurdities under heaven to think that there is any religion in keeping Christmas-day. There are no probabilities whatever that our Saviour Jesus Christ was born on that day, and the observance of it is purely of Popish origin; doubtless those who are Catholics have a right to hallow it, but I do not see how consistent Protestants can account it in the least sacred. However, I wish there were ten or a dozen Christmas-days in the year; for there is work enough in the world, and a little more rest would not hurt labouring people. Christmas-day is really a boon to us; particularly as it enables us to assemble round the family hearth and meet our friends once more. Still, although we do not fall exactly in the track of other people, I see no harm in thinking of the incarnation and birth of the Lord Jesus...

With that he began his sermon on the incarnation of Jesus. Awesome!

Caitlyn Adele Freeman

2007-11-10T19:37:00.001-05:00

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Conclusion

2007-10-12T11:11:00.000-04:00

You may want to first read Part 1, Part 2, part 3, part 4, and, part 5.

5. CONCLUSION

Stephen Neill is indeed correct in his summation, that “the Christian finds that he can never think of God without thinking of Jesus Christ, and that he can never think of Jesus Christ without thinking of God.”[1] In the NT, the faith of the apostles and the early church is seen to be one which is profoundly centred on the person of Jesus. His deity is inherent in the authority with which he acts in the gospels, it is transparent in the titles of κύριος and θεός as ascribed to him throughout the NT, and it is powerfully evident as he is prayed to and worshiped by the church as a whole. It is experientially true for New Covenant believers that “even the Old Testament idea of God, magnificent as it is, no longer covers the Christian’s experience and has had to be radically transformed. Vast new dimensions have been added.”[2] We have spoken of great things, but it will never be enough. Endless eternities of exploration will never allow us to plumb the depths of the realities of this man-God; this conquering, victorious Lamb who loved me and gave himself for me. So let us begin now!

[1] Stephen Neill, What We Know About Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 83.

[2] Ibid.

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Part 5

2007-10-05T14:11:00.000-04:00

You may want to first read Part 1, Part 2, part 3 and, part 4.

4. IN JESUS’ NAME: PRAYER TO AND WORSHIP OF JESUS AS GOD

Aside from being portrayed as deity by his authority in his earthly ministry, and declared to be both “Lord” and “God” throughout the NT, Jesus is also strongly implied to be deity by virtue of the activities which are carried out in his name by his followers.

A. PRAYER TO JESUS. Adolf Schlatter, in his discussion of the early church, speaks of the unifying effect of the doctrine of Christ as divine, and the unified church which resulted. The centrality of Jesus’ divinity

becomes clear in view of the community’s prayer. For its hallmark was that it called upon the name of Jesus (1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Tim. 2:22; Rom. 10:13; Acts 9:21; 22:16; 7:59). Faith directed toward him finds its closest, most simple result in moving man to request his grace and help. The thought that Jesus could be called upon without calling upon God did not arise in the early church. It directed its adoration, its thanksgiving, and its petition to God.[1]

In other words, this monotheistic community of believers drew together in prayer to Jesus Christ by virtue of their belief in his deity. The NT bears witness to this reality, as is shown by his citations. To his list may be added 1 Cor 16.22; 2 Cor 12.8; and Rev 22.20.[2] This is a remarkable fact for God-fearing Jews who understood that there is only one God who created the heavens and the earth, and who is able to answer prayer (Dt 6.4; 2 Kgs 19.15).

B. WORSHIP OF JESUS. Heb 1.6 declares that not only men, but also the angels of God are to worship Jesus, and this is the pattern that is laid down for us in the records of the earliest Christians. Throughout the NT “doxologies are addressed to him, either alone (Rom. 9:5 ... 2 Tim. 4:18; 2 Pet 3:18; Rev. 1:5f.) or with the Father (Rev. 5:13; 7:10).”[3]

Nor is the worship of Jesus something which is seen to decrease as the church grew. Rather, the book of Revelation records some of the most glorious scenes of Jesus being worshiped.

The lamb in Revelation is both Redeemer and Ruler, the Judge who died for his people, the Lamb-God, who is both slain and triumphant, Lord of lords and King of kings (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).[4]

Along similar lines as Woodbridge, Newman notes that “in a book that venerates God’s omnipotence in unprecedented ways, it is surprising to find that Revelation also openly encourages and models the worship of the enthroned Jesus.”[5] Several examples of this may be given, including 1.6; 5.9, 12, 15; 7.10; and 12.10. He continues, “Revelation legitimates and promotes the worship of Jesus and God—the worship of Jesus as God—and it does so at the very places where God is worshiped and with the very language that is used to venerate God.”[6]

Commenting on Rev 1.6, Mounce concludes that this is an “ascription to Christ of glory and dominion forever and ever. In this context, ‘glory’ is praise and honor, and ‘dominion’ connotes power and might. … The statement is both a confident assertion about the exalted Christ and an exhortation to regard him correspondingly,” which is—among other things—to worship him as the true, conquering King of kings and Lord of lords (19.16).[7]

[1] Schlatter, Theology of the Apostles, 365.

[2] Packer, God’s Words, 49.

[3] Ibid.

[4] P.D. Woodbridge, “Lamb,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 622.

[5] Newman, “God,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments, 428.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 50.

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Part 4

2007-10-03T09:42:00.000-04:00

You may want to first read Part 1, Part 2, and part 3.

3. JESUS AS KURIOS AND QEOS (cont'd)

B. JESUS AS QEOS. Many of the passages which may speak of Jesus as θεός are heavily debated, and some with good reason. The ones which most certainly do refer to Jesus as θεός are John 1.1; 20.28; Rom 9.5; Tit 2.13; Heb 1.8; and 2 Pet 1.1.[1] For our purposes we will need to limit ourselves to a discussion of Rom 9.5 and John 20.28.

Rom 9.5 is famously difficult to translate on account of the great role to be played by punctuation absent from the original. As Witherington sums up, “the argument turns on whether the verse should be read ‘the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever’ (as the NRSV has it), or ‘the Messiah, who is God over all, blessed forever’ (as JB, NIV, and the marginal reading of NRSV have it).”[2] Schreiner observes that most objections to Christ being here referred to as θεός “though diverse, boil down to one fundamental objection: it is improbable that Christ would be called θεός since this is uncharacteristic of Paul elsewhere.”[3]

This argument, however, from external tendencies and based on limited evidence must not be allowed to overrule plain grammatical evidence. “The natural antecedent to ὁ ὢν is Χριστὸς, for doxologies are virtually always attached to the preceding word and asyndetic doxologies do not exist.”[4] Again, grammatically, “it is easier and more natural to maintain an identity of subject from ὁ Χριστὸς to ὁ ὢν, since there is grammatical concord between the noun and the participle, than it is to assume a change of subject.”[5] Therefore, in this passage there are three distinct affirmations made about Christ: “he is Lord of all, he is God by nature, and he will be eternally praised.”[6]

In John 20.28 the grammar is much simpler and less debated. While there are several alternatives given by various commentators, they are quickly refuted by Harris as unlikely for lack of evidence which, when present, is based largely on Classical tendencies. Rather, the simplest—and best attested—way to understand Thomas’ cry is as a vocatival address to Jesus himself.[7] Köstenberger points out that “in the OT, ‘Lord’ and ‘God’ are frequently juxtaposed with reference to Yahweh (e.g. Ps. 35:23-24),” just as they are here to Jesus.[8]

Where it is objected that Thomas’ confession, as recorded in this passage, is too developed for coming only one week after Easter, it must be remembered that (1) there is little evidence to suggest that such Christological titles took time to evolve, and, (2) there are accounts in the Jewish OT—with which Thomas would have been familiar—where men found themselves talking with a man, only to discover to their shock, that it was Yahweh himself. Moreover, the repeated pronoun μου makes Thomas’ confession of faith intensely personal, thus fitting together with the purpose of the book expressed in the immediate context (v 31).[9] This confession of Jesus as ὁ θεός μου also functions to form a literary bookend with John 1.1 and 1.18, where Jesus is also referred to as θεός. “In the Johannine narrative, the evangelist desires that the reader respond in the same way Thomas did.”[10]

[1] The most extensive work on this is Murray J. Harris’ book, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), where he deals in-depth with these and several other texts.

[2] Ben Witherington III, “Jesus as the Alpha and Omega of New Testament Thought,” in Contours of Christology, ed. Longenecker, 35.

[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 487.

[4] Ibid., 488.

[5] Harris, Jesus as God, 171.

[6] Ibid., 167.

[7] Ibid., 110-111.

[8] Andreas J. Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 579.

[9] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 658-659.

[10] Köstenberger, John, 579.

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Part 3

2007-10-02T10:01:00.000-04:00

You may want to first read Part 1 and Part 2.

3. JESUS AS KURIOS AND QEOS

A. JESUS AS KURIOS. It must be noted first that we are not primarily dealing with the gospels in this section, since “when people address Jesus as ‘Lord’ in the Gospels, this is often no more than a customary polite form of address.”[1] Rather, we will aim more narrowly at the post-resurrection narratives in Acts and the canonical epistles of the early church.

In the book of Acts, following the account of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the word κύριος takes on new significance for the earliest Christians. As C.C. Newman observes,

The resurrection undeniably revealed Jesus’ true identity as the divine Lord, the kyrios (Acts 2:36). Numerous times within the narrative does Acts specifically identify Jesus as the ‘Lord’ (Acts 1:6, 21; 4:33; 7:59; 8:16; 9:5-6; 11:17, 20; 15:11, 26; 16:30; 19:5, 13; 20:21, 24; 21:13; 22:8; 26:15; in many other places implied). By employing the same word used by the Septuagint to translate the divine name (i.e., Yahweh) as a title for Jesus, Acts comes close to binitarianism.[2]

Trejer agrees, noting that while during his lifetime “Lord” was merely a term of respect akin to “sir” in modern usage, after Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension “its use as the Greek equivalent of the OT Yahweh becomes significant.”[3]

This significance is carried on from Acts into the epistles of the early church. Of particular significance are the NT passages where OT texts specifically referring to Yahweh are said to be fulfilled in Christ, who is κύριος.[4] One such text is found in Phil 2.9-11. Here Trejer notes that

Paul uses this name to identify Jesus with Israel’s covenant God—in shocking fulfillment of a strong monotheistic text, Isa. 45:21-24. The exaltation of a human being to share in what was, and is now fully revealed to be, Yahweh’s identity was a remarkable claim.[5]

In this particular context it is essential to note the importance of both names in general, and of the name of Jesus in particular. “In ancient thought a ‘name’ was employed not only as a means of distinguishing one person from another but also as ‘a means of revealing the inner being, the true nature of that individual’.”[6] So in a context where names are significant for identifying the essence of the person it is especially significant to note, with O’Brien the following:

The name (τὸ ὄνομα is definite) greater than any other that God conferred on Jesus as a gracious gift (ἐχαρίσατο) is his own name, κύριος (‘Lord’), in its most sublime sense, that designation used in the LXX to represent the personal name of the God of Israel, that is, Yahweh.[7]

O’Brien concludes by noting the greatness of this honour by viewing this statement in light of Is 42.8: “ἐγὼ κύριος ὁ θεός τοῦτό μού ἐστιν τὸ ὄνομα τὴν δόξαν μου ἑτέρῳ οὐ δώσω.” Other passages of similar thrust and importance include 1 Cor 8.6; 12.3; Heb 1.10-12; Rev 19.16, however, space restrictions will not allow for in-depth discussion of these passages here.[8]

[1] I.H. Marshall, “Jesus Christ,” in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, eds. T. Desmond Alexander, Brian S. Rosner, D.A. Carson, and Graeme Goldsworthy (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 599. For some possible exceptions to this, see Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 544-545. Among the more plausible are Matt 3.3; 22.44; Luke 1.43; 2.11, 18. Nevertheless, the normal use of κύριος throughout the gospels is still simply a “polite address to a superior” (544).

[2] C.C. Newman, “God,” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 416.

[3] Trejer, “Jesus Christ”, 364.

[4] See, for some examples, Matt 3.3; Mark 1.3; Acts 2.21; Rom 10.9, 13; 1 Cor 12.3.

[5] Trejer, “Jesus Christ”, 364.

[6] Peter T. O’Brien, Commentary on Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 237.

[7] Ibid., 238. Emphasis original.

[8] For a more extended discussion of κύριος implying Jesus’ deity, see J.I. Packer, God’s Words (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus), 48-51.

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Part 2

2007-10-01T10:40:00.000-04:00

Part 1 may be read here.

2. A MAN WITH THE AUTHORITY OF GOD:

JESUS’ DIVINITY IN THE GOSPELS

Darrell Bock notes that whereas the number of times when Jesus is directly spoken of as “God” in the gospels is relatively small, it is “far more common” that Jesus, in his teaching and actions is seen to be “impinging upon space or prerogatives unique to God.”[1] As in Matt 11.2-6, where John the Baptist is instructed by Jesus, so we will likewise turn to what may be seen of Jesus’ life in order that we may see what may be properly believed of him.

A. JESUS’ AUTHORITY OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT. From the very beginning of his teaching ministry (the Sermon on the Mount), Jesus makes the double claim that he is the one to whom the OT points (Matt 5.17) and that he has the inherent authority to re-interpret and apply whatever his hearers had previously been taught (vv 21-48). Commenting on this passage, Stonehouse notes boldness of Jesus’ teaching:

Six times Jesus, completely on his own authority, and without any attempt to vindicate his categorical declarations, seems to set his own pronouncements in antithesis to “that which had been spoken,” the latter deliverances consisting of, or at least including, in every instance quotation from the law of Moses.[2]

Over against the will of God as the people of his day understood it, Jesus declares an authoritative interpretation for all people, “according to his own authority as the law’s ‘fulfiller’.”[3] Both up until this time and ever since no man has lived and preached with this authority. As Carson elsewhere notes from Matthew’s gospel, “At the Transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8), the whole point of the Matthean account is that Jesus alone and not even Moses or Elijah is to be heard as the voice of God; ‘Listen to him!’”[4] Thus the voice of God the Father is heard to be declaring the superiority of the authoritative revelation in Jesus as compared with that which came through Moses (the Law) and Elijah (the Prophets).

B. JESUS’ AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH. Repeatedly throughout the gospels Jesus is seen to be flatly contradicting the expectations of Sabbath behaviour commonly held by the Jews of his day. Jesus’ explanation for this is often a declaration his own authority, such as “one greater than the temple is here” and “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath” (Matt 12.6, 8). Jesus’ boldness in “working” on the Sabbath could elsewhere be used to display his oneness with the Father:

When Jesus heals a man on the Sabbath (John 5), he claims that God has given him authority to work on the Sabbath, to give life, and to raise the dead. These three privileges belonged only to God. Jesus’ claim that he rightfully exercises these prerogatives because God has authorized him to do so is not lost on his hearers, who hear in his words an impious claim to equality with God.[5]

This type of claim to be carrying out the work of God with the authority of God smacked of blasphemy to his disbelieving audience, who clearly perceived that he was claiming equality with God himself, and therefore divinity.

C. JESUS’ AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS. As Bock notes, it is often the works of Jesus which draw the most attention to his claim to divinity. Thus in Luke 5:17-26 and 7:36-49 where Jesus freely forgives people of their sins, “the leadership complains that he is claiming to do something only God can do. … He is claiming to make himself equal with God.”[6] Rather than denying or avoiding this challenge from his opponents, Jesus seems desirous in both accounts of drawing public attention to the fact that he has done God’s work. Thus, we can conclude that the gospel writers have included these pericopes for the very same reason: to challenge the reader to evaluate Jesus’ claims. And we must not miss them, since “Jesus’ opponents appear to appreciate the significance of his actions and what they ultimately mean.”[7] Something so obvious to Jesus’ contemporaries must not be overlooked; in forgiving the sins of humans, Jesus is claiming the rights and responsibilities of deity, and making himself to be equal with God.

[1] Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 605.

[2] Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1944), 198.

[3] D.A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, v.8, ed. Frank Gæbelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 148. Emphasis added.

[4] D.A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 75. For a discussion on the role of such “reliable statements” concerning Jesus and their role in developing the Christology of Matthew, see Terence L. Donaldson, “The Vindicated Son,” in Contours of Christology in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 108-109.

[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green, and Marianne Meye Thompson, eds. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 187-188.

[6] Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, 605.

[7] Ibid.

Jesus Christ: My Lord and My God! - Part 1

2007-09-28T15:10:00.000-04:00

1. INTRODUCTION

The importance of recognizing that the New Testament identifies Jesus as deity, and yet as completely one with the Father, cannot possibly be over-stated. For the authors of the NT, this Christ himself became not only the interpretive grid, but also the sun at the centre of their scriptural universe, around which everything else has its orbit. Reflecting on the centrality of Christ in the Scriptures as displayed by these NT authors, Trejer states,

It is a Christian truism that Jesus Christ is central when reading the OT and NT as Scripture: he is their basic content, the Word of God; he gives them their form (in a certain sense Old and New Testaments); he himself is the aim toward which their reading should be oriented.[1]

Schlatter, likewise, speaks of the importance of the identity of Christ in the apostles’ teaching, saying that the early Christian message “in all its forms” focused on Jesus’ identity—in particular, his “oneness with God.”[2] This was so because “their success depended completely on their ability to transcend the notion that they worshipped the man Jesus in place of God or beside God. If they could not utterly discredit this charge, their work would disintegrate.”[3]

Given the centrality and importance of the deity of Jesus Christ to the apostles and the early church, it comes as no surprise that throughout the NT Jesus’ divinity is displayed in a diversity of ways. It is the aim of this series of posts to answer the question, “In what ways does the NT portray Jesus as divine?”[4] The goal will be to cover material from the different authors and genres of the NT. We will first examine how Jesus’ divinity is portrayed through the authority of his teaching and actions in the gospels. Second, we will note particular uses of both κύριος and θεὸς in reference to Christ, particularly in the epistles. Finally it will be noted how the ministry carried out and the worship offered to the name of Jesus clearly identify him as none other than true, almighty God.

[1] Daniel J. Trejer, “Jesus Christ, Doctrine of,” in Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 363.

[2] Adolf Schlatter, The Theology of the Apostles: The Development of New Testament Theology, trans. Andreas Köstenberger (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 33.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Obviously an exhaustive answer cannot be conducted here given our present constraints. We will rather work within the limits presently laid out.

Who's In Your Church?

2007-08-26T23:19:00.001-04:00

The Kerux has had quite an interesting conversation emerging on his blog lately about the issue of baptism and church membership. These are issues I've thought about for some time, but I confess, I have not come to a firm view.

The arguments against having paedobaptists as members are legion, but I think that most (all?) of them fall short. Here's one of the arguments against it that drives me nuts:

Paedobaptists have aberrant theological views. We should not allow people with aberrant theological views into church membership. Therefore, paedobaptists should not be allowed to be members in baptist churches.

Some even extend this logic to the issue of who we allow to partake of the Lord's Supper. That just doesn't make any sense to me! Does that not seem unbiblical to anyone else?

It seems to me that when I examine the New Testament evidence, there is no theological quiz given before the Lord's Supper. Believers were not required to jump through theological hoops to be considered 'valid church members.' Membership in the local church was based on identification with Christ--which, granted, included baptism.

But paedobaptists believe they have been baptised, and if they are believers, have identified themselves with Christ. So why do we exclude them? Because they believe an 'aberrant theological view.'

But don't you hold 'aberrant theological views' too? I'm certain that I do.

So whether we like it or not, we're either (a) saying that we hold no aberrant views on any secondary issues, or else (b) what we've already done is drawn a line in the sand, saying that there are certain aberrant views we will accept and others that we won't.

Why draw that line at baptism? What if someone in our church is a dispensational premillenial (gasp)? What if someone is a continuationist rather than a cessationist? What if--God forbid--one of our people should be Arminian? Do we say 'Get out of our church!' or, 'There's no bread for your types around here!'?

I think not! If someone were to start picking apart my systematics with such a fine-toothed comb, I would think it would not be long before I would be barred from the Table!

Let me pose this question to all who are concerned for the preaching of doctrinal truth from our pulpits: Who do you want in your church?

I want people who love my Lord Jesus and are committed to loving him with heart, soul, mind, and strength. I want paedobaptists in my church because they'll hear me preach on baptism. I want Arminians in my church because they'll hear us teach on God's sovereign saving grace. I want egalitarians in my church because they'll hear the truth about gender distinctions in the church and in the home. I want charismatics and cessationists in my church because these are secondary issues and we love and serve the same Lord and we all have much to teach each other!

Where else will all of us with 'aberrant theological views' go to hear the truth, if not to our local church?

Interesting Comparisons

2007-08-17T10:45:00.000-04:00

It was quite a delight when Nana recently loaned me some old photos of me as a baby at our family cottage. It was even more of a delight to compare me bathing in the cottage sink to my daughter (25 years later!) bathing in the same sink!

Of course, as baby photos often do, these ones sparked some other interesting comparisons in my mind. These two are of me and my favourite nephew, Wes. Both of us seem to like chocolate.

Just Because I'm a Proud Dad

2007-08-14T19:11:00.000-04:00

How to React to the Fall of Rome - Part 2

2007-07-27T09:08:00.000-04:00

In the previous post we saw that the ancient church's view of a historical phenomenon (namely, the Roman Empire) shifted dramatically within the space of a few generations, on account of their particular experiences with that empire.

I would suggest that we have seen something somewhat similar take place over the past few generations up until our day--though not with an empire, per se.

I think it is particularly interesting to see how many Christians lament over the end of modernism the way Jerome mourned the fall of Rome. So many of us weep over modernism as if it was a Christian creation, designed for the spread of the gospel--God's chosen means for reaching the world.

In reality, there is little that is further from the truth. In and of itself modernism was never a friend to the gospel. Secular modernist philosophers and scientists have always used modernism as a means of attacking and discrediting the claims of the Christian faith.

For all the ways that modernism has provided a platform for displaying the truthfulness of Christianity (text criticism, archaeological studies of ancient cities, much of creation science, etc.), it was never a 'Christian' view.

The trustworthiness of Christianity in a modern mindset boils down to little more than making a 'case for Christ' logically. The trouble is that Christianity, by its very nature, will not fit in these categories.

All that we are as Christians is based on the claim that Jesus Christ was entirely God and entirely man, lived a perfect life fulfilling God's law, suffered and died to take on the curse of the law for us who receive his righteousness, and that God really did physically and literally raise him from the dead.

But here's the deal: I can't prove that to you in a scientific way. I can point to evidences, but that's all. There is something necessarily personal and experiential (existential?) about the Christian faith. What we believe is not relativism, because our believing does not determine whether something is true or false, but our faith is what saves us.

In other words, it's something personal, internal, 'unprovable' that makes all the difference in the world. That's what our religion is based on. This is the kind of thing that modernists can't grasp. They want something to touch, to examine, to test, to prove.

So what then? Do we rejoice over the fall of Rome? Do we rush off to align ourselves with the newest invaders who have come to expose Rome's weaknesses? Do we embrace all that is postmodernism with open arms?

I suggest that we do what Augustine did. We use this opportunity to look around and evaluate from the perspective of eternity. What about modernism was evil and passing? What was good? What reflected God? How was modernism used for the spread of the kingdom?

And then, we ought to begin asking some careful questions about the 'empire' that is coming upon us. How can we use its strengths and its weaknesses to further the cause of the kingdom? How does postmodernism provide ways for the gospel to go forth that modernism never would?

In the end we must remember that neither modernism nor postmodernism is 'God's perspective.' These philosophical mindsets are of man, and they will pass. We need to examine the world around us closely so that we can see how to better hope in, trust in, and point to the world that is to come.

How to React to the Fall of Rome - Part 1

2007-07-25T09:31:00.000-04:00

Looking over my notes today from my early church history course, I noticed something interesting. It's nothing new or profound, but it caught my attention anyway. The church's response to the fall of Rome was weird, in many ways.

I think it's necessary to lay some background before we move on.

From the founding of Christianity (Pentecost somewhere around 33AD) to 64AD the Christian church enjoyed religious protection, since it was seen by Rome as a Jewish sect. When Rome burnt in 64AD, however, Nero needed someone to blame and so he blamed the Christians.

Nero's actions set the precedent for persecution of Christians that would last the next few hundred years. Rome was ruled by pagans who hated Christians. From the heart of Rome all the way up to places like Gaul (southern France) Christians were persecuted.

It is important to note that throughout this time period, Christians saw the hand of Satan at work in the Roman Empire, as both he and they sought to destroy Christ's church.

Skipping ahead a few centuries, we find that in 312AD a Roman Emperor (Constantine) becomes a Christian. This is part of a monumental shift for the way Christianity and Rome came to relate. Though (contrary to popular belief) Constantine did not legislate Christianity, he did legally protect Christians from persecution.

As Christianity gained favour with the upper segments of society (it's popular to like what the emperor likes), Rome grew in favour with the Christians as well.

Within a few generations, it seems, Christians had forgotten that Rome had for so long killed and persecuted their forefathers in the faith. Now Rome was a friend to them, and they could see it as nothing else.

This is seen nowhere more clearly than in Jerome's reaction to the fall of Rome. In his writings, he laments the fall of the Roman empire, citing Scriptures originally speaking of Jerusalem, and now using them in reference to Rome! Christians like him wept and lamented that this 'Christian' empire could fall.

This is a far cry from the view of Christians who had lived only a few generations before him, who saw Satan at work through the Roman empire.

How could this shift have happened?

It happened because Christians like Jerome were so consumed with what they could see in their own time, that they lost sight of what the scriptures truly do say about kingdoms, empires, and earthly regimes.

Just as a side note, in closing, it must be noted that my personal hero, Augustine, did not fall prey to such a short view. In response to Jerome, Augustine would write letters to him, admonishing him to look past Rome to the City that will never fall. Likewise, against the pagans who said that the fall of Rome meant the fall (and failure!) of Christianity, Augustine wrote the City of God which functions as a theodicy and an apologetic to the philosophers of his day.

What does all this have to do with us and how we view history today, as it unfolds? That's for another post.

TBS Principal's Banquet

2007-06-04T16:10:00.000-04:00

I was quite blessed with the privilege of speaking at this year's Principal's Banquet for the Toronto Baptist Seminary. I was to give a 'student's perspective, in three minutes or less.' I was given the task of explaining why I chose to come to TBS, and why I continue to study at TBS. In other words, from a student's perspective, I should answer the question, 'Why should someone continue to support the work at the seminary?'

Below is the manuscript I had written out. It is close to what I actually said.

My name is Julian Freeman and I just finished my second year as a full-time student at TBS. I count it quite a privilege to be here tonight and to have the opportunity to speak to you about why I have chosen to study at TBS and why I continue to study at TBS. I do think it is somewhat unfair for them to give me such a broad, open-ended question, and then only give me a few minutes to talk about my reasons, but here is my best effort anyway.

The first thing that drew me to TBS was the doctrinal statement. I had an opportunity to do my undergraduate degree at a school where I had significant differences in doctrine with some of the professors. This was a benefit to me as it exposed me to many different viewpoints on many different issues. However, when it came time for me to do my graduate work, my work which would be preparation for pastoral ministry, I knew that I had to go to school where I would no longer have to second guess the ones teaching me, but would be able to receive the truth as it was taught emphatically from scriptures.

TBS plays an absolutely crucial role in the training of men for pastoral ministry in Canada, because to the best of my knowledge it is the only complementarian school in Canada and it is also one of the few schools which still emphasizes the doctrines of grace. In these crucial areas our school still stands firm, with the word of God as our authority.

Another key factor in my choosing of TBS was its location. I was born and raised in Toronto, and my church involvement before seminary was in Toronto as well. Attending seminary close to home has allowed me to maintain my closeness to my local congregation, and has allowed them to continue to play a crucial role in my personal and spiritual development as I prepare for ministry. There are simply no other seminaries in the area where a student can go to get a solid, biblical education in preparation for pastoral ministry. The only alternative is to go to the United States, be removed from our local churches and Canadian context, and perhaps never come back. Having a school like TBS here, in Canada, helps ensure that our guys stay here and continue to minister in our context--right where we need them.

The main reason why I have loved being at TBS, however, and what keeps me committed to the school is the professors themselves [men like the kerux, Kirk Wellum, and Michael Haykin]. Never have I once questioned their commitment to us as individuals, as brothers and sisters in Christ, and as those training for future ministry. The professors have always made themselves available for us to speak about what issues concern us, be they spiritual, doctrinal, or personal. Over and over again I have been amazed by the grace of God at work in these men that they so freely give of their time and their talents so sacrificially in order to benefit us and through us, to grow God's kingdom.

I am so thankful to our Lord for what he is doing in our midst at TBS: he has given young men like me who have sensed God's calling on our lives an opportunity to learn God's truths from God's word, as taught by godly professors who are concerned for God's glory in the growth of his kingdom. Please do continue to pray that God would continue to increase the work he is already doing amongst us at TBS.

Hearing God's Word

2007-06-02T13:17:00.000-04:00

It seems to me to be an incredible blessing to live with the technology of the 21^st century at our disposal. When the Bible was first written it was given to the people of God to be read aloud in their public worship services. Over the years, however, that practice was lost in our modern, western culture of individualism. Now that everyone owns their own Bible (or five) and we no longer need to go to church in order to hear what the Bible says, reading and hearing the Bible read aloud seems redundant and superfluous.

I’m so thankful for technology because it gives us new ways to carry out our old traditions. Recently, when I was at a conference in the States with my friend Tim, I purchased the Bible read by Max McLean on MP3 CDs that I can listen to my car.

My habit lately has been to listen to a single book of the Bible, listening carefully for major themes for connecting thoughts. When the book is over, I hit rewind and hear it read again. I do this several times to get my head around the whole flow of thought int he book.

It never ceases to amaze me that no matter how many times we go back over the same text of God’s inspired word, the Spirit reveals more and more of God’s truth to us through the words on the page. Because of my calling and my stage of life I have found it particularly important to study the pastoral epistles again. I love how in so few pages God has packed so much wisdom for all generations of his church’s undershepherds.

If you have never taken the opportunity to hear God’s word read aloud, then let me encourage you to do so. I think it will amaze you, as it has amazed me, to see how thoughts are related from paragraph to paragraph in a way that you cannot understand simply by reading quietly in your head (also, you don't have to worry about the visual false divisions of chapter and verse).

If you do not have anyone to read the word of God aloud to you then let me suggest simply reading the word on your own out loud to yourself. On the T4G blog, Mark Dever recently confirmed what I had previously been suspicious of, namely, that Ambrose was the first figure in history of whom it is said that he read silently to himself. So before the end of the fourth century it was clearly the practice of our forefathers to read whatever they were reading aloud. If the Bible was written in order to be read aloud, then why not give it a shot?

If you are not convinced by my arguments here, then let me dare you to give it a shot. Go to the ESV web site and spend some time listening to the streaming audio that is available for free. If you don’t benefit from it, then don’t worry about it. But, if you are like me, and you do find benefit in it, then go out and buy yourself the Bible on CD. The more ways we find to make the Bible come to life for us--so that God the Father can reveal Jesus Christ to us through God the Spirit as he speaks through the words on the page--the better!

All-Male Eldership, Part 6: Concluding Thoughts

2007-05-31T11:19:00.000-04:00

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4. Part 5. And finally we come to the...

Conclusion

It has been the intent of this series to present several of the exegetical arguments for the complementarian position. Admittedly, some arguments are more persuasive than others, but we have been firmly founded in the God-breathed texts from the Old and New Testaments throughout.

We have not claimed to have all answers for all questions, nor have we come close to providing exhaustive definitions, arguments and proofs, so as to close the case—that was not the intent. What was desired has been accomplished, however, and the Scriptures have been allowed to interpret themselves in order to present the reader with a broad view of how God inspired his writers to structure the husband-wife relationship.

Since this has been a presentation of the classical interpretation and the plain reading of all of the passages mentioned, a personal plea to the reader must be made:

Do not allow yourself to be swayed away from the doctrine of Paul, Peter, and the historic Christian church by any showy argument.

If there is any temptation to move to a novel egalitarian position, scrutinize motives in agonizing detail: Why do you desire to depart from the biblical teaching?

Examine arguments carefully: Are they logical? Are they consistent with the style and intent of arguments of biblical writers? Are the criteria used biblical in nature?

And most importantly: Make sure your position is derived from Holy Writ and nowhere else. No other text is God-breathed, and no writer since John has been inspired. We may be absolutely sure that God’s will (at least at one point) was for wives to submit to husbands. We may not in any sense whatever be certain that it was ever or ever will be God’s desire for a husband-wife relationship to exist without headship and submission.

Seriously consider: Where does the burden of proof lie? The argument must not be framed in a way so as to make complementarians the ones who must give an explanation why we believe what we do, since what we believe is plainly revealed in Scriptures. The burden of proof clearly lies on egalitarians.

For those swayed by the "cultural exceptions" type arguments, let me ask you this: Just for a moment, put yourself in Paul's place, wanting to lay down clear and binding regulations for the male-female relationship for all Christians everywhere... how would you present it? Would you refer to the creation order and why we were each created? Would you refer to the relationship of man and woman prior to the fall? He did. Would you refer to the undoing of the curse in redeemed Christian relationships? So did he. Would you refer to the inner workings of our Triune God? That was Paul's approach. So now, let me ask you, what could Paul have referred to that would convince you that this commands are binding for all time? There is nothing left! You've rejected every God-breathed reason that has been given.

If we complementarians are wrong, it is because we have attempted to stick too closely to the revealed will of God. If egalitarians are wrong, it is out of desire to abrogate the commands of God in order to appeal to a feminist and pluralistic culture. Clearly, unless there is absolutely not one a single doubt anywhere in your mind that an egalitarian interpretation of Scripture is correct, it only makes sense to remain a complementarian with Paul, Peter and the 2000 years of church history that has followed them. May we all be able to stand before the judgment throne of God one day and be cleared of any charge of adding to or subtracting from all the words of his divine self-revelation.

All-Male Eldership, Part 5: Headship and the Trinity

2007-05-30T16:18:00.000-04:00

Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

The Trinity

Perhaps one of the more sobering truths about the egalitarian-complementarian debate is the reality that more is at stake than just the interpretation of a few words or a few verses. Rather, our whole vision of God is altered by how we view the nature of authority relationships. This is so because authority relationships plainly exist within both the immanent Trinity and the economic functioning of the Trinity.

As it has been noted, the husband is given authority over the wife in 1 Cor. 11:3 because “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” Since the word kephalē has never been acknowledged as meaning anything other than “one in authority over another,” we must plainly see that this verse is teaching not only that men are to submit to Christ and that wives are to submit to husbands, but that the example for these requirements to submit is the relationship of Christ submitting to his Father. This example is important because it clearly shows that there can at the same time exist 1) equality in a relationship, and 2) an authority structure within a relationship.

Within the Trinitarian relationship, the Father “gave” his Son (Jn. 3:16) and “sent” the Son (Jn. 3:17, 34; 4:34; 8:42; Gal. 4:4; etc.). The Father predestined us to be conformed to the image of his Son (Rom. 8:29; cf. 1 Pet. 1:2) and “chose us in the Son” before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). The Son is obedient to the commands of the Father (Jn. 12:49; Phil. 2:5-10) and confessed that he had come to “do the will” of the Father who “sent him” (Jn. 4:34; 6:38). God the Father created the world “through” his Son (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6). These relationships are never reversed. The Son never initiates of his own will, never directs the Father, never creates through the Father, never sends the Father. The Father never speaks the words that the Son gives him to speak. The Son sits at the right hand of the Father (Rom. 8:34; Heb. 1:3, 13; 1 Pet. 3:22; etc.). The Father never sits at the right hand of the Son.

These relationships are proven to be eternal (ie. they exist in the immanent Trinity and are not limited to the economic functioning of the Trinity while Christ was on earth) for several reasons. It is easily seen that the Father created the world through the Son (see above). Even before the creation of the world, however, the Father chose his elect in Christ to be reconciled to him through Christ (Eph. 1:4-5). Furthermore, passages such as Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 make it plain that it was the predetermined and definite plan of God the Father that Christ would come and suffer for the sins of his people (interpretation affirmed by NT preaching; Acts 2:23). Moreover, it is plainly visible in John 17, at the end of Christ’s earthly ministry that he viewed both his words and his own followers as those which God the Father had given him. After the defeat of death, at the consummation of all things, Christ remains under the authority of God the Father who has always held all authority (1 Cor. 15:26-28).

God is one and all parts of the Trinity remain equal in holiness, worth, beauty, etc., yet there is clearly presented within the Trinity an authority structure relationship. All this has yet said nothing about the Holy Spirit who is portrayed as being under the authority of both Father and Son, yet is himself in authority over neither of the others. We must allow this picture to form our understanding of value and authority in a culture that views being in authority as great and being under authority as horrible. The picture of submission within Scripture itself shows that submission to a rightful authority is a beautiful, noble, even wonderful task because it models the Trinity itself. Thus the husband is seen as a picture of Christ (because he is an authority over his wife, as Christ is authority over man) and the woman is seen as a picture of Christ (because Christ is under the authority of the Father and gladly submits to his will). Both positions in the relationship are godly and God-glorifying.

All-Male Eldership, Part 4: The NT Rationale

2007-05-28T11:17:00.000-04:00

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.

Apostolic Proof Texts

When providing the basis for his statements with regard to the male-female authority relationship, the writer of the God-inspired text almost always appeals to an eternal principle, outside the realm of sin and never once does he appeal to the secular culture of his day.[i]

In 1 Cor. 11 Paul makes it clear that “the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (v 3). The Greek kephalē (“head”) has always referred—without exception—to one who has authority over the other. While many egalitarians have attempted to make kephalē mean “source”, this meaning is absolutely without precedent and cannot even be verified as a legitimate possible meaning for the word (and that is without even dealing with the context which clearly shows that an authority in relationship is within the purview). [See this article, originally published in JETS, for more.] Paul’s point is clear: Inasmuch as the relationship of Christ to God, or man to Christ cannot be altered by time or culture, so it is clear that the relationship between husband and wife cannot be altered by time or culture.

In Eph. 5 Paul draws the parallel of husband and wife to Christ and the church. In no uncertain terms, he states this repeatedly. “For the husband is the head (kephalē) of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its saviour” (v 23). So Christ is the head of the church and the church (his bride) is his body. Thus the command in v 28, “Husbands should love their wives as their own bodies,” because Christ’s bride is his body. “Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands” (v 24). Again, the wife is to submit to the husband every bit as much and in every way as the church submits to Christ (hence, Christ is the Lord of the church, vis-à-vis the command in v 22 to submit to the husband “as to the Lord”). Continuing on, the apostle draws out in great detail how the husband is to love his wife sacrificially “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (v 25). As if it were not enough in this instance to refer to the relationship of Christ and the church, Paul relates the marriage of Christians (after the redemptive work of Christ) to the marriage of Adam and Eve before the fall and quotes Gen. 2:24! He, by inference, is saying that by maintaining this order, the Christian marriage will uphold God’s plan for marriage as it was before the entering of sin into the world as well as modelling Christ’s relationship to his church to a sinful world.

In 1 Tim. 2:13-14 Paul refers to creation (before the fall) as the reason why the women in the family of God are to be characterized by good works and a quiet and submissive spirit (vv 10-12). As noted above, the creation order is significant to Paul, the inspired OT commentator, who says “For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (v 13).

This reasoning is true even beyond the scope of Paul’s writing. Peter, too, when he commands the continual observance of the authority relationship between husband and wife (1 Pet. 3:1-7) cites God’s desires, and the approved tradition and pattern of holy women. Women are exhorted to let their “adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (v 4). Indeed it is precious, because it is what Eve was created to be! This is the reversal of the effects of the fall whereby the woman’s desire is against her husband, to usurp his authority. In the tradition of the “holy women who hoped in God” (v 5), the NT wife is to submit to her husband. The husband is to honour his wife and live with her in an understanding way (not rule over her harshly, as in the curse), but he is to remember that she is a fellow heir with him of the grace of life.

Thus it can be seen that the repeated pattern of the NT authors was to not rely on the realities of their own sinful, transitory and shifting culture for the pattern of a God-honouring husband-wife relationship, but to refer back to either an eternal relationship which cannot change (viz., Christ and the church, Christ and God, man and Christ) or else to refer to God’s original creation before the effects of sin (viz., creation order, purpose in creation), or both. Never did an apostle base his argument for the authority relationship of husband and wife on culture—not even once.

[i] The example of 1 Cor. 7 might be cited as an exception. In that case, however, the authority over each other’s bodies is contextually limited to the sexual relationship within marriage. Moreover, the only actual concession to culture in that instance is that men and women should indeed marry rather than remain single, because it is better to marry engage in God-pleasing expressions of sexuality than to be “aflame with passion.