What's Working

Good Books on the Christian Life

2012-02-08T18:08:00.000-08:00

A friend recently asked if I had any suggestions of books for a personal project of hers. She is embarking on a year of study and reflection about being formed in the character of Christ, and intends to focus for a dedicated period of time on a different subject. The works are both old and new, from various perspectives but mostly Reformed. I thought it was a great idea, and I share it for your own discipline of reflection upon Christian wisdom. What would your list include?

Meditating on Scripture: Donald Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life.

Criticism/Encouragement: Leroy Koopman, Beauty Care for the Tongue

Gentleness: Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together

Anxiety: Jennifer Carter, Daily Readings for Difficult Days: Daily Devotions for Christian Women Going Through Difficult Times

Trust: Jonathan Edwards, The Religious Affections

Gossip: Os Guinness, Steering through Chaos: Vice and Virtue in an Age of Moral Confusion, and When No One Sees: The Importance of Character in an Age of Image

Delighting in children: Gary Thomas, Sacred Parenting: How Raising Children Shapes Our Souls

Loving a spouse: Dan Allender and Tremper Longman, Intimate Allies: Rediscovering God’s Design for Marriage and Becoming Soul Mates for Life; Bryan and Kathy Chapell, Each for the Other: Marriage as It’s Meant to Be.

Complaining: Kris Lungaard, The Enemy Within: Straight Talk about the Power and Defeat of Sin

Gratitude: Philip Yancey, What’s So Amazing About Grace

Prayer: Marva Dawn, Keeping the Sabbath Wholly: Resting, Embracing, Feasting
Joy; Shane Clairborne, Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals

Speaking truth: Mark Roberts, Dare to Be True: Living in the Freedom of Complete Honesty

Contentment: Jeremiah Burroughs, The Rare Jewell of Christian Contentment; Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret to a Happy Life

Speech: J. I. Packer, Rediscovering Holiness: Taking every thought captive to Christ; James Edwards, Is Jesus The Only Savior?; C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Let's Talk About Narnia

2012-01-19T00:01:00.000-08:00

Celebrating our wedding anniversary in Peru

Happy New Year!

This has been a year of challenge, change, and great blessing. In 2011 we made trips to Peru (teaching), Washington, D.C. (Theology Matters board meeting), and to the Swiss Consulate in Chicago (passport renewal). The year also included a drive across the country, taking in bison, Black Hills, my mother’s birthplace, and a lovely visit with friends at First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue on the way.

In the past couple years I’ve been in Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Maine, Georgia, West Virginia, Ohio, New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Indiana, Illinois, Utah, Arizona, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and California, as well as Switzerland, France, England, Scotland, France, Germany, and Peru. Take it back a couple more years, and the list includes Israel, Turkey, Greece, Egypt, Guatemala, Northern Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Scotland, Spain, and Mexico.

A great way to travel without ever leaving home is to immerse yourself into a new imaginative realm through reading. In C. S. Lewis’ children’s stories The Chronicles of Narnia, four schoolchildren leave the dreariness of wartime England for adventures in a magical land where a white witch rules and animals talk. Countless millions of children have lost themselves in the geography of the mind through this enduring literature.

I’m currently settling into a new job as pastor of a wonderful congregation, First Presbyterian Church of Lompoc in Santa Barbara Presbytery. In you’re in the area, come join us tomorrow evening. We'll trace themes of creation, fall, and redemption in the Narnia tales. Here’s the invitation:

Working on Faith: Great Books That Everyone Should Read
with Dr. Randy Working

"An evening with the children’s writings of C. S. Lewis"

Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.

At The Bookstore, 1137 N H St # Q (behind Carrow's Restaurant)

Free!

Refreshments will be served and Lewis's books available for purchase

Dr. Working is pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Lompoc and the author of From Rebellion to Redemption (NavPress) and Breaking Free: A Devotional Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Reformation Press, forthcoming). Dr. Working has taught at Westmont College, Seattle Pacific University, and Ashland Theological Seminary. He holds a BA from Whitworth University, an MFA from University of Washington, and MDiv, DMin, and PhD (ABD) degrees from Fuller Theological Seminary.

Come for a warm evening of stimulating conversation on ideas that matter. Bring a friend!

Spend some time in a great story this year and see where it takes you! And whether you’re in Lompoc, Bellevue, Switzerland, Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Ohio, Pasadena, or Mexico City, we pray for the Lord’s great blessings on you this season and in the coming year.

The Vows that Anchor Us: Responses to Questions for Ordination

2011-11-04T22:30:00.000-07:00

My family and I recently moved to Lompoc, California, where I began responsibilities as pastor of First Presbyterian Church. In our denomination, a pastor is not a member of the church he or she leads, but rather of the presbytery, or the regional association of Presbyterian churches. First Pres Lompoc belongs to the Presbytery of Santa Barbara, known for its care in examining candidates for ordination as well as ministers transferring membership into the presbytery. Thus, along with writing a statement of faith, agreeing to a document of "essential tenets," and submitting to an interview by the Committee on Ministry, I had to respond briefly to the questions of ordination. In doing so, I renew the vows I took at my ordination over 20 years ago. The questions are as follows:

Do you trust in Jesus Christ your Savior, acknowledge him Lord of all and Head of the Church, and through him believe in one God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

I trust in Jesus Christ alone for my salvation. As the Apostle Peter bore witness before the teachers and elders of the law, “there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” He reveals the one God in three persons, or modes of being, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, eternally existent in a fellowship of love between the persons, distinct and yet united.

Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to you?

The Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God, infallible in all matters of faith and salvation. The cosmos and everything in it was called into being by the Word of God; everything in it is dependent on God and his Word for its very existence. The Word calls the church into being, and constitutes its life. Humans are constitutionally unable to hear the Word, until God works a miracle of grace to enable hearing, which is the same as regeneration or new birth. Where the Word of God is heard, there is the church.

Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?

I affirm the Reformed confessions of our Book of Confessions to be reliable expositions of the saving message of the gospel contained in Holy Scripture. I am and will be instructed, informed, and taught by the confessions as I carry out my ministry of the Word and sacrament.

Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?

I will. I recognize the Word, rightly understood in the tradition of the Reformation, and neither church hierarchy, nor tradition, nor mystical insight, nor human experience, to be our only final authority for life and ministry.

Will you be governed by our church’s polity, and will you abide by its discipline? Will you be a friend among your colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God’s Word and Spirit?

I will make myself accountable to the church of Christ, in its collegial relationships, as the instrument of discerning the will of God for our common life.

Will you in your own life seek to follow the Lord Jesus Christ, love your neighbors, and work for the reconciliation of the world?

As we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, convictions of our faith must be “worked out in fear and trembling.” This takes place in the context of our relationships: with God through Jesus Christ, with neighbors (where we experience the presence of Christ which both judges and ministers to us in grace), and with the wider world. I will seek to be faithful to my calling and the trust given to me in each of these spheres.

Do you promise to further the peace, unity, and purity of the church?

I believe we have a responsibility to enhance the harmony and joy of our calling in the body of Christ, yet not at the expense of the purity of Christ’s church, which must take priority. Practically speaking, it behooves us nonetheless to speak always the truth in love, tempering our words with grace.

Will you seek to serve the people with energy, intelligence, imagination, and love?

I will. Glorifying the living God in the midst of his people and sharing in the mission of God is the purpose of my life. I aim to do this with excellence, but even more with truth and love.

For minister of the Word and Sacrament) Will you be a faithful minister, proclaiming the good news in Word and Sacrament, teaching faith and caring for people? Will you be active in government and discipline, serving in the governing bodies of the church; and in your ministry will you try to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ?

With God’s help, I will.

Is the Bible Really Clear?

2011-08-16T13:19:00.000-07:00

I received some questions about my last post, and I share my answers here:

Dear Robert,

I am for ministering to gays out of the grace and truth of Jesus Christ. I am not in favor, however, of affirming what Scripture calls sin, nor of disregarding ethical requirements of leadership in the church. Like all sinners, gay persons find life not as an entitlement or affirmation of our instincts, but when we turn to Jesus in faith and repent from our old life.

As you suggest, some portions of Scripture are difficult to understand, but the message of salvation (how we find life by being rightly related to God through faith in Christ), is indeed clear. This is summarized by Jesus' answer to Nicodemus in John 3:16 (“God...gave his only son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish but will have eternal life”) and by passages such as Peter’s admonition that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).

Also clear are the ethics of the kingdom (how we are to live in gratitude for the gift of salvation.) Jesus fleshes out the characteristics of kingdom living in his Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 and in his teaching on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19, for example. We also see echoes of the kingdom in Micah’s call to “To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8). Jesus shows the link between theology and ethics, or what God has done to save us and what we should do in response, when he recites the Great Commandment to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22:37, 38). Paul address how we become members of the kingdom and what we do to live in light of it in Romans and in his other letters to the churches . One example is in Ephesians 2:8-9, when he maintains an inseparable link between authentic faith that saves and good works.

The teaching on sexual standards fits into this, as Paul makes clear in his sin lists, such as in Colossians 3:5-9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and Galatians 5:19-21. (For a sin list from Jesus, compare Mark 7:21). Our Lord did not specifically address homosexuality since it was not an issue in the Jewish community, but he indeed clearly affirmed the template of one male and one female in marriage as God’s pattern for humanity (Matthew 19:4-6).

There are passages from the Old Testament that are difficult for us to understand today, including the commands to genocide in Joshua (which were not universal, but in context of the conquest of Canaan.) Tremper Longman has written helpfully about that issue: Making Sense of the Old Testament http://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Old-Testament-Questions/dp/0801058287/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1313515122&sr=8-5, or Show Them No Mercy: 4 Views on God and Canaanite Genocide: http://www.amazon.com/Show-Them-No-Mercy-Canaanite/dp/0310245680/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313515443&sr=8-1

But Jesus said he came “not to abolish the Law or the prophets... but fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Elsewhere, Jesus sets aside food laws as no longer necessary—“In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean” (Mark 7:19). It is helpful to make the distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws to come to a Christian understanding of the Old Testament. Civil and ceremonial laws were put into place for the time of the judges and the later monarchy, but have been completed in Jesus Christ, as Hebrews 7 shows, especially verses 22-28. So the laws of the Old Testament which were reaffirmed as essential for the Christian community in the New, those laws that pertained not to governance or temple worship but to moral principles, those laws are binding for us. The exclusive male-female pattern for sexual expression is among these. That is implicit in the seventh commandment “you shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20: 14).

The best way to understand whether a certain interpretation of the Bible is a core teaching is the degree to which is it “pervasive, absolute, strongly held, and counter-culturally held,” to use Robert Gagnon’s words. The Bible’s insistence on the two-sex model for marriage and against homosexual practice falls within that category. Geological claims do not, and in fact were only speaking in the language of the day to make points about God’s gracious salvation and his claim on his people. The Bible speaks God’s Word infallibly in all it affirms, but that doesn’t mean we are troubled by language that reflects the world view of a pre-scientific culture. I don’t have time to engage here with the issue of women’s role in ministry except to say this is not an analog for homosexual behavior. For one thing, Paul affirmed women’s roles in other places (for example Romans 16:1-2, 7), as did our Lord (Luke 8:1-3, Matthew 28: 10), and for another, being female is not a behavioral issue. Homosexual practice is, no matter what your understanding of the underlying causes of homosexual orientation.

Many persons today change their views on what the Bible says or on its authority for Christian living based on their personal experience with gays. That’s about as consistent as saying “I know some nice alcoholics so I conclude that the Bible’s teaching on drunkenness is irrelevant.” You ask “Have you experienced true fellowship with gay and lesbian Christians? Have you eaten with, prayed with, worshiped with, depended on, loved anyone who identifies as gay or lesbian? Have you talked with a gay or lesbian Christian about their faith and the journey that led them to God?” My answer is “Yes, I have.” I have had and still do have persons I love and care for who identify themselves as gays. This does not negate what the Lord expresses as his will for humanity and it does not lessen the fact that if we love him then we will learn to obey his commands. (John 14:15)

Paul is not hard to understand in the first chapter of Romans, when he insists that same-sex sexual relations degrade the image of God in humans and contravene the created order. The Bible never lets us accept the notion that if we have certain impulses, we are bound to act on them. Instead, we are to sublimate our passions, sexual and otherwise, and live for God. Paul makes that clear in Galatians when he writes, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Galatians 2:20). Our identity as Christ-followers is not constituted by our gender or sexual orientation, but by what God has created and redeemed us to be. When we trust that, we also come to understand that his grace is enough for us.

Thank you for your courteous letter.

Every blessing,
Randy

A Counterfeit Gospel

2011-08-10T08:02:00.000-07:00

This essay of mine appears in the September/October issue of Theology Matters:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles (Romans 1:18-23).

The flashpoint in our denomination’s Kirchenkampf has been the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. As those who live and minister amidst the culture wars of our larger society, this struggle has been perhaps unavoidable. But as crucial as sexual ethics are for the integrity of Christian life and witness, the larger issue is how we perceive the person and will of God. For Christians in the Reformed tradition, humans are unable to access the divine, yet God in grace makes a way for us to know and approach him in fellowship. Therefore, our theology does not begin from the ground up, but from the top down. It is not speculative, and attempts to construct doctrines and ethics apart from the means God has given us are idolatrous.

To be sure, many are conflicted because someone we love is in a sexual relationship outside of marriage. We want always to be pastoral, but must realize that pastoral means giving both comfort and warning.

Against Speculation

Nevertheless, what we proclaim, we know from the Bible, the normative experience of God’s word and work as declared by the prophets and the apostles. Speculation contradicts the classic Christian and Reformed understanding of revelation, which comes to human beings miraculously, as a human impossibility, from above. To grope for truth on our own is to make determinations based on a priori assumptions. One’s attention may then turn to experience, tradition, rationalism, or mysticism. These modes of thinking can be valid ways of discerning truth. As means of knowing God, however, they ultimately prove to be futile. Attempting to understand the divine through these methods constitutes what the Reformed tradition calls speculation. This includes bringing preconceived principles against which we evaluate the teaching of Scripture, reframing it in our image. In so doing, it is possible to disregard major themes of the Bible, such as when the verse “God is love” is turned into “love is God.” When we say that, we make love itself, or rather our definition of love, into an idol. God is indeed love, but he is not defined by words or values beyond himself and to which he is answerable. To say this is to base our faith not on the authority of Scripture as it infallibly witnesses to Christ, but rather on our own experience and reason. In so doing we attempt to control God, and therefore worship a false god of our own contrivance.

Conservatives ask incredulously how it is possible that so many in the churches fail to grasp the clear, countercultural, pervasive, and absolute directives of Scripture. The answer lies in failing to surrender to the Lordship of Christ.

“Mingled vanity and pride appear in this, that when miserable men do seek after God, instead of ascending higher than themselves as they ought to do, they measure Him by their own carnal stupidity, and neglecting solid inquiry, fly off to indulge their curiosity in vain speculation. Hence, they do not conceive of Him in the character in which he is manifested, but imagine Him to be whatever their own rashness has devised. This abyss standing open, they cannot move one footstep without rushing headlong to destruction. With such an idea of God, nothing which they may attempt to offer in the way of worship and obedience can have any value in His sight, because it is not Him they worship, but instead of him, the dream and figment of their own heart. This corrupt procedure is admirably described by Paul, when he says that “thinking to be wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:22). Calvin, Inst. I.4.1

Calvin insists that conjecture does not lead to an understanding of the truth because it is motivated by “vanity and pride.” In consequence, this does not lead to revelation, but only makes clear our “carnal stupidity.” This amounts to human sinfulness clouding our spiritual vision. We do not discern God or his will for us in our own efforts. Our apprehension of the divine in the created order is not salvific; it is not enough to bridge the divine/human divide, but only to make us responsible and to condemn us.

Fundamentally Different Views of Scripture

In consequence, conservatives and progressives cannot come together on an understanding of revelation. We read the Bible differently, and hence, not surprisingly, arrive at divergent views of crucial issues like homosexuality, abortion, the exclusivity of Christ, and the necessity of personal regeneration.

According to Karl Barth, the attributes of God are not abstractions, but expressions of his relational character speaking and acting in divine love and freedom. Under the category of God’s love are his perfections of mercy, grace, patience, holiness, righteousness, and wisdom. Under the category of his freedom are the perfections of his eternity, omnipresence, omnipotence, unity, constancy, and glory. The meaning of these is not derived from speculation on God’s attributes, but in illuminating the character of God for us in Jesus Christ.

We see Jesus Christ in the Old Testament in anticipation and the New Testament in fulfillment, revealing the God who lives and makes himself known in word and action. As the Barmen Declaration declares, “Jesus Christ, as he is attested to us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God, whom we have to hear and whom we have to trust and obey in life and in death.” That affirmation contrasts with a negation that follows. If one accepts by faith the lordship of Christ, then one repudiates all other sources of revelation: “we reject the false doctrine that the church could and should recognize as a source of its proclamation, beyond and beside this one Word of God, yet other events, historic powers and truths as God’s revelation.”

The Spirit of God and the Word of God cannot be divided, and so we do not expect a revelation of God through an inner experience of the Spirit apart from the historic witness to him in Scripture. The Spirit is our guide in reading Scripture, certainly, but no religious experience can substitute for the revelation of God which is both objective (from above) and subjective (our inner reception of it.) What one receives from the Bible is not to be measured in the first instance against what is rational, but against the wisdom of the repentant, renewed heart.

Scripturally, biblical conservatives are closer than progressives to the Reformed Protestant hermeneutic of sola scriptura and solus Christus. For the former, the valid way of developing theological dogma in the church is deductively. This method grounds itself in the text itself, and assumes that the Bible contains the data and the truths necessary for constructing theology for the church. Only what we might find in Scripture using clear deductive reasoning is valid. Other sources and authorities may indeed instruct us in devotion and in governing the life of faith. However, these other voices are subordinate to and must be corrected by the written Word of God.

Progressives, in contrast, look to experience as the lens through which to view the Bible. The Bible is not read for propositional truth, but for a record of religious experience that reflects the context from which it arose. It serves as an analogy to epitomize a message of liberation. From nineteenth century attempts to remove supernatural aspects of Scripture to the work of the Jesus Seminar, these efforts indicate a human-centered, naturalistic approach to revelation that is irreconcilable with Christian orthodoxy in general, and Reformed orthodoxy in particular.

The conviction that God has spoken for himself in the person of Jesus Christ leads in a distinct direction. God is transcendent and mysterious, but the center of the message of the church is simple and clear. The greatest truth is that the world is lost, and that Jesus Christ was born to rescue sinners. This means that the Word does not stay an abstraction. He is not mainly a mystical feeling, not a mere example of religious enlightenment, not a case study of social or economic liberation. He is, as Barth stressed, an event, the noetic becoming ontological, experiential, and personal, the Word become flesh who dwelt among us. We know God because of what Jesus did, which was to live and die on our behalf on the cross.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The first chapter of Romans shows us that a sovereign, living God created all that is. God speaks, and creation comes into being. God redeems humanity out of sheer grace through the instrument of our faith. Act and being, the Word and work of God are united in the person of Jesus Christ. That means that the Bible speaks, that it actually communicates and conveys the reality of God. Creation and redemption integrate in anticipation of eschatology, the grand conclusion in God’s design for the world. Many in culture and in the churches today would escape God’s call to honor and obey him in our mortal bodies, as they would seek to transform the meaning of Scripture’s clear teaching and transcend the limitations of the flesh. This tendency is either libertine or Gnostic, ancient heresies that once again trouble the church. The protection against this danger lies in respecting the parameters of Scripture. We are not free to speculate into areas God has not revealed. We are not to contravene the clear directives of Scripture. Instead, we are to keep close to its center, which is Jesus Christ who “learned obedience from what he suffered” (Hebrews 5:8b).

What do we do when some in the church offer a counterfeit Christian faith? We must hold in tension Jesus’ instruction on church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17 with his parable of the wheat and the weeds in Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43, where he reveals there will be both saved and unsaved, righteous and unrighteous (“all who do evil”) within the church. The final word on the fate of those in the church will only be spoken on the day of judgment, when the character of each will be disclosed. We must temper accountability, as Paul demonstrates when he hands “Hymenaeus and Alexander...over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme” (1 Timothy 1:20), with making “every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Ephesians 4:3). Might we even see an analog for remaining in fellowship with liberals in the story of Hosea? The prophet is told to marry a promiscuous woman, “for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the LORD” (Hosea 1:2). Later, the LORD calls him to redeem her, saying “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the LORD loves the Israelites though they turn to other gods” (3:1). The adulterous woman can be seen as a type of the Bride of Christ and a contrast with the longsuffering love of Yahweh for idolatrous Israel.

I advocate staying in the PC (USA) for the time being for the following reasons: we have a responsibility to bear witness to God’s grace and truth in the church as well as to the world. We are inheritors of a historic Reformed and evangelical tradition that should be preserved. We are stewards of the work and resources of generations of Presbyterians, which should not be simply turned over to our progressive and liberal adversaries. We are not yet assured that congregations will be allowed to take their property if they exit. There is the real prospect of loss of connections with like-minded conservatives who feel led to stay. We should not think that transition to another confession will protect us from the issues currently plaguing us; they surge around us in the wider cultural waters in which we swim. Eventually, all churches will likely have to face the same issues.

What Would Jesus Say to Amy Winehouse?

2011-07-25T07:35:00.000-07:00

Singer Amy Winehouse, 27, was found dead in her London home on Saturday from as-yet undetermined causes. The winner of five Grammys for her jazz-infused and Motown-influenced style, she knew success as a chanteuse and songwriter when she was hardly out of her teens. Her sultry voice was well suited to profane songs on love, loss, and addiction that echoed her tumultuous personal life, pocked by struggles with drugs and alcohol. Poor health and erratic personal habits caused her to cancel performances; several times she walked off stage in the middle of songs, and even collapsed during performances.

One song, “Rehab,” showcased her smoky voice and rebellious attitude, saying:

“They tried to make me go to rehab, I said, ‘No, no, no’
Yes, I’ve been black but when I come back, you’ll know, know, know
I ain’t got the time and if my daddy thinks I’m fine
He’s tried to make me go to rehab, I won’t go, go, go”

The song is emblematic of many of her works, which focused on drugs, broken relationships, and drinking. Through the years the paparazzi made her struggles public as she checked into treatment facilities and was enabled in her self-destructive behaviors by her codependent husband.

When I consider the life of this gifted person who so clearly was hurting, I wonder what Jesus would say to her in person. I think of the gospel stories like in John chapter 4, when Jesus speaks with a despised woman who has been married five times and is now living with a man who is not her husband. He treats her as worthy of his attention, speaking truth without condescension, revealing himself as the source of life.

I think of the story from John 8, when Jesus defends another woman caught in the act of adultery. He tells her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” With these words, he speaks truth into her brokenness, offering forgiveness and unconditional love along with a directive that would set her free.

I think of the story from Mark 5 and the healing of the Gerasene demoniac. In this story Jesus meets a man who lives among the uncleanness of the tombs, crying out and cutting himself with stones, too frenzied to be held by chains. The man violently opposes him, yet the Savior’s grace applies even to this adversary. Jesus’ power is adequate to the challenge of brute spiritual force.

So what would Jesus say and do in Amy Winehouse’s life? His word and his work always go together; he speaks a word of healing and grace, and his actions bring about what he commands. Jesus would reach out to her, taking the initiative to show his love. He would not condone her hurtful behavior, yet neither would he condemn. More than simply empathizing with her, he would speak and act redemptively and powerfully in order to save. He came to spend time with people like Amy and with all the broken, the down-and-out, the up-and-out, the powerful, the poor, and the brokenhearted.

Maybe the question should be for us—what would he have us do to speak his word and to show his love, to demonstrate his kingdom in the lives of people like Amy before it is too late?

In A Vacuum of Serious Training, Our Youth Turn to False Teaching

2011-07-23T12:28:00.000-07:00

I worry about young adults of evangelical upbringing who abandon the biblical faith. Some disappear altogether from the life of the church. Others drift to denominations that disregard traditional Christian doctrine or ethics, or that view all religions as equally valid paths to the divine. What is leading our youth astray?

A part of the answer is a lack of teaching in our churches. Scripture is filled with admonitions to shape believers in the contours of the faith. The stakes are high, for the opposite of biblical training is not neutrality—it is a counterfeit world view that undermines true faith. Paul understood this when he wrote, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

Many evangelical congregations ignore the need for expository preaching and comprehensive, catechetical, discipleship teaching. When we fail to make disciples of our younger members, it shouldn’t surprise us that some of them eschew classic Christian teaching in favor of more exotic instruction.

Instruction that is at odds with the Christian mainstream is what the church has called heresy, from the Greek verb haireisthai, “take” or “seize.” Heresy is false teaching that seizes minds with easy promises and shortcuts to spiritual growth. Indeed, Jesus and the apostolic writers of the New Testament were vividly concerned about false teaching, repeatedly warning the churches to maintain vigilance against it. A principle concern was the way it shrouds its identity from the unwary. It presents itself as a valid Christian expression. Jesus warned his disciples, “Many false prophets will appear and deceive many people” (Matthew 24:11), and again,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7:21-23)

The apostle Paul warned,

“I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30).

And John wrote to the church, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1)

How are we to recognize dangerous teachings that infiltrate the church? Lee Grady, in his article “Don’t Join the Cult of the Backslider” in Charisma magazine (Wednesday, 20 July 2011), gives us a helpful summary of the New Testament’s teaching on the matter:

They deny the lordship of Christ. The apostle John wrote: “Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:3, NASB). Any teaching that minimizes the supremacy of Christ, or that elevates other gods or religions, will lead to deception. (Many “post-Christians” today encourage a blending of world religions; some might chant to Hare Krishna while others mix Islam and Christianity.)

They are motivated by greed. Peter warned that heretics have hearts “trained in greed” (2 Pet. 2:14) and that they operate like the false prophet Balaam, who performed his sorcery in order to get rich. We’ve had our share of false prophets in the charismatic/Pentecostal movement, and we’re only now beginning to reap the consequences as megachurches built on greedy preachers begin to crumble.

They lead people into sexual immorality. The epistle of Jude (the only book of the Bible dedicated exclusively to the topic of false prophets) warns of heretics who “turn the grace of God into licentiousness” (v. 4) and “defile the flesh” (v. 8) through immorality. Heresy almost always gives people permission to engage in sexual sin. That’s why backsliders are eager to believe it.

They encourage experimentation with paganism. Paul warned Timothy that in the latter days Christians would fall away from the faith because of teachers promoting “deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons” (see 1 Tim. 4:1). Heretical teachings often lure people to engage in occultic practices.

They “sneak in” to the church without being noticed. Another common trait of heresy is its ability to mask itself. Peter warned that false prophets “will secretly introduce destructive heresies” (2 Pet. 2:1). Heretical teaching rarely comes from the outside. Instead, it enters the church in ways we would never expect: through a best-selling Christian author, a wildly popular celebrity or right over the airwaves through a Christian TV program. It might even walk down the church aisle and stand in the pulpit!

Once the problem of lack of solid teaching is identified, what can we do? We can pray for our pastors and teachers, and advocate for them with continuing education events. For those of us in church leadership, we can take seriously our own need for continuing growth, including making ourselves accountable to a vibrant Christian theological tradition. As families we can model participation in a strong teaching church, and we can take the time for personal devotions and family time with Scripture. We can even read a couple lines of classic Christian works before sharing in a meal together.

It is clear to most of us that biblical faith will not transmit itself to the next generation by default. In a culture that insists it is arrogant to claim to know the truth, we must be proactive or lose our youth. May the Lord empower us to lead our young people back to the Gospel’s timeless truths.

Patriotism and True Virtue

2011-07-04T20:59:00.000-07:00

In his work The Nature of True Virtue, 18th century American theologian Jonathan Edwards reflects on patriotism and love of self. Given the depravity of human nature and the limitedness of self-understanding, we misread the value (“beauty”) of our own affections. Our love tends to be stingy, reserved for ourselves and our own interests. Even love of country can be merely an extension of selfish “private affection.” He sees a historical example of this in the Roman empire:

“Hence, among the Romans, love to their country was the highest virtue; though this affection of theirs...was employed...for the destruction of the rest of mankind. The larger the number is, to which that private affection extends, the more apt men are, through the narrowness of their sight, to mistake it for true virtue; because then the private system appears to have more of the image of the universal.”

We were created to love expansively, but when we put ourselves first, we essentially make ourselves into an idol, or as the apostle Paul says, we “think more highly” of ourselves than we ought. In doing so, we mistake our love for ourselves for virtue, as if we were loving humankind at large. Self-love is necessary, Edwards argues, but it must be sublimated to the good of society. In reasoning this way, he is extending the principle of Jesus to the political sphere:

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:46-48).

The lack of vice, says Edwards, is sometimes mistaken as a true virtue. And so self-love, extended to love of country, appears as a more universal love. The same may be said when we extend natural pity or gratitude to those near us, but hold them back from others. These qualities may be beautiful in their own narrow realm, but in our limited vision we mistake them for true virtues.

Edwards brings a good challenge to us on the day we celebrate American independence. The challenge is to inspect ourselves, that our love for country may be expansive, including compassion for all people. The strength of our political union, a republic founded on Judeo-Christian values, is not in blood or geography but in our love of freedom and our conviction that all persons are created equal. We who profess faith in Jesus Christ are to love and serve as members of a country, but our responsibility extends further. We are citizens of the kingdom of God, living in an outpost of heaven. Love of God drives us to love all. That is true virtue.

God’s Good News for the Poor

2011-06-25T18:39:00.000-07:00

My wife and I sat at the table with fourteen others, enjoying some of the best Chinese food I’d ever eaten. The conversation was animated as we passed a parade of dishes between us. Peruvian, American, Swiss, Chinese, Korean, British, and Dutch, we were tied by the bonds of Christian fellowship. I smiled to myself as I considered the fact we had found this in Lima, Peru, where we had come to teach in an international church.

Lima is known for its cuisine, a fusion of Amerindian and Spanish fare with strong Chinese, Japanese, Italian, and West African influences. From ceviche to lomo saltado to roasted chicken, the culinary possibilities seem endless. The cooking represents diverse cultures, for Lima is a world city. Located on the Pacific Coast of South America, it is the fourth largest city on the continent after São Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Rio de Janeiro. Its population is estimated to number 9 million inhabitants; the city has universities, an array of embassies, museums, colonial architecture, surf shops, and its own version of Rodeo Drive. No longer is it simply a place to pass through on the way to Machu Pichu or the jungle.

However, not all is a touristic serendipity of the Condé Nast Traveler kind. It is a third world city, choked with traffic and filled to overflowing with thousands of poor who have come from the mountains over the past decades. Many thousands live with only the bare essentials, with no electricity, running water, medical care, or social security. They inhabit bloated and growing barriadas, or slums, that encircle the city. Some describe this relentless movement from rural areas into the city as an “invasion.”

Members of the church we visited care for the poor of Peru in committed, creative, and costly ways. They include missionaries, teachers, government employees, and entrepreneurs with non-governmental organizations, many of whom have dedicated their lives to meeting spiritual, physical, and medical needs in the name of Christ. Not only do they serve the poor, but they seek to identify with them in the manner of Jesus, beyond the limitations of human ideologies. They evaluate all they do in light of the kingdom of God, of Jesus’ way of doing mission.

The gospel centers on Jesus Christ, on his person and work. It is the power of God to transform and liberate, to save not only the soul but the whole person from every kind of human deficiency. Scripture emphasizes this theme repeatedly:

• In the Beatitudes, Jesus demonstrates God’s special concern for both poverty of purse and of spirit (Matthew 5:3, Luke 6:20-21). In 2 Corinthians, Paul appeals for financial generosity as a demonstration of faith that is authentic. Jesus emptied himself for our sake, becoming poor so that we know his riches (2 Cor. 8:9).
• Matthew 25:34-46 instructs us that we will be judged for how we treat the poor among us just as if they were Jesus himself.
• Indeed, care of the poor flows from a genuine love of God (1 John 3:17-19). James points to this truth as well, when he establishes the care for widows and orphans (1:27) and meeting the needs of the poor (2:15–16) as the signs of saving faith.

Throughout the Bible, the announcement of good news is accompanied by good works. This was Jesus’ way of doing mission, as he declared:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” (Luke 4: 18-19)

In Jesus’ ministry, healing and feeding the poor were inseparable from proclaiming salvation for those who put their faith in him (Matthew 4:23; 9:35; 11:1-6; John 8:1-7, 35-41). Both feeding the hungry and evangelism are critical to the church’s mission. God’s love compels us to do both. Though the consequence of sharing the gospel is infinitely greater in that it has eternal implications, meeting bodily needs authenticates what we say. Evangelism is holistic by nature: Jesus will free us one day from all the effects of sin, liberating both body and soul. Jesus’ incarnation and resurrection make clear that God has become a man in order to redeem us, and that we look forward to an embodied future salvation. Sharing with those in need and multiplying converts by saving souls, then, are connected.

It has been said that we need three conversions—to Christ, to his church, and to his mission. Through faith, we become a new creation, says Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17. When the Spirit of God brings us to Christ and regenerates us, he restores our tarnished divine image. A component of that restoration is to embrace the mission of God to restore that image in others.

The real solution to human need is the coming kingdom of God. We announce it, and even participate in it, but we cannot bring it in its fullness. That is why “we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:13). And as we wait we join the work of God, serving in the name of the lamb who with his blood “purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9).

Another night in Peru, my wife and I gathered in a living room with three other couples, talking and laughing by candlelight since the electricity had shut off. Peruvian, Belizean, American, French and Swiss, we spoke in Spanish, French, and English. I thought of Jesus’ promise that “people will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God” (Luke 13:29). Our gathering seemed a vivid expression of that promise—a diversity of tribe and language and people and nation, sharing in the blessings of food and friendship, a canopy of warm light in the darkness.

Rushing Toward the Light

2011-05-18T17:13:00.000-07:00

To share recent poem I've been wordsmithing:

Here, aloft on distant trestle,
running on these haggard beams
that strain with locomotive weight

My breath rushes white and stark.
Seemingly, to seek, it streams
through night’s ambiguous fate.

We think ourselves chimerical,
hurtling onward rife with steam.
But all momentum will abate:

Darkness threatens too immense
to allow deluded dreams,
so conjured plans degenerate.

But there’s a light from Bethlehem,
denouncing egotistic schemes,
that many still would venerate.

It illuminates a track
that’s unknown by human means
wherein God opens his regime.

Here are some thoughts that led me to the above poem: God speaks; his Word is not an abstract set of propositions, not a spiritual truth, but the truth, the highest truth itself, truth embodied in a person. It exists not for its own purpose, but for us, and directs itself to us.

Like a train without a conductor, apart from God’s claim on us through his Word we speed relentlessly toward disaster. What we presume supports us, whether our status or achievements or good works, cannot bear the weight of our sin and blindness. We think we’re independent, choosing our direction, but our plans are only hubris until the light of the Word shines on us. That alone can change our track and point the way to life. You leave behind the living God if you leave behind his Word, which is the source of life, and is God himself.

A Disturbance in the Force

2011-05-15T20:48:00.000-07:00

In the Star Wars movies, catastrophic events provoke disturbances in the Force, causing psychic trauma and sometimes physical pain in Force-sensitive persons. In A New Hope, when the planet Alderaan is destroyed, Obi-Wan Kenobi senses “a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.”

A friend told me this week that he felt a similar “disturbance in the Force,” a kind of pain and foreboding as the Presbyterian Church (USA) made a momentous change in its ordination standards, removing the constitutional requirement that church leaders live in “fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness.” That change opens the way for the ordination of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons as pastors, elders, and deacons.

How did we get to this point? Since the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, Reformed Christians such as Presbyterians have held to the authority of the Bible, understanding Scripture as the supreme authority in all matters of our faith and life. God reveals who he is through Scripture. In it, we encounter Jesus Christ, the only way to salvation. We discover how to be rightly related to him and to one another. It is our rule in the church.

Since the fundamentalist/modernist controversy of the early twentieth century, Presbyterians have weakened in their understanding of the lordship of Christ. We compromised our witness to him, putting more priority on social work than on the work of evangelism. Following the movement of the larger culture around us, we lost confidence in the Gospel. Our theology became one of affirmation rather than of repentance, conversion, transformation and new life. The sexual revolution of the 1960s further eroded our commitment to the Bible. But the church of Jesus Christ has always been called to follow his leading: to love the sinner while hating the sin that destroys—loving homosexuals as we do all people, unconditionally; while not approving wrongdoing, we speak the truth in love.

It is a time of mourning among those who uphold Christian orthodoxy and “the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints” (Jude 3). Some in the media will portray this as an issue of justice, and of the Holy Spirit moving the church toward a more expansive understanding of the love of God. Such a perspective is false. One reason the vote has passed is that many biblical churches and members have left the denomination in recent years, lessening our ability to keep secularizing forces in check. From here, orthodox churches will enter a time of soul searching, seeking a way to maintain their integrity in a more alien landscape. Let us hold to our convictions, not becoming condemning or embittered, but sharing, even in our grief, in Jesus’ great rescue mission to the world. If we do that, we will see the faithfulness of God in the midst of this time of seismic shifts.

As Christ Loved The Church

2011-05-04T14:10:00.000-07:00

Last Friday, my wife, two daughters and I got up early to watch the royal wedding of Britain’s Prince William and Kate Middleton, along with over 2 billion others around the globe. Our oldest daughter Lauren went to school with both of them at the ancient University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Though the prince was given a respite from probing journalists and paparazzi during his time on campus, the spotlight of international attention has shined on him most of his life, illuminating not only glamour and privilege, but also the heartache of his parents’ divorce and his mother Diana’s death when he was fifteen. On Friday, the eyes of the media and of the world were once again on this young man and his bride. Lauren was in London for the marriage, and reflected the following:

The wedding pictures scarcely capture the atmosphere in London on Friday. I still maintain that the St Andrews connection with Kate and William brought a special resonance for anyone there during the prince’s years. For one day, class didn’t matter, and indeed there was something of the Renaissance citizen comedy in the fairy-tale story—a girl of “middle” class, aptly named Middleton as if invented for poetic resonance; the motherless prince disguised as commoner, seeking asylum in a medieval university; the budding romance, the good-natured classmates, the wealthy family mocking the presumptions of those of lower status. And, most unbelievably of all, love actually trumping social trappings and class-consciousness, and a festive, civic spirit sweeping over London and manifested in bright bunting, flags, and the chants of a nation happy for their prince.

And when his love is shared with a commoner like ourselves, well, even the most cynical amongst us will crack open a bottle or two of champagne. “Outsides, outsides, Rose,” the merchant tells his lovesick daughter when she falls in love with a prince in Shoemaker’s Holiday—“their inner linings are torn.” But Rose knows better, and London ends with a wedding, and a magnificent spectacle. It’s gratifying to celebrate others’ happiness, and really, truly mean it – a happiness not poisoned by an ounce of jealousy. And when the hype fades, there will still be the distant sound of the North Sea lapping outside Hamilton Hall and St Salvator’s, and the sentiments of an old poem echoed in the wind: The drifting surf, the wintry year/The college of the scarlet gown/St Andrews by the Northern sea/that is a haunted town to me. The strange enchantments from the past/The memories of the friends of old/The strong tradition binding fast.

The royal wedding aroused a colossal amount of attention and commentary. Some found it to be waste of resources in a time of national austerity. Others applied their own calculus, figuring whether the national holiday brought about a net economic gain or loss. But Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, who presided over the wedding, touched the heart of the matter when he spoke of the “hope and affirmation about people’s present and future,” and called the couple to put God’s love expressed in Christ at the center of their marriage.

If we focus on that message, the revelry of the day was more than Pollyanna lightheartedness, more than self-indulgent sentimentalism in hard times. The archbishop’s words, as indeed the entire liturgy, echoed the joy of the Gospel. In words similar to ones I use when officiating a wedding, Williams called on all hearing to do everything in their power to encourage and uplift the couple in their life together, that they might fulfill their vows before God to take and hold each other “from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God's holy law.” During his sermon, the Lord Bishop of London read a prayer composed by the couple themselves:

"God our Father, we thank you for our families; for the love that we share and for the joy of our marriage.

"In the business of each day keep our eyes fixed on what is real and important in life and help us to be generous with our time and love and energy.

"Strengthened by our union, help us to serve and comfort those who suffer. We ask this in the spirit of Jesus Christ. Amen."

The sacred rites in Westminster Abbey and the festivities following were a celebration of God’s design for humanity, that a man “leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24) That theme corresponds with the deepest part of us. Whether the crowds understood it or not, that’s what we were celebrating along with Kate and William.

He's Not There

2011-04-24T19:15:00.000-07:00

Christ is risen! A special greeting today for my readers across the globe from such places as China, Switzerland, Germany, Yemen, France, Iran, UK, Sweden, Canada, Poland, Slovenia, Italy, South Korea, Kuwait, Philippines, New Zealand, Russia, India, and Japan. The Savior who died and rose again is for the world.

In the “you’ve got to be kidding” department: Google, who places commemorative logos for Yuri Gagarin, Cyrillic Alphabet Day, Sesame Street, and Loy Krathong on their home page, has failed once again to acknowledge the high holy day of the world’s largest and most diverse religion. To look at the Google search home page, you’d never know today is Easter. (Might it be time for the world’s 2 billion Christians to consider using another search engine?)

But the most inconceivable aspect of Easter is, as always, the raw fact of an empty tomb. In stark terms, the Bible states the crucified Messiah was not in the grave that long-ago Sunday morning. When we try to describe what that account attests to, the event of Jesus rising from the dead, we begin to stammer. The power of that moment goes beyond our ability to explain.

No Roman execution squad could fail to carry out its duty with lethal efficiency. Very early evidence attests that the sepulcher of Jesus was empty; we are at a loss to explain that fact apart from the witness of the gospels itself, that Jesus really rose from the dead. The apostle Paul claimed that Jesus appeared to hundreds of witnesses, who could have refuted the claim had it been made up. Nothing else explains the birth of the Christian movement, and the dramatic transformation in Jesus’ followers, except that they believed—no, knew, and testified, even at the peril of their own lives— he appeared to them in the flesh days after he was crucified. The first to proclaim the resurrection were women, who were ineligible to testify in court. If the account had been fabricated, the gospel writers would have cited males. The only reasonable hypothesis about the empty tomb is that the gospel writers told the truth about what they had seen. As John writes, “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life” (1 John 1:1).

We have solid reasons on which to base our faith. But in the end, the Easter story cannot be proven. As an event like no other in history, it transcends all categories. The New Testament gives no description of the resurrection itself. It could not possibly do otherwise, because the gospel accounts are describing the presence of God’s holiness in time and space. We can’t quantify Jesus’ rising empirically. We can only embrace that good news by faith.

What does that mean for us? It means that on the cross God was present as the righteous Judge and as the one judged in our place. It means Jesus has defeated death, the great enemy, and that his rising is the down payment on what will be the future of all who trust in him. It means that we have seen the first expression of what his Second Coming will be, when he restores us to God and creates a new heaven and new earth. It means we have a future, and a hope.

Happy Easter. He is risen indeed.

What’s Good About This Friday?

2011-04-22T13:35:00.000-07:00

Bryan Stow, 42, makes a living by responding to the needs of others as a paramedic. He also parents Tyler, 12, and Tabitha, 8, often taking them to watch their beloved San Francisco Giants baseball team. On the season’s opening day, he brought his kids to see the Giants face the Los Angeles Dodgers at Dodger Stadium. The three enjoyed a close game, watching their team lose 4-3. As they left the ballpark, two assailants, seeing Bryan wearing the San Francisco orange and black, approached from behind and attacked him. He suffered a severe skull fracture and brain bruising. Over three weeks since the beating, he remains in a medically induced coma.

What should have been a carefree day with loved ones enjoying a sporting event in a family atmosphere, ended up a nightmare. Bryan may never be the same again. It is beyond our ability to fathom the extent of such depravity. Whether we see the world’s evil on the public or the personal scale, we are overwhelmed.

It is also beyond our ability to fathom the majesty of God, the Creator of the cosmos and the Lord who reigns on high. We get a glimpse of that power and splendor with the resurrection of Jesus on Easter.

But most unfathomable of all is that this glorious God would condescend to enter the human condition on our behalf in the person of his Son. Jesus is not only the Word of God and the second person of the Trinity. He is also the Word become flesh, the God who became like us in every way yet without sin. It is because of this that he can be God’s revelation to us. He is the Word who speaks of God in the only form we can understand—not in the language of angels, but in our words, as one of us. The wonder of it all! As Charles Wesley’s hymn puts it,

“He left His Father’s throne above—so free, so infinite His grace—emptied Himself of all but love.”

The nature that Christ took upon himself was identical to our own nature, even estranged as we are from God. Though innocent, he became guilty as he bore our guilt. Though sinless, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (1 Corinthians 5:21). The meaning of Good Friday is that a sinful race stands under the right judgment of God, but Jesus took that judgment for us. We deserved a beating, but he stepped up to take it in our place. It can be summed up in the words, “he became a curse for us” (Galatians 3:13).

When we witness the ugliness of sin, like what happened to Bryan Stow, we struggle to understand. When we contemplate the wonder and majesty of the living God, it beggars the imagination. Most astounding of all, we see this God taking on our misery in order to save us. Again in the words of Wesley, “Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my God, shouldst die for me?”

The Pain of Discipline

2011-04-06T17:16:00.000-07:00

I’ve been trying to learn to play the guitar. It’s something I’ve thought about since high school, but I filled my time with other occupations—passing classes, learning to surf, mastering the art of painting, launching a career. It was all I could do to measure up in the things that seemed mandatory, or, perhaps, I had other priorities. Playing guitar would have been a useful skill and a pleasant outlet, but who had the time?

But probably the thing that most kept me ignorant on the guitar strings wasn’t other distractions. The greatest disincentive was the pain. Callow fingertips need to endure pain to grow calluses. The few times I picked up a guitar, the little time I devoted to it only produced frustration. I remembered reading how Beatle George Harrison practiced till his fingers bled as he taught himself to play the instrument. If that’s what was required to achieve musical mastery, it didn’t seem worth it to me.

The old adage “no pain, no gain” applies here. For anything worth having, we need to be willing to pay the price. We need focus, and we need intensity. We only pay the price when our vision of the outcome compels us. The apostle Paul uses the analogy of the athlete to make that point when he writes, “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but [only] one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win” (1 Corinthians 9:24). He continues, “I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified” (9:27).

A runner in the Greek games becomes a metaphor of the fierce self discipline needed in order to succeed in the life of faith. Without that single mindedness, Paul says, we run the risk of disqualifying ourselves for the prize. Jesus also spoke of the importance of that commitment and focus: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33). If we want to know everything God has in mind for us, we pursue it passionately. The brother of our Lord says “[the double minded] person should not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (James 1:6). In this he is echoing the words of Jesus, “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62).

Challenging words. Do these exhortations amount to a call to earn our salvation? Read out of context, it might seem so. But Paul also writes, “Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me” (Philippians 3:12). In that same passage, Paul speaks of “gaining Christ” (v. 8), and in that transaction, a righteousness that is not of himself, but only “through faith in Christ” (v. 9). Jesus’ already holds him. Paul pushes forward with everything he has, embracing the pain for the sake of the prize, confident that God’s calling and grace makes his efforts possible and ensures the outcome, a sharing in the glory of victory.

The take away for us as followers of Jesus Christ? It means our pain has a purpose. We push forward in the fight to be faithful, to grow in the likeness of Jesus, despite the costs. It may mean we commit to the ancient disciplines of the faith, to prayer, confession, reading scripture, fasting, not because of our love of the discipline but because of the way these strip away distractions and tone our spiritual muscles. Because of our love of the Savior who first loved us.

I find a new desire to make music these days. In the past few months I’ve made some noises on my guitar that aren’t very pretty, but I’m also beginning to recognize some chords I want to play. Guess I’ll keep working on those calluses.

Home Before Dark

2011-03-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

"28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified." (Romans 8:28-30)

Romans 8:29-30 explains the sequence of God’s work in the Christian life, from his foreknowledge to his predestination to his call to our glorification. God will work to completion his good intention, and his call in our lives is effective. It works.

That sequence is why Paul can say, as he did in verse 28, that “all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.” What assurance! Chapter eight began, “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (v. 1) and ends, “[nothing] in all creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 39).

This means we cannot undo God’s purpose for us. No human being, including ourselves, can separate us from God and annul out our salvation. If we have trusted in Christ for our salvation, then God freely forgives, and keeps on forgiving through the course of our lives. Not even our own sin can separate us from God’s intention for us, because God has handled that at the cross.

Other passages express this same confidence: “I know the one in whom I have put my trust, and am sure that he is able to guard until that day what I have entrusted to him” (2 Tim. 1:12); “The one who began a good work in you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6); “God is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand…in the presence of his glory with rejoicing” (Jude 24); “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand” (John 10:27-28).

The vicissitudes of our lives are useful for God’s work, and nobody who belongs to him gets lost along the way. The good news is that we do not have to hang on to salvation by our fingernails. Just like we cannot earn our salvation—Paul has already made that very clear in Romans—we simply cannot maintain it by our goodness or merit. God does it by his power at work in us, which no one can undo. We are secure.

That God carries us safely home to heaven in the end, is evidence our faith is real, and that he has a hold of us. This is what the Reformers called the “perseverance of the saints,” meaning, in the New Testament sense of the word, all of us who trust in Jesus. It is a gift of God, and no one has the power to undo God’s purpose in our lives.

Serious About Jesus? Obey Him!

2011-03-02T19:27:00.000-08:00

“The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh” (Romans 13:12-14).

Jesus conveyed the primacy of God’s calling to those who made excuses for not following him: “No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). His point? Discipleship entails radical, wholehearted focus on Jesus. We are to be single-minded in our devotion. Paul makes a similar point, using the images of sleeping and night, suggesting moral unawareness. When the mind and the senses are dulled, we become more susceptible to fatigue, depression, dullness, and lethargy. This becomes a picture of temptation and our vulnerability to evil.

Jews were critical of Gentile’s social mores, which allowed for wild parties, drinking in excess, and promiscuous sex. Revelries took place at night, but Christians were exhorted to walk in the light of day with irreproachable morals. Paul uses imagery employed earlier by the John the Evangelist who wrote, “Whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God” (John 3:21).

Our calling is to consciously put aside our nightclothes and dress ourselves for the day. Rather than succumb to the evil desires of our sin nature and the enticements of debauched humanity, we are to “put on the armor of light.” This is figurative language, for no external clothing is able to protect us, as Paul makes clear in a parallel passage in his letter to the Ephesians: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground” (Eph. 6:13). In that passage he goes on to name the various pieces that provide protection, from truth to righteousness, from faith to the Word of God. Light chases away darkness; Jesus, the light of the world, overcomes the shadow lands of sin. When we “clothe ourselves” with him, we are protected against evil.

The image of “putting on Christ” suggests imitating him, or following as his disciple. Faithful following always entails negation of evil: “love does no harm…” (Romans 13:10); “we died to sin…” (Romans 6:2); “do not be overcome by evil…” (Romans 12:21); and “put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature” (Colossians 3:5). Paul is consistently clear about the need for self-denial, or what the Christian contemplative tradition has described as the via negativa. Conversely, righteousness is never conceived of simply in terms of what one refuses. Paul makes this clear when he writes about various prohibitions based on mere human commands, “Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (Colossians 2:23).

The Christian life is concerned with stripping away the bad for the express purpose of taking on the good that God intends. Instead of our fallen, self-centered nature, we are invited to put on, or clothe ourselves, with the Lord Jesus Christ. Saved and forgiven though we are, we must reproduce the characteristics of the Lord we serve, and keep on choosing to reproduce them. These characteristics include, Paul would later write, “compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Colossians 3:12).

In his commentary on Paul’s epistles to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, Calvin explains Paul’s metaphor of armor, “To put on Christ means here to be defended on every side by the power of his Spirit, and thus rendered fit to discharge all the duties of holiness. In this way the image of God, which is the only true ornament of the soul, is renewed in us.”

We are able to do this not by a heroic act of will, but by staying close to Jesus himself. Having discussed in chapter thirteen how we are to be good citizens of the state and good neighbors to those nearby, now Paul concludes his exposition on why we should be both of these. We fulfill the Law by loving our neighbor. The state and the Law are both ordained by God, but both are provisional. They cease to exist in the Day of the Lord. We are to live rightly in expectation of that coming day, live bravely in this dark world as if the day had already dawned. Our motivation is found in the Lord’s imminent return.

Spanish conquistador Hernan Cortez provides a picture of total commitment. He conquered Hispaniola and settled there until 1518 when he was appointed to lead an expedition to Mexico. He landed on the east coast with a force of seven hundred men and founded a settlement. He then scuttled his ships behind him, compelling them to survive through conquest.

The prophet Elisha acted with similar resolve when his mentor Elijah ordained him into prophetic ministry. Elisha was a prosperous farmer when the older man passed his mantle on to his disciple. Immediately he slaughtered his oxen and threw a feast for his town (1 Kings 19:21). In so doing he publicly declared his commitment to the ministry, making it impossible to return to his old life without facing public shame. Even more, he had destroyed the means for his old lifestyle. There was no turning back. In the same manner, living for Jesus Christ demands our all. If we're serious about him, we will obey him. No turning back.

On Forgiveness

2011-02-05T17:01:00.000-08:00

In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis considers the Christian virtue of forgiveness, embodied in the biblical command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” Our neighbor includes our enemy, which means we have a responsibility to forgive our adversaries. Lewis holds that this is the most unpopular of Christian virtues, even more so than chastity. I think he’s right.

Scan popular culture for depictions of forgiveness, and you might be hard pressed to find many. More common would be stories of getting even after one has been hurt. Something in us cries out for justice, for a righting of wrongs—especially if we’re the injured party.

We have no complaint with forgiveness in theory, insists Lewis, until we actually have something to forgive. Then the call to pardon seems to us offensive, and we respond with outrage. “How can you ask me to forgive,” we object, “after what he [she, they] did to me?” Lewis says it is not that forgiveness is too high a virtue to obtain. It is that we consider forgiveness not to be virtuous, but contemptible. He imagines that many would ask, “I wonder how you’d feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?” How dare we ask victims of abuse to forgive their abusers? The pain suffered by others is a kind of holy ground, a place we have no right to tread unbidden. We might well wonder how we would respond given the circumstances of others. Would I be able to forgive?

The question bears considering, but Lewis says he isn’t telling us what he would do in the place of others. He is only telling us what Christianity is. The ethic of forgiveness is not simply an added accoutrement to Christian faith; it is the center of the faith. When Jesus tells us to pray “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us,” he reveals the terms of our forgiveness. Reconciliation with God through Jesus means we are necessarily reconciled with others. With our neighbor. Even with our enemy.

Maybe it helps to remember that in forgiving we do not condone sin, nor pretend an injury didn’t hurt. We “hate the sin, while loving the sinner.” Some might dismiss this as “splitting straws,” but we see its truth if we apply it to ourselves. We lament the mistakes and the bad things we do, yet we still strive for our well being. Lewis writes, “However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things [I did] was that that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.”

The biblical idea of love doesn’t mean feeling good about someone, or finding them “nice.” It certainly isn't because forgiveness is deserved. Indeed, in a real sense, forgiveness is more for my benefit as the injured party than for the offender. As it has said, “Unresolved anger is like drinking poison expecting the other person to get sick.” So for our own well being as well as for another's, how do we forgive when we have been, perhaps deeply, hurt?

We realize that we, too, are sinners in need of forgiveness. To return to the Lord’s instruction, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.” Or as the Apostle Paul says, "Forgive as the Lord forgave you" (Colossians 3:13b). When we understand our own need for grace, it becomes easier to look upon others with compassion. None of us is above reproach.

We need to make a decision on behalf of the one who has transgressed against us. We do not deny the harm done, but neither do we peg the possibility of forgiveness on our own feelings. As Jesus Christ has made a decision for our salvation; as we have experienced God’s love and forgiveness; so we commit to acting for another sinner’s good.

Last, we trust the Lord will bring justice. On this subject, Paul echoes Jesus’ words: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Do not repay anyone evil for evil... Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord” (Romans 12:14, 17, 19). In doing this, maintains Paul, we give opportunity for the Spirit to transform another person. And we trust that in the end, God will bring justice on the earth.

The great Heidelberg Catechism assures us that this is a source of consolation. Question 52 asks, “How does Christ's return to judge the living and the dead comfort you?” The catechism answers,

“In all my affliction and persecution I may await with head held high the very Judge from heaven who has already submitted himself to the judgment of God for me and has removed all the curse from me. He will cast all his enemies and mine into everlasting condemnation, but he will take me and all his chosen ones to himself into the joy and glory of heaven.”

The world can’t understand that kind of confidence in the future regardless of life’s circumstances, any more than it understands the value of forgiveness. But C. S. Lewis had it right. Forgiveness is the power to renew life, and not only of those who are forgiven. It is for those who forgive as well.

Singing The Mystery Of The Ages

2010-12-25T18:24:00.000-08:00

I’m grateful for many thoughtful Christmas gifts this year, from a floral patterned water bottle to a Complete Sherlock Holmes. One delightful gift helps me better love the greatest gift of all, God wrapped in humanity. From our London-based daughter, it is titled With One Voice: A Hymn Book For All The Churches. The stamp inside the front cover indicates it originally came from Eton College, where it helped worshipers turn their hearts toward heaven. Our daughter picked it up in a used book sale, and now its carols help us see the scope of Jesus’ coming into the world.

Of the Father’s Love Begotten

Of the Father’s love begotten

ere the worlds began to be,

he is Alpha and Omega,

he the source, the ending he,

of the things that are, that have been,

and that future years shall see

ever more and evermore.

Written by the fourth century Roman poet Aurelius Clemens Prudentius, this hymn is usually heard in its medieval plainchant musical setting. The hymn is beautiful in its simplicity, and sets the event of Jesus Christ and his earthly incarnation in its eternal context. The one who has come into the world was before all things, and will come to judge all things at the consummation of history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-TO6ypUWM&feature=related

From East to West

Behold, the world’s Creator wears

The form and fashion of a slave;

Our very flesh our Maker shares,

His fallen creature, man, to save.

For this how wondrously he wrought!

A Maiden, in her lowly place

Became, in ways beyond all thought,

The chosen vessel of his grace.

This ancient carol was composed by Caelius Sedulius in the fifth century. The juxtaposed images strike us with the paradox of God entering into human history as one of his creation, and a lowly servant at that (“the world’s Creator...a slave.”) This is the miracle of grace for us; what is a human impossibility becomes divine possibility on our behalf. This is especially captured in the third line of the first stanza quoted above, also translated “liberating the flesh through taking flesh,” or “clothed in flesh to deliver flesh.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwtJC7oPlOM

From Heaven Above to Earth I Come

Luther penned this hymn as well as perhaps 30-some others. It forms a congregational antiphon, a musical dialog between the angels who brought the announcement of “good news of great joy” and the shepherds. The angel opens,

From heaven above to earth I come,

to bear good news to every home;

glad tidings of great joy I bring,

whereof I now will say and sing:

To you this night is born a child

of Mary, chosen mother mild;

this little child, of lowly birth

shall be the joy of all your earth.

Next, the people respond:

Welcome to earth, thou noble guest,

Through whom we wicked men are blest:

Thou com’st to share our misery;

What can we render, Lord, to thee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93KedZodunk

God came in Christ to grace the earth with his redeeming presence, God's mission to the world--not as a mere guest, but one permanently bound to us. Even now, the one born in Behlehem, the crucified and risen one, sits at the right hand of the Father in human flesh! Devotionally, the carol asks the right question: "What can we render," anticipating the answer from Isaac Watts' great hymn When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, "love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all."

A generation after Luther’s death, Philipp Nocolai wrote “How brightly beams the morning star!” to announce the birth of the child in the manger:

How Brightly Beams The Morning Star!

Through you alone can we be blest;

then deep be on our hearts impressed

the love that you have borne us;

so make us ready to fulfill

with burning zeal your holy will,

though men may vex or scorn us.

Savior, let us never lose you;

for we choose you,

thirst to know you; all we are and have we owe you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVFc9aHKWE8

These writers through the centuries give voice to the wondering adoration of our hearts before the greatest gift of all. The babe in Bethlehem is come for us, and that is great good news.

First And Second Coming

2010-12-15T21:24:00.000-08:00

It might seem odd to reflect on the end of the world during the Christmas season, but it makes sense. In the worship calendar of the church the season is called Advent, from the Latin word adventus, meaning “coming,” “arrival,” or “approach.” Over the course of these weeks we look back at Jesus’ birth, and we look forward to his future return. As he told his disciples,

“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” (John 14:3)

Then, at the conclusion of his earthly career, after Jesus rose up to heaven, angels appeared and told his disciples,

‘”Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.’” (Acts 1:11)

So the season of Advent, preparing for Christmas, looks back at his first coming, and it looks forward to his second coming, too. That is why from the first generation of the church, Christians have prayed, “Come, Lord Jesus.” The last book of the Bible concludes with that prayer. Jesus will return to judge the world, and he is for us, the one who already withstood judgment in our place. As Paul tells us,

“For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:9)

We live resolutely in the confidence that he is working out all things for our salvation. The only sinless one, the God/Man Jesus, atoned for sinful humans by absorbing our sins in himself. In consequence, we can trust that end of the world will not be darkness and chaos, but in his light. The object of the end is Jesus, and his coming is history’s consummation.

In the so-called Magnificat recorded in Luke 1, Mary praises God upon hearing the news she would bear the Savior. But her exultation concerns more than her own personal blessing; she praises God for how he has always taken care of his people and for how he will take care of them in the future. When we perceive the grandeur of what God is doing in the world, there’s joy.

Our choice is to abandon our faith in times of testing, or to hang in there with the Lord who hangs in with us, no matter what the circumstances. In God’s strength we stand to the end. It reminds us of Paul’s words to the church in Ephesus,

“Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” (Ephesians 6:10-13)

What is the "armor of God" bear? It is faith, truth, and righteousness—not doing things the way the world does, nor panicking in troubled times. Most of all, it is sticking close to Jesus.

God has a plan for the world. History is not a random assortment of events. It has a trajectory, and is headed toward a grand fulfillment in Christ. It’s why Jesus said of the world's tribulations, “these things must happen, and then the end will come." The future blessing in store for those who love the Lord is beyond imagining; the birth of the baby in the manger was only the first installment.

How To Read A Church

2010-12-09T17:07:00.000-08:00

Richard Kieckhefer opens his book Theology in Stone with a story of churchwomen in an English country parish who bow before a blank plaster wall as they enter the sanctuary. The pastor explains that a stature of the Virgin Mary once occupied the spot before it was destroyed by Oliver Cromwell’s troops centuries earlier, yet the habit of bowing lingered on. Sometimes, in spite of monumental changes and reform, old customs still control popular practice.

The story illustrates the stubbornness of folk superstition and the difficulty of reform, on one hand. It also shows the persistent sense of sacred presence on the other. It raises interesting questions: Is the act of making a curtsy before a blank wall meaningless? Do parishioners retain some dim recollection of an image that helped them prepare for the experience of worship? Does some element in the church building generate an impression of holiness? More broadly, what does evangelical worship space express, and how does it do it?

The larger question behind these questions is how we are to understand what church buildings mean for the congregations that use them. Kieckhefer maintains we must look at how context adds to the experience of responding to a church—including culture, expectations of a congregation, and how it is being used liturgically. For instance, one person might experience a particular order of worship as a meaningless show, and another not as a show at all but as a sacred enactment. As Kieckhefer says, “the meanings of a church are seldom obvious.”

He proposes four distinct questions to pose when looking at a church. They are:

1. How is the space shaped, and how does its design relate to the flow of worship?
2. Where is the focus of attention? (On the Lord’s Table, an altar, or a pulpit? Is the focus on the worshipping community itself?)
3. What is the aesthetic impact? (Entering a church parallels our experience of coming into God’s presence. A church’s design—its aesthetic impact—reminds us of leaving behind the world for a time to enjoy community with God in prayer as well as with fellow believers.)
4. What is its symbolic resonance? (Does the church communicate rich associations that invite further exploration? This can take place both visually and verbally, but if little is communicated that draws us into deeper meanings, then there isn’t much to hold us.)

Maybe these questions help us can envision and adapt spaces to best facilitate and enliven worship. Maybe they can deepen our appreciation of the Christian tradition and how God meets us when we approach him “in spirit and in truth.”

Let It Rain

2010-11-18T12:48:00.001-08:00

I'm preaching a mini-series of sermons called "Fearless," inspired by Tom Stephen and Ginny Starkey's excellent and beautifully-formatted devotional book Fearless: 40 Reflections On Fear. We do live in fearful and anxious days, and those feelings contrast with the promise of Christmas. Sometimes the distance between what is and what we think should be makes the season difficult.

Maybe we need put the storms of life into perspective as we move into the dark and stormy time of year.

We see this in the gospel story of Jesus calming the storm. He sleeps in the boat while a terrific tempest kicks up and the disciples struggle to maintain the boat. They wake him, screaming in fear, and shout “Don’t you care that we’re dying?” Jesus speaks a word of authority, and the storm recedes. In a moment, his disciples gain perspective on who controls the forces of nature.

Maybe this is a stormy time in your life, as it is for many in our economy and political climate. In one form or another, storms will come for all of us. What makes the difference is having Jesus with us in the boat.

I believe at least a couple good things come out of troubling and painful times. One is that our faith is tested and grows. Untested faith is weak faith. To realize our need for God and to appreciate his wonderful provision, we need to go through the tough times. But the Lord sympathizes with us in these times, and he makes us stronger through them. Purposeful faith is faith that has been tested.

Second, the storms have a way of moving us to where God wants us to be. When the squall rises and the winds fill the sails, we start to make progress toward the goal God sets before us.

Jesus came into the world to be with us in our point of need—and not only us, but the whole world. May you know his faithfulness this season.

Not Always What They Seem

2010-10-31T14:49:00.000-07:00

On this Halloween day which is also Reformation Sunday, I’m thinking of perceptions and reality. We evangelical churches stand in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation, yet the reality is that we’re in need of reform today. In our popular culture, Halloween is a cause for autumnal revelry, yet the ghoulish faces and superhero costumes we see on this day are just masks, not the real thing. The disguises remind me that there is much evil in our world appearing as good or simply fun, just as there is good in our world overlooked or despised because it comes in unexpected form. We need discernment to sift what is real and of value from what is false and frivolous.

One artist that explored the line between fantasy and reality, between allegory and the thing signified, was the 16th century artist Arcimboldo. He was featured this past week in a review of an exhibition in the National Gallery by Karen Wilkin of the Wall Street Journal. Arcimboldo’s work echoes a fascination of many people in the cinquecento period with codes, hidden meanings, and the grotesque. The artist shows a great subtlety of technique as he paints portraits comprising densely composed arrangements of plants, fruit, birds, animals, or even books. His work is compelling, amusing, and eerie all at once. Wilkin states,

We struggle to see these playful, slightly disturbing images; our interpretation constantly changes. Drawn to the particulars, we try to amalgamate them into an illusionistic head, then get seduced by details again, unable to reconcile the two readings. We recognize the wonderfully painted peaches and pear suggesting the fleshy cheeks and nose of "Vertumnus" (c. 1590), note his peapod eyelids and cardoon moustache, then fleetingly manage to see this paean to abundance as a portrait of the robust Rudolph II, before losing ourselves in cabbage leaves, olives, a blackberry eye, and the glistening cherries of his protruding Hapsburg lip. Least appetizing? "The Jurist" (1566), thought to represent a famously ugly legal scholar's scarred face by means of plucked chickens and a fish. Most improbable? "The Librarian" (c. 1566), a superb three-quarter portrait constructed with stacked and tipped books; only the picture's impeccable provenance convinces us that it isn't a Cubist effort.

Arcimboldo fascinates with his use of ambiguity. With a scientist’s precision and an artist’s eye, he helps us contemplate the difference between reality and imagination. That is worth some thought. As the apostle John wrote, “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). God has equipped us for such work in dividing between good and evil, truth and error, no matter what the outward appearance. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good...[such as the]...distinguishing between spirits” (1 Corinthians 12:10). This is an ability to determine whether a spiritual manifestation is from God or of the devil, cultivated by study of Scripture, or given supernaturally.

What Inspires You To Make A Difference?

2010-09-21T11:29:00.000-07:00

One of the many wonderful passages of the book of Romans is the teaching on spiritual gifts in chapter 12. In the course of that chapter the Apostle Paul affirms that if you are “in Christ,” you are gifted. That is, if you believe in Jesus and confess him as Lord, you are a Christian and have the Holy Spirit in you, as Paul further develops in 1 Corinthians 12. And if you have the Spirit in you, then you have a gift of the Spirit.

In his book The Glory of Preaching, Darrell Johnson presents Paul’s lists distinctively, understanding the gifts of Romans 12 to be motivations for ministry, the thing that drives you in service to God. The gifts of 1 Corinthians 12 are manifestations of the Spirit, and those of Ephesians 4 are offices of ministry, such as apostles, prophets, and evangelists. It’s instructive that the gifts cut across the boundaries of offices. It may not be in your job description to visit the sick, for instance, but perhaps it’s a part of what you ought to be doing. As the apostle says in another place, “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

Maybe your passion is teaching. If so, you crave knowledge and long to see people come into an understanding of God’s truth through a clear exposition of Scripture.

Possibly you’re enthusiastic about service. If that’s what drives you, then you are a selfless minister in the model of Jesus and aware of the needs of others. You want the church be a place where all are taken care of.

Perhaps your passion is leadership, or giving, or prophesy. If you are animated by one of these motivations, then you want the church to be well managed, generous, or speaking God’s Word to our current situation.

Yes, all believers are called to give generously, to serve, to grow in knowledge and grace. But Paul’s point is that we each have a particular motivation that drives us in exercising our gifts. The body of Christ, the church, functions well when each member develops his or her gifts and shares them for the benefit of the whole. As God’s people, we have been gifted. May we increasingly operate in the area of our gifts, contributing for the blessing of all as God has moved our heart. When we do that, the church is strengthened, and we will know joy.

Writing a Statement of Faith

2010-08-20T19:15:00.000-07:00

In a time when style is valued over substance, many Christians have a hard time explaining what we believe. But the people of God have always been a confessing people. From the earliest times, Israel gathered to corporately say what they believed. "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One” (Deuteronomy 6:4) was the bedrock affirmation of the faith of Israel. The New Testament counterpart to it is the words, “Jesus is Lord,” a way of directing the monotheistic faith of Israel to its completion in Jesus. The phrase appears in several places, including in Paul’s statement: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9)

In time creeds became a way for the church to define what it believed and to demarcate heresy. After two centuries of debate over the dual nature of Christ, the church emphatically stated its theological core commitment with the Nicene Creed (325 A.D.):

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father…

Many Christian congregations ask confirmands or new believers being baptized to compose a personal statement of faith. It is a good way of thinking through what one believes and is committed to, a way of embracing a mature faith as an individual who is also a member of a community and a particular Christian tradition. As a starting point, here is a relatively brief statement I wrote for admission to my current presbytery:

I believe in One God, who is in essence Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one-in-three and three-in-one. God made the universe and everything in it, and sustains all things by his sovereign will. In creation, God affirms the goodness of the created order, in which intricacy, design, and beauty point to his existence and good will.

In the climax of creation, God formed man and woman in his image. The image consists in our capacity for response to God in worship, for relationship with God and with others, and for our mandate to exercise stewardship over the earth. We collaborate with God and function as his hands to cultivate the earth and make it fruitful.

Creation has been tarnished, however, and has fallen from its primal pristine estate through willful human rebellion. God, in absolute freedom, has given us a secondary freedom to respond to him in worship, or to spurn him. Our first human parents turned against God’s will and tried to make themselves autonomous, breaking their relationship with him. The poison of their rebellion is ours, too; it pollutes every aspect of the human condition, has brought death to creation, and damaged all the relationships of life.

God, in his kindness, has not abandoned us to our plight. Instead, in a plan to save us and to reveal his self-sacrificial love, he established a covenant and showed himself as the Holy One of Israel. He chose this particular people and blessed them to be a blessing to the world.

God’s plan reached its pinnacle in the Incarnation of his Son Jesus Christ. There is but one mediator between God and humans, one Savior, Redeemer and King, the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus was fully divine and fully human. As true man, he was subjected to all temptations, yet was sinless as he moved about, calling others to faith, healing the sick, casting out demons and raising the dead. Christ’s death was offered as a sacrifice for our wrongdoing. His resurrection showed God’s power over sin and death. He is the only means by which we connect with God and enjoy eternal life. He is the center of God’s saving work and is the goal of creation. God’s grace gives the gift of faith through which we are saved. Now, all who trust in Christ have access to God’s heart of mercy.

God’s Holy Spirit is now his presence in the world and in the community of believers. The Spirit speaks to the churches today in the inspired Word of God. The Scriptures, by God’s inspiration and illumination, are the Word of God in human words, and are wholly sufficient to lead the church into true wisdom, repentance, godliness, reform, and worship of God. The Scriptures, and not human authority, nor science, nor subjective experience, are our authority for life and practice. The Spirit gifts the church with everything it needs in order to fulfill God’s calling and mission. The church is a community of believers in which we instruct and build up one another, celebrate the two sacraments mandated by Christ, baptism and The Lord’s Supper, exercise discipline, and carry out the mission of the church to show the world the love and justice of Christ Jesus through words of truth and acts of service. The Lord of the church invites us to grow in the inner life of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and to serve others in compassion, grace, and authenticity. As we do so, we participate in the kingdom of God until Christ comes again to make all things new. Come, Lord Jesus!

Writing a statement of faith helps us take responsibility for what we believe, positions us in light of the church’s corporate statements, and reminds us we have a share in God’s confessing people.

Caretakers or Conquerors?

2010-07-27T21:01:00.000-07:00

Recently, looking for a good summer read while traveling, I picked up a copy of Timothy Egan’s book The Good Rain: Across Time and Terrain in the Pacific Northwest. Egan, New York Times correspondent for Seattle, expresses vividly the power and beauty of the landscape of Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia as he retraces the steps Theodore Winthrop took in 1853. Egan weaves together his own reflections on the modern cities of Seattle, Portland, Vancouver and Victoria with accounts of Winthrop and earlier travelers. One of these was James Cook, who was apparently offered roasted human arms by natives on Vancouver Island. Other First Peoples of the Northwest coast threw lavish potlatches and traded for slaves with distant tribes. British and American explorers tried for years to find the three-mile-wide mouth of the mighty Columbia River, the second greatest flow in North America, but passed by it unaware. The abundance of the natural order was overwhelming, with its giant cedars, the volcanoes of the Cascade Range, crashing surf, and rivers thick with Chinook and Coho salmon.

The book was haunting in its juxtaposition of images, of raw beauty and rapacious human exploitation. Within a generation of the native Indians’ encounter with whites, 90 per cent of their population had been wiped out by small pox. In spite of repeated promises and official treaties, their land was whittled down to a fraction of what it had been, making self-sufficiency impossible. Where they had sustained a culture for ten thousand years, the new arrivals slashed and burned, decimating forests and sawing down 800-year-old Douglas firs, leaving raw hillsides to erode, choking streams with mud and rock, killing off rich salmon runs. Nature was not blessing to be nurtured, but a force to be conquered, a resource to be maximized as quickly as possible.

Such an approach is a long way from a biblical ethic. Christian faith is grounded in trust of God our Creator and Redeemer, and sees life as a gift. Humans are stewards, placed in the world with a mandate to cultivate it and care for it. Judeo-Christian ethics are concerned with the principles of Jubilee, the idea of bringing justice to people and restoration to the earth. The history of American settlement of the Northwest frontier reminds us of the fragile preciousness of what we have been given, the importance of insuring its well-being for the next generation, its benefits not for just a few but for all.

Faith to Follow Where God Calls

2010-06-21T19:09:00.000-07:00

Genesis chapters 12 to 25 recount the story of the patriarch Abraham, the “father of a multitude.” He is indeed a spiritual father to us and an important figure in the Bible—his name appears some 230 times in the Old Testament, and over 74 times in the New. He is so central to the story of faith that apostles call him “friend of God” (James 2:23), and “the father of us all” (Romans 4:16). God even refers to himself with the title “the God of Abraham” (Exodus 4:5).

Abraham’s story shows reveals God’s covenant faithfulness, and it also shows how God wants his people to respond to him in faith. The Apostle Paul writes about the patriarch,

“What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith? Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God’s point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride. For the Scriptures tell us, ‘Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous” (Romans 4:1b-3).

Paul uses Abraham’s experience as a model for all when he writes,

“For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."” (Romans 1:17; see also Habakkuk 2:4, Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 10:38).

New life comes by faith, not by doing enough good things or by being religious enough. Trusting God is what makes us right with him. Paul drives the point home in his letter to the Ephesians,

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

God didn’t simply tell Abraham to cover what he was already doing with a patina of spirituality. Instead, he told him to demonstrate his faith by following into new territory.

“Now the Lord said to Abram, ‘Go from your country, and from your family and your father’s house, to the land which I will show you” (Genesis 12:1).

Notice the directions. God told Abraham he had to leave everything he knew, and said “Go to the place I’m going to show you.” “Begin the journey, trust me, and you’ll see where I take you.”

The conditions for faith would seem anything but ideal. Abraham's wife Sarah was barren. He was 75 years old when God called him. There were already people living in the land God sent him to. Above all, Abraham had to go without knowing the destination. But faith means commitment, trusting God no matter what the circumstances. It’s not waiting around until the conditions are favorable. Do we do what God tells us to do even when we think we have better plans, better places to go? Faith trusts in the promises of God.

The greatest promise of all is that God will himself come through Abraham’s line to lead his people. As Paul wrote,

“God gave the promise to Abraham and his child. And notice that it doesn’t say the promise was to his children, as if it meant many descendants. But the promise was to his child—and that, of course, means Christ” (Galatians 3:16).

And as Jesus said,

“Your ancestor Abraham rejoiced as he looked forward to my coming. He saw it and was glad” (John 8:56).

Paul sees the promise to Abraham fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus says that Abraham’s faith was really faith in him, the Savior whom God would send. When God promised Abraham he would make him a great nation; that he would bless him, that he would make his name great, that he would bless the world through him, those promises were all fulfilled in Jesus. Those promises God made to Abraham are for us, too.

It is sometimes hard to trust God. Occasionally when we make steps of faith we can feel like sojourners in a strange land. But Abraham’s story teaches us life is never too barren to trust him. We are never too old, and the challenges are never too great. When we exercise a little faith, God will compensate us richly. When we believe and we act on that belief, he proves faithful. The Lord spoke to Abraham, and when we follow Jesus where he calls, even through hard journeys, he meets us. He says,

“So do not fear, for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you. I will uphold you with my righteous right hand” (Isaiah 41:10).

Faith like Abraham’s moves out in obedience. It trusts God’s promises. It grows through the struggles. God is faithful no matter what our circumstances, and when we put our faith in him, we cannot lose. All of life changes when we trust him with our future.

The Problem With Building A Tower.

2010-05-29T18:53:00.000-07:00

In chapter one of Genesis, God told Adam and Eve, to “multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (1:28). And after the great flood, the command came again. God blessed Noah and his sons, and told them,

“Be fruitful and increase in number, and fill the earth…As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." (Genesis 9:1, 7)

God intended for people to spread out and fill the land, to exercise stewardship of the earth, to go where he sent them. But Genesis 11 tells us people made other plans:

“Then they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth.’" (Genesis 11:4)

Sometimes our work can become a way of avoiding what the Lord tells us, of not following his word. That is a contradiction of God’s character, because his Word and work cannot be divided.

It seems to be a part of our internal wiring to delight in praise—not in giving it, but getting it. That’s what it is to seek a name for ourselves. But when you need the praise of others, you’re really a slave to them. God wants us to learn to praise him, not to seek praise for ourselves. That’s the path to freedom.

In the same way, it seems like people will try anything to make them feel safe and secure but trust God, and he’s our only true security. We want to be masters of our own lives, captains of our own fate. We think they can take God’s place.

After Muslim terrorists took down the Twin Towers on 9-11, some people thought skyscrapers everywhere would be at risk. But nine years later we’re building as many as ever, always trying to reach higher. When they were built in 1998, the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur were the highest buildings in the world, at 452 meters high, but then the Taipei 101 Tower in Taiwan surpassed them. That building stretches 509 meters into the heavens. And last January, the Burj Khalifa tower opened in Dubai, over 800 meters high, or 2717 feet. That’s over a half mile high!

Now, I don’t think it’s bad to exercise our engineering skills. But it seems like the frenzy to build ever higher betrays more than a little of the ancient pride of Babel. It’s not bad to work, or to leave a legacy of some kind. The problem is, when we build monuments to ourselves and ignore God’s calling in our life. That’s arrogance and running away from God. It’s a loving the praise of people, and loving security.

Most of us aren’t making towers of mud bricks or of glass and steel, but we’re building something with our lives. And Jesus tells us we’re fools if we don’t build our lives on his words (Matthew 7:26). What are you building? Are you building to God’s glory, or your own?

The people at Babel couldn’t imagine blessing from scattering, from taking risks, from moving into uncharted territory, from filling the earth as God ordered. They thought they were most secure when they protected themselves, built up their walls, reached for the heavens, announced their own power. Maybe the impulse behind it is fear.

If you’re afraid of not having enough money to make your house payment or put food on the table, you might cheat or steal. If you’re afraid of being taxed too much, you might live together without being married. If you’re afraid your wife or husband doesn’t really love you, you might be over controlling and too easily get angry. If you’re afraid of being forgotten, you might try anything to get attention, even embarrass yourself. You might try to grab the glory that only belongs to God.

That’s too bad. These people had God’s promise, but they put their trust in bricks and mortar. Sometimes we put our trust in computers, in satellites, IRAs, in missile defense systems. It’s called arrogant self-confidence.

The problem with building a tower, with building monuments to our own greatness, is that they’re really only shrines to stupidity, physical expressions of arrogance, putting security and the praise of others above doing what God says.

Anchored to the Rock in Changing Times

2010-05-13T15:38:00.000-07:00

A pastor friend asked me for my thoughts on "A New Kind of Christianity," the recent book of Brian McLaren, a leader in the emerging church movement. McLaren has brought a critique to the evangelical churches that we need to hear. I appreciate many of the values of the movement, such as its interest in imitating the life of Jesus, its grappling with mission in a postmodern society, and its commitment to egalitarianism. At the same time, I am troubled by its lack of doctrinal accountability and its facile appropriation of much that is worldly. McLaren's book reveals more clearly some of the problems than in his earlier works, so I share my thoughts in this post:

A central claim of McLaren's book is that the creation-fall-redemption narrative of Christian faith derives from the influence of Platonism, filtered through imperial Rome, and is intrinsically oppressive and violent. He maintains that the C-F-R narrative suggests a stasis in original creation and again in heaven, wherein growth and development are impossible. Instead, he says, we need a reconstructed Christianity.

McLaren insists the God of Christian orthodoxy is actually the Greco-Roman god Theos, whom he rejects, preferring the Hebrew God Elohim. The Hebrew God is a changing, evolving god, while Theos is impassable, a god who loves spirit, state, and being, and is “perfectly furious” with sinners and ready for judgment. Theos hates story, matter, and becoming; he is, however, “an idol, a damnable idol.”

McLaren’s historical analysis fails to convince, and his scriptural exegesis is often inept. Indeed, the reader is asked to accept his central premises on faith, backed by scant argumentation. But his views eviscerate classic Christianity: humankind is not really in a condition of spiritual death; there was no Fall, no original sin, no judgment or Hell, never mind that Jesus held these views. It’s hard for me to see the need for redemption in this scenario—redemption from what? As a result, there can be no divine Savior. In fact McLaren never refers to Jesus as God, but only as an example of patient suffering. As such he merely liberates us from violence as an example of peace for us to follow. Anyone might do the same.

Many conclusions follow from this premise, including his scriptural revisionism, a sexual ethic that repudiates the male/female dualism, and an endorsement of other religions as equally valid truth paths. In fact, McLaren’s opposition of dualisms makes it difficult to hold to any kind of Christian distinctive. The starting point of Christian theology is the otherness of God, and without the distinction from all that is not God, the gospel is reduced to old line liberalism, if not pantheism.

Postmodernity: What Does It Mean For The Churches?

2010-05-07T09:50:00.000-07:00

The cultural shift taking place in our day has moved me to focus on Jesus in my ministry. That is, rather than preach a truncated gospel of the forgiveness of sins I emphasize the gospel of the kingdom of God that Jesus preached. He embodied what he taught, and we must emphasize the promised kingdom that he inaugurated. People in our time hunger for transparency and authenticity. The church as an institution has little appeal, but the life of Jesus is intrinsically attractive. As a recent sermon series at Bel Air Presbyterian Church in Los Angeles expressed it, “Give Me Jesus—Hold The Church.” We attempt to point to Jesus and to ask what his life means in our particular context, as writers such as Lesslie Newbigin, Dallas Willard, David Bosch, and N. T. Wright have emphasized. Points of Jesus’ life we are called to imitate are his forgiving, his self-giving service, and his communal values.

Therefore, the cultural shift taking place also inspires me to cultivate a community that serves with generosity. Our Reformed tradition has a particular contribution to make in this regard with its kingdom perspective. Our ecclesiology should flow out of our understanding of the gospel proclaimed and lived by Jesus, who created a new kind of community to fulfill the purposes of God. The church is a people, the body of Christ, not a place to meet. This distinction was reflected in the term used in Calvin’s day. In order to emphasize the theological understanding of the body of Christ (and to distinguish from Catholic churches) Protestant congregations of France were called temples.

21st century American culture, with its values of individualism and independence, makes community difficult. That means that real opportunities for authentic connections between people are more important than ever. We need to transform committees of the church into ministry teams, places to be known and to know others—to be the people of God— as we pursue the mission of the kingdom through service and witness.

The cultural shift taking place in our day challenges me to merge ancient and contemporary expressions of the faith. There are rich resources of Christian formation rooted in the ancient church to enrich the life of the church, such as silence, community, and catechesis. This is neither novelty for its own sake nor dead ritualism, but a preference for holistic worship and practice over intellectualism or provincialism. People in our time long for a faith that is embodied and personal, not simply doctrinal or didactic but an experience of head, heart, hands, and habits.

Costly Love

2010-04-02T12:55:00.000-07:00

The foot washing in the Upper Room was the most vivid expression of God's costly love for you aside from Jesus willingly paying the price for your sins on the cross. And that act is the paradigm for the new life we live in his name and by his Spirit.

Jesus told his friends that those who try to save their life will lose it, but the one who loses his life for his sake will find it. For us to find life—to find meaning, to find transcendence, to find deep friendship—we have to be willing to set ourselves aside and think of the needs of others.

That’s counter-intuitive. Our culture tells us it’s the other way around, that if you want happiness you better grab your piece of the pie, because there’s only so much to go around. Jesus could have played this game himself. He could have insisted, “Serve me!” But he didn’t.

John 13:1-17 tells the story of Jesus washing his disciples' feet at their Passover celebration just one day before his Passion and death on a cross. After Jesus displayed his love in such a humble, powerful, and unprecedented manner, he said, “If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to…” What would you expect him to say? Our culture would say, I served you, now you serve me. Or maybe, “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.” If Jesus had told his disciples to wash his feet, I think they would have done it, because they knew how much they owed him. But he didn’t. Instead he said, “I’ve served you; now you serve others in my name. Wash one another's feet.” That's something else entirely. We express our gratitude and devotion for Jesus by giving it to others.

The foot washing sets before us our purpose in the world, to participate in Jesus’ mission of humble service. The core of our being as a church is humble, self-sacrificial love. And we can participate in that mission of God is both big ways and little.

I have a friend who showed a beautiful example of this. She was enjoying a picnic with her family in an urban park on a sunny day when a dirty homeless man came to them begging for money. He was the kind of man you wanted to avoid, ragged and stale. My friend said she wouldn’t give any money, but she asked if he was hungry. The man answered yes. She offered for him to sit down and share their food, but the man lifted bandaged hands in what looked like gauze mittens. He said “I can’t manage it with these on.” My friend said, “That’s alright, I’ll feed you.” And she cut up an apple and pieces of crab sandwich and fed them to the man piece by piece, and asked him to tell her how he had ended up in the street. She didn’t care how the people stared that passed all around them on the lawn. It didn’t matter that this poor man intruded on their special family time. The only important thing was showing love, of serving him in the name of Jesus.

Later in the chapter Jesus says,

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34)

There’s only one way the world will know we belong to Jesus, and that is to show that kind of love for each other.

So this Easter, remember that Jesus is the one who loves you, who feeds you, who washes your feet, and who lays down his life for you, who lives his life in you. And he has a work for you to do, to find yourself as you lose yourself in sharing his love with others.

Apostle to the Irish

2010-03-17T20:44:00.000-07:00

St. Patrick’s Day has become more than a Catholic holy day, more than a national festivity in Ireland, and even more than a celebration of the Irish Diaspora in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, and Argentina. Even Seoul, South Korea holds an annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade.

The patron saint of Ireland was not Irish, but Scottish (of course, Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland, was himself a Galilean.) Patrick was born in Kilpatrick, near Dumbarton, Scotland, in the late fourth century, the son of a privileged Roman family. At sixteen years of age, Irish raiders carried him into captivity and sold him as a slave to a chieftain in what is now County Antrim. For six years he tended the cattle of his cruel master, sustained by a powerful sense of God’s presence in prayer. One night he dreamed he would return home, so he fled his captor and escaped on a boat to Gaul.

He devoted himself to the service of God, serving under St. Germain, was ordained as a priest, travelled to Rome and returned to his homeland in Britain. But Patrick was haunted by visions of people begging him to come back to Ireland and walk among them there. Appointed as Apostle of the Irish nation, he returned to Ireland in 435 A.D. For three decades he engaged in the work of evangelism, sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ, baptizing thousands, forming communities of faith, and consecrating 350 bishops.

In the tragedy and hardships of Patrick’s early life, God prepared him for his later work of missionary to the Irish people as he became fluent in the language, culture, and Druidic religion. His life was a demonstration of God’s power and providential care, as in the words of Joseph the patriarch of Israel: “What you intended for evil, God intended for good.”

Today, the parties and the wearing of the green are for everybody. But as you enjoy green beer or corned beef and cabbage, give thanks for the evangelist who converted a nation, and consider his example in prayer.

The so-called “Breastplate” is a beautiful prayer ascribed to Patrick. Though it probably was written in the 8th century, it is a fitting tribute to him and a reminder of the divine triumph over the power of darkness. Jonathan Rogers writes in his biography of Patrick,

“In the face of Satan’s oppression, the answer for Patrick was the full presence of Christ, who didn’t wait for Patrick to know how to call out for him. this is an important point for Patrick’s theology, the idea that Christ was at work in him and through him quite independent of his wisdom or ability or eloquence. It appears again and again in his writing.”

I pray for myself and for all God’s people today the words of this ancient prayer:

I bind unto myself today
The strong name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.

I bind this day to me forever,
By power of faith, Christ's Incarnation;
His baptism in the Jordan River;
His death on cross for my salvation;
His bursting from the spicèd tomb;
His riding up the heavenly way;
His coming at the day of doom;
I bind unto myself today.

I bind unto myself the power
Of the great love of the Cherubim;
The sweet 'Well done' in judgment hour;
The service of the Seraphim,
Confessors' faith, Apostles' word,
The Patriarchs' prayers, the Prophets' scrolls,
All good deeds done unto the Lord,
And purity of virgin souls.

I bind unto myself today
The virtues of the starlit heaven,
The glorious sun's life-giving ray,
The whiteness of the moon at even,
The flashing of the lightning free,
The whirling wind's tempestuous shocks,
The stable earth, the deep salt sea,
Around the old eternal rocks.

I bind unto myself today
The power of God to hold and lead,
His eye to watch, His might to stay,
His ear to hearken to my need.
The wisdom of my God to teach,
His hand to guide, his shield to ward,
The word of God to give me speech,
His heavenly host to be my guard.

Against the demon snares of sin,
The vice that gives temptation force,
The natural lusts that war within,
The hostile men that mar my course;
Or few or many, far or nigh,
In every place and in all hours
Against their fierce hostility,
I bind to me these holy powers.

Against all Satan's spells and wiles,
Against false words of heresy,
Against the knowledge that defiles,
Against the heart's idolatry,
Against the wizard's evil craft,
Against the death-wound and the burning
The choking wave and the poisoned shaft,
Protect me, Christ, till thy returning.

Christ be with me, Christ within me,
Christ behind me, Christ before me,
Christ beside me, Christ to win me,
Christ to comfort and restore me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ in quiet, Christ in danger,
Christ in hearts of all that love me,
Christ in mouth of friend and stranger.

I bind unto myself the name,
The strong name of the Trinity;
By invocation of the same.
The Three in One, and One in Three,
Of whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
salvation is of Christ the Lord.

A Divine Folly

2010-02-25T14:21:00.000-08:00

I spend up to twenty hours a week getting ready for Sunday services. Part of that time entails planning the order of worship, seeking to glorify God in liturgy and to craft a theme that shapes the people of God. The major part of my preparation is spent writing the sermon, which is in addition to the prior work of selecting the Bible text and plotting the major direction of the message. That is the central task of my vocation. As Andrew Purves, Professor of Pastoral Theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary insists, we are not preachers because we are pastors; we are pastors because we are preachers (The Crucifixion of Ministry: Surrendering Our Ambitions to the Service of Christ). Preaching, or announcing the good news of the kingdom of God revealed in Jesus Christ, is the imperative. It is the heart of all we do.

I begin by reading the text in the original language and in some different English translations for comparison. I search for grammatical structure to discern the author’s intent. Next, I try to put the passage into the larger context of Scripture—first, of the book in view, and then the span of Bible, looking for themes and repeated ideas. At that point I begin to look at commentaries, attempting to check my instincts and to hold myself accountable to the mainstream of Christian interpretation.

When I get to the job of actual writing, I try to present the meaning of the text. My premise is that people need God’s Word, which is “living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). While we all like to be reassured in what we think we know, we need to hear what the Bible is really saying. For that reason, I labor to explain the text and to show how Jesus Christ is the center of the text as he is for all of Scripture. Last of all, I look for areas where an idea needs to be illustrated to come to life. The best illustrations simply let the text speak for itself. In adding stories and illustrations, there is always the risk of leading listeners away from the meaning of the text rather than toward it.

Doing this kind of work demands humility, boldness, and faith.

Humility, for every preacher I know is acutely aware of his or her innate weakness, limitations, and sinful human nature. There are times we tremble to stand before a group of people, some bored, some hurting, some expectant, and tell them what God has to say. Lurking just beneath the surface of our psyche is a haunting fear of keeping someone, by our foolishness or pride, from hearing God. (In an old church are inscribed the words, visible only to the preacher, “Sir, we would see Jesus”—an appropriate reminder of the preacher’s purpose.) It’s not about us!

Boldness because the preacher claims to reveal the heart and mind of God. One of our Reformed confessions, the Second Helvetic, dares to say that the preached word is the Word of God, going so far as to claim “neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven.” That is, the final revelation of God is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the authoritative and infallible witness to him. When preaching exalts Jesus and is faithful to Scripture, it is in fact God’s Word in human words.

To claim that God communicates himself through us would seem the epitome of hubris, yet that is the truth of the Incarnation, the Word become flesh, divinity in humanity, the central truth of Christian faith. As Paul writes, “God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe” (1 Corinthians 1:21b) The whole endeavor is what pulpiteer Ian Pitt-Watson called a kind of folly.”

Faith so as to persevere in preaching. Our confidence in its efficacy lies not in the excellence of the preacher, nor in the receptivity of the audience, but in the power of God who is pleased to use earthen vessels. As Darrell Johnson asserts in The Glory of Preaching: Participating in God’s Transformation of the World,

“Whenever a human being, Bible in hand, stands up before a group of other human beings, invites the gathered assembly into a particular text of the Bible, and as faithfully as possible tries to say again what the living God is saying in the text, something always happens. Something transformative, empowering, life-giving happens.”

Do We Need to Go to Another for Forgiveness?

2010-02-02T12:52:00.000-08:00

The risen Jesus told his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” (John 20:23). Along with those words, it’s important to remember Jesus’ warning, “For if you forgive others when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” (Matthew 6:14-15) In both instances we are to forgive. In the latter, we see that we as well as others depend on grace. Our ability to forgive not only restores others, but testifies to the fact or lack of our own standing in grace.

A comment on the context of the passage from John’s gospel helps our understanding. John says the purpose of the stories of Jesus is “so that you may believe… and that by believing you may have life in his name.” (John 20:31) Therefore, the purpose of forgiving others is, along with the purpose of the other incidents of chapter 20 (and the whole of the gospel), is to impart the life of Jesus and thereby lead to life in his name.

John chapter 20 forms a chiastic structure, where the first idea is repeated in the last, and the second idea in the second-to-the last. The structure would look like this:

1A. John 20:1-8
1B. John 20:10-18
1C. John 20:19-23
2B. John 20:24-28
2A. John 20:29-31

In the first and last incident of chapter 20, Jesus does not physically appear. In the first, the Beloved Disciple’s faith is based on seeing the grave clothes. The last verses refer to future believers who will have the witness of those who did see him (verses 30-31).

The other three incidents are actual appearances of Jesus. Mary sees him along with the angels, and only believes when Jesus speaks her name. Thomas also needs more evidence, in his case to see Jesus’ in his resurrected flesh.

The narrative emphasis appears at the center of a chiasm, stating the most important point. The central incident in John 20 is Jesus’ appearance to his gathered disciples, to whom he imparts his Holy Spirit by breathing on them. So, the Spirit’s ongoing presence among the disciples constitutes Jesus’ gracious presence in the world. The Spirit is manifested as they are sent out to bear witness, leading to faith, and therefore life, or forgiveness of sins. Against the idea that this only applied to the apostles or to an apostolic succession, James tells us, “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” (James 5:16)

German pastor-theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer extrapolated from James’ words, “When I go to my brother to confess, I am going to God” (Life Together, 112). This sounds very close to the Catholic understanding that a priest must pronounce absolution on God’s behalf. Christians do indeed minister grace to one another. But a better reading of the James text would be that healing power is connected to prayer, not to mutual confession of sins.

Calvin argues for a direct, simple, evangelical arrangement in confession. He writes, “All priestly offices have been transferred to Christ and are fulfilled and completed in him,” (Calvin, Institutes, 627). He adds,

“Since it is the Lord who forgives, forgets, and wipes out sins, let us confess our sins to him in order to obtain pardon. He is the physician; therefore, let us lay bare our wounds to him. It is he who is hurt and offended; from him let us seek peace” (Institutes, 634).

Calvin recognizes the possible benefit in going to one another. In fact, he does see it as essential that we admit publicly to our sinful condition. There are times, as well, when we need to confess to another we have hurt in order to reconcile a relationship (Matthew 5:23-24; 2 Corinthians 2:6-7). And there are also at times a troubled conscience cannot free itself from a sense of guilt, and may need help from a pastor or Christian friend. We are exhorted to “take the apostle’s view, which is simple and open: namely that we should lay our infirmities on one another’s breast, to receive among ourselves mutual counsel, mutual compassion, and mutual consolation” (Institutes, 630). However, he says that we are always free to take our sins and burdens directly to Jesus, our high priest and great physician, from whom we find healing. No person, custom, or religious requirement need stand in our way.

Putting Life in Perspective

2010-01-20T08:58:00.000-08:00

“But see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.” (Matthew 24:6b-8)

We are shocked as we watch continuing reports of the earthquake devastation in Haiti. It hurts to witness such suffering by so many. Yet even as we grieve human loss on such a vast scale, we trust our God to direct the course of nations and we hear his call to share in the work of manifesting his kingdom. Churches everywhere are responding with special offerings for Haiti, reaching out to those in need with the compassion of Jesus.

Catastrophes have a way of putting things into perspective. They remind us that many of the things that distract us are trivial, and they remind us of the importance of relationships. I realize once again how much I value my family, my wife, my parents, and the fellowship of the church. Painful losses in life remind us of what is most precious.

It seems to me that Jesus left a kind of testament through his words to his followers recorded in John 14 and 15. First, he tells us his purpose—to prepare us for fellowship in the presence of God:

“I am going [to my Father’s house] to prepare a place for you. And … I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am” (John 14:2-3)

Next, he lets us know our legacy, which is peace, and his own dear Spirit:

“The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid” (John 14:26:27).

Finally, he lets us know what we are to do, to manifest his character in our midst and to the world:

“This is my command: love one another” (John 15:17).

In all the world’s troubles, as with all our times of loss, we can know what Jesus has done for us; we can know what he has left us; and we can know what he has called us to do. That helps make clear what’s most important. And when we know what’s most important, we don’t have to be alarmed.

Where Has God Been At Work In The Past Ten Years?

2009-12-31T20:08:00.000-08:00

It’s difficult to ascertain the meaning of world events as they unfold around us, yet Jesus seems to want us to discern God’s hand in them when he rebuked his opponents,

"When evening comes, you say, 'It will be fair weather, for the sky is red,' and in the morning, 'Today it will be stormy, for the sky is red and overcast.' You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret the signs of the times.’” (Matthew 16:2-3)

In another place, when Jesus instructed his disciples about the end of the age, he stated:

"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.” (Matthew 24:32)

Yes, we must remember that "No one knows about that day or hour [i.e., of his return in glory], not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” (Matthew 24:36) Still, Jesus tells us clearly to be alert, aware of what is taking place. In light of his call to attention, what do we see when we look at the tumultuous past decade? J. Lee Grady of Charisma magazine observes seven ways God has been working.

Tuesday, 29 December 2009

By J. Lee Grady

The last 10 years weren't just about terrorism and recession. Amid the storm clouds, God was working in profound ways.

We didn't know what to call it—was it the '00s?—yet we've just passed through quite a decade. We had natural disasters (the 2004 Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina in 2005), financial meltdowns (bank failures and 10 percent unemployment) and global conflict (9/11 and the war on terror). It brought doom and gloom on one hand and technological breakthroughs on the other. What a ride it has been.

How has God been working during this tumultuous season? Here's my list of seven megatrends that marked these last 10 years:

1. Third-World Christianity kept growing. There are now about 600 million Christians in Africa. Protestant Christianity grew 600 percent in Vietnam in the last decade. In China, where a 50,000-member megachurch was raided in Shanxi province a few weeks ago, there are now an estimated 130 million churchgoers.

Astounding church growth has occurred in Guatemala, Brazil, India and Ethiopia. In Nepal, which had no Christians in 1960, there are now a half-million believers. The Christian population of Indonesia has mushroomed from 1.3 million to 11 million in 40 years.

Smug scholars in Europe and the United States love to cite Islam as the world's fastest-growing religion, but observers know the facts: Christianity, while waning especially in Europe, is growing faster than ever in the Southern hemisphere. Philip Jenkins, who wrote The Next Christendom in 2002, declared: "The center of gravity has moved to the global south.. So if we're looking for the religion that is going to affect the largest number of lives in the 21st century, it is almost certainly going to be Christianity."

2. The digital revolution opened new doors for evangelism. This decade began with fears that a Y2K virus would shut down all computers. The opposite happened. Technology exploded. "Google" became a verb, more than 200 million people joined Facebook, and analog TV faded into history along with phone books, answering machines, road maps, cassette tapes, floppy disks and rolodexes—unless you purchased those items on eBay for sentimental reasons.

Traditionalists complained about all the new terms technology added to our lexicon: TiVo, Twitter, Skype, iPod, iTunes, YouTube, Hulu, Kindle, webcams. But the shift to digital media happened faster than the speed of a wireless signal. It will forever change the way we live, work and play. Rather than fighting change, we'd best find God in the swift current and discover how He wants us to use new media. The possibility of reaching every person on this planet with the gospel has never been this huge.

3. The global economic crisis didn't stop the church. It seemed as if God pushed a great big reset button in 2007. The mortgage bubble burst, banks were in trouble and credit dried up. When U.S. gas prices hit $4 a gallon in 2008, people feared that the American Dream had died.
Yet, amazingly, while hundreds of thousands of people lost jobs and the government was bailing out GM and Chrysler, charitable giving to churches actually went up 5.5 percent in 2008, even though other forms of giving declined. Faith actually thrives in a recession.

4. As militant Islam increased, so did a backlash. On 9/11, terrorists hijacked our planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania farmland. But in some parts of the world where radical Islam is predominant, protest movements flourished. This was never more evident than in 2009 when Iranian youth activists took to the streets to denounce their own tyrannical government. In other parts of the Middle East, Muslims are finding Jesus Christ after having supernatural dreams about Him. Terrorists did not stop democracy—or the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

5. Spiritual hunger grew more intense. Although secular culture seemed to grow more hostile to Christian faith and values during the '00 decade, movies, books and music reflected a growing interest in spirituality—everything from atheism to pantheism to vampires to The DaVinci Code—and Christian ideas competed for the global stage.

The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson's 2004 film about the Crucifixion, became the highest-grossing non-English film of all time—and Egyptian Muslims lined up to see it for weeks. Disney's 2005 version of the C.S. Lewis classic, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, became one of the highest-grossing films ever. And Christian books such as The Prayer of Jabez (2000), The Purpose-Driven Life (2002) and The Shack (2007) put Christian themes at the top of mainstream best-seller lists while a relatively homemade Christian movie, Fireproof, became the highest-grossing independent film of 2008.

6. The charismatic movement experienced a painful but needed purging. Although global Pentecostalism continued to grow, parts of the independent charismatic movement went into a tailspin. Marred by high-profile divorces, sex scandals and a credibility crisis, segments of the charismatic church fell on hard times. The overhaul of Oral Roberts University in 2008 seemed to be a prophetic harbinger of a movement-wide housecleaning.

At the close of the decade, charismatic churches were energized when thousands of youth gathered for protracted prayer meetings at Mike Bickle's International House of Prayer in Kansas City, Mo. Those youth were not focused on the carnal prosperity message but on personal holiness, Spirit-empowered evangelism and prophetic social justice—values that are now emerging as key components of a new charismatic agenda.

7. A "healthy church" movement emerged. Refreshing younger voices arose on the charismatic/evangelical scene in the '00s—reminding us that when Jezebel threatens, God always reserves His prophets in a cave for a crucial hour. Although this young movement has its stars and its cheerleaders—such as Louie Giglio, Robert Morris, Joel and Jonathan Stockstill, Chris Hodges, Mark Batterson, Samuel Rodriguez, Priscilla Shirer (daughter of Bible teacher Tony Evans) and Francis Chan—it is driven by thousands of faceless leaders who are contending for a return to passionate faith.

These leaders, from both charismatic and non-charismatic backgrounds, are reclaiming integrity, humility and purity while rejecting the egotism and greedy excess of the past season. They are committed to solid Bible teaching, relational discipleship and a nonreligious church experience that is appealing to the next generation. And they are planting churches—both traditional ones in buildings, as well as house churches—at an aggressive clip.

I'm worn and weary from the stress of the last 10 years, but I have never been more excited about stepping into a new season of opportunity. We have no reason to fear the future. Whatever challenges loom ahead, the same God who carried us through this past decade will give us success in the next one.

J. Lee Grady is editor of Charisma. You can find him on Twitter at leegrady. He invites you to post on our forum what you believe were the highlights of the past decade.

Hollywood's Picture of Christianity and Islam

2009-12-19T17:39:00.000-08:00

The increasingly negative portrayal of Christianity and the whitewashing of Islam in the American media worry me. The show NCIS, billed as “the number one show in America,” is one I usually enjoy. CBS aired an episode this week that portrayed a cadet who murdered his brother, a U.S. Marine who had converted to Islam, in order to uphold his (supposedly Christian) family’s honor. The story took place at Christmas time, but instead of the Christmas story we heard an apologetic for Islam by a Muslim Marine chaplain. Also this week, the spinoff NCIS Los Angeles revolved around the investigation of acts of terrorism and the murder of U.S. Marines. A Muslim was suspected, but it turned out that--wait for it--the real culprit was a fundamentalist Christian with crosses on the wall of his home.

I'm all for positive depictions of Muslims in the media if those fit within a larger context of honesty.

But is it too difficult a concept for Hollywood that most acts of terrorism are perpetrated by Muslims? That we are at war with Islamic fundamentalism? That most honor killings take place in Islamic societies? According to a 2002 United Nations report, these murders occur regularly in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and other Mediterranean and Persian Gulf countries, as well as in their immigrant communities in the West. And perhaps more importantly, can we not see more positive portrayal of unbigoted Christian faith?

The privileges we enjoy in a liberal western democracy were not engendered by the religion of Mohammed, but by Christian conviction. I am not optimistic for the prospects of our civilization if we lose touch with the Judeo-Christian values that created it.

Standing Against the Storm

2009-12-12T16:22:00.000-08:00

On November 20th, a group of leaders from the three major branches of Christianity—Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox—gathered in New York to take a stand for our historic faith. These pastors, theologians, ministers and bishops signed a manifesto they named the “Manhattan Declaration” in response to some foundational and bellwether issues of our culture: the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage between a husband and wife, and freedom of religion. The signatories worried that the liberty to teach and conduct ministry according to historic Christian ethical standards is increasingly imperiled in the postmodern West.

These issues are addressed, both implicitly and explicitly, in a late first-century or early second-century Christian document known as the Didache, or “teaching.” The work summarizes the Christian life, opening with the line, “There are two ways, one of life and one of death, and there is a great difference between these two ways.” That line reflects the early Jewish Christian ethos and the wisdom literature of the Old Testament as well. The phrase serves as a caution to us from another age; for to follow Jesus is to repudiate the way of the world. Indeed, abortion and homosexual activity are two behaviors current in the ancient Roman world that the Didache condemns.

Many contemporary denominations, or renewal movements within them, understand these as among the essential moral stands in our day. The Confessing Church movement within the Presbyterian Church (USA) states:

1. That Jesus Christ alone is Lord of all and the way of salvation.

2. That Holy Scripture is the Triune God's revealed Word, the Church's only infallible rule of faith and life.

3. That God's people are called to holiness in all aspects of life. This includes honoring the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, the only relationship within which sexual activity is appropriate.

Certainly the Christian faith is too great a reality to be contained adequately in three brief statements. Nonetheless, the most basic confession that Jesus is Lord (itself a revelation of the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4, “Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is One LORD”) leads to other convictions, namely, that Jesus defines our human nature; that he alone is Lord over life and death; and that his Word is authoritative, normative, absolutely unparalleled, and to be obeyed.

I attach Colson’s November 20 statement on the declaration from his web site, BreakPoint: (http://www.breakpoint.org/bp-home/news-a-events/13556-manhattan-dec (accessed 12/11/09). I have signed it, and if you concur with the declaration you can indicate your assent there as well.

Today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., I and a dozen evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox leaders face the microphones to announce the release of an historic document—one of the most important documents produced by the American church, at least in my lifetime.
It is called the Manhattan Declaration, and signed by over 140 leaders representing every branch of American Christianity.

The Manhattan Declaration is a wake-up call—a call to conscience—for the church. It is also crystal-clear message to civil authorities that we will not, under any circumstances, stand idly by as our religious freedom comes under assault.

The Declaration begins by reminding readers that for 2,000 years, Christians have borne witness to the truths of their faith. This witness has taken various forms—proclamation, seeking justice, resisting tyranny, and reaching out to the poor, oppressed, and suffering.
Having reminded readers about why and how Christians have spoken out in the past, the Declaration then turns to what especially troubles us today—the threats to the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and religious freedom.

The Declaration notes with sadness that although “public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction,” pro-abortion ideology “prevails today in our government.” Both in the administration and in Congress, there are many “who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and...provide abortions at taxpayer expense.”

The Declaration isn’t a partisan statement. It acknowledges that since Roe v. Wade, “elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to the ‘Culture of Death.’”

The result of this bipartisan complicity is an increasingly prevalent belief that “lives that are imperfect, immature, or inconvenient are discardable.” This lethal logic produces such evils as euthanasia and the “industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed” for their stem cells.

The response to this kind of assault on the sanctity of human life requires what the Manhattan Declaration calls the “gospel of costly grace.” This starts with the willingness to put aside our comfort and serve those whom the broader culture would deem outside the scope of its concern and legal protection.

The cost may be higher. Christians may have to choose between the demands of what St. Augustine called the “City of Man” and the “City of God”—which, for the Christian, is really no choice at all.

This kind of principled non-cooperation with evil won’t be easy—there are signs of a reduced tolerance for that most basic of American values, religious freedom. As we’ve discussed many times on BreakPoint, Christian organizations are losing tax-exempt status for refusing to buy in to homosexual “marriage.” Some are going out of business rather than cave into immoral demands—such as placing children for adoption with homosexual couples. Conscientious medical personnel are being sued or being fired for obeying their consciences.

I say, enough is enough. The Church must take a stand. And with the release of the Manhattan Declaration, that’s exactly what we are doing.

I am asking Christians by the thousands to come to ColsonCenter.org, where you’ll be able to read and sign the document.

Please stand with us today. Tell the world you stand for the sanctity of life and traditional marriage—and that you cherish your God-given freedom.

Buying a Bible

2009-11-28T13:06:00.000-08:00

Christmas is coming, and some might be planning to buy a Bible for a loved one. It’s a wonderful way to give a present that can be used daily and kept for a lifetime rather than lie forgotten in a closet or a box of discards in the garage. But choosing a Bible isn’t as simple as it might sound. For the uninitiated, an embarrassment of riches makes for a bewildering array of options. Still, the choice becomes clearer once broken into three questions.

The first question would be what version you want: NIV (New International Version), NASB (New American Standard Bible), ESV (English Standard Version), or NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) are great translations. The latter is well-reviewed; the ESV is very readable; the NASB is more literal, sometimes causing it to feel rather wooden, but excellent for careful study; the NIV is familiar and is used in many evangelical churches. The NLT (New Living Translation) is enjoyable to read and is a great student Bible, but as a paraphrase, is less useful for serious study—there are too many differences from the actual text. Same for the MESSAGE, by Eugene Peterson: great for devotional reading, less for in-depth analysis of a passage. There is the NJB (New Jerusalem Bible), a worthy Catholic translation. The NKJV (New King James Version) is different from the others in that it is not based on the ancient Greek texts, but instead is a rewriting of the 1611 King James (Authorized) version, which did not have access to the earliest and most reliable Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments that the modern versions all had. Still, it's serviceable if one reads the marginal notes that explain issues of translation. For one's main Bible, I suggest the NIV, NRSV, or ESV.

Next would be to determine if you want a study Bible, which is a system of study aids attached to various versions. Using a study Bible is a good idea because the explanatory notes help understand what you're reading. Good ones include the "The Life Application Bible," the NIV Study Bible, or the Oxford Annotated Bible (helpful, though liberal in some interpretations.) There are countless others, such as the Thompson Chain Reference (rather than extensive notes on the text, it systematically traces themes through the scriptures); the New Geneva Study Bible (it has thoughtful notes in line with the Reformed tradition, but only comes with the New King James Version); there is an "Archeological Study Bible,” a "Spirit Filled Life Bible," a “Wesley Study Bible,” a “New Men's Devotional Bible,” a “Life Recovery Bible,” a “Serendipity Bible” for small groups, and many others. The most helpful for personal use, however, are not following a particular theme, but are general expositions to help you get the meaning of the text. My suggestion, especially for a student, would be Life Application or NIV Study Bible.

The last question concerns the binding, usually a function of what you want to spend—for a durable Bible, hardcover is the least expensive, then bonded leather, then genuine leather, and then goatskin or calfskin. The discounted price for a new study Bible ranges from $16 to $172. Some of the study versions are designed to lay open while reading. There are many examples of wide-margin Bibles to allow for taking notes, many which are listed here, although one finds more advantageous pricing at times on Amazon.com:

http://www.allbibles.com/items.asp?Cc=BIBWM&ItemMoveby=0&Nbm=9780521708142&Pbm=1581350708&iTpStatus=1&Tp=&sTitle=&FromNav=False

Conquering the Darkness

2009-11-18T13:52:00.000-08:00

Many of us love C. S. Lewis’ children’s stories, The Chronicles of Narnia. The first book in the series, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, tells the story of four children from wartime England who magically pass through a wardrobe into a country of talking animals. An evil queen, the “White Witch,” casts a spell of perpetual winter that does not allow the celebration of Christmas. But with the coming of Aslan, the great lion, the Son of the Emperor across the Sea, the grip of darkness is broken. Father Christmas appears bearing gifts, and denizens of the kingdom are set free.

It’s true that these are anxious times, as news headlines, dark-themed movies, and violent video games remind us. Our culture challenges our values and diminishes human life. And that’s only the start—we must contend with failures in our own families and in ourselves. Those troubling realities don’t seem to fit with the promise of Christmas.

Yet the truth of the season is that God breaks into our weary world with bright hope. That hope is Jesus, the radiance of God, the light that darkness cannot overcome. He shows the way to eternal life, and overcomes our fears and sorrows. And from the darkest day of the year on December 21, the growing light reminds us of John the Baptist’s words about Jesus, “He must increase, and I must decrease.” The coming of the Savior, the Lion of Judah, changes everything.

What a reason for joy! What a reason to celebrate.

Why Werewolves?

2009-11-02T17:15:00.001-08:00

For my family, Halloween was traditionally a time when our girls would go trick-or-treating, then come back home to count their bags of saccharine booty in front of a fire. Then, we’d eat pizza in front of a classic horror movie like The Bride of Frankenstein or The Wolfman. Part of the appeal of the creepy fun was the knowledge that since Jesus came into the world to conquer the darkness, the evil represented by spooks and goblins is nothing we need to fear.

Sometimes, however, Christians have forgotten the assurance of God's presence and protection. I ran across an interesting chapter in Kathryn A. Edwards’ book Werewolves, Witches, and Wandering Spirits: Traditional Belief and Folklore in Early Modern Europe. The chapter is titled, “Such an Impure, Cruel, and Savage Beast: Images of the Werewolf in Demonological Works." I was intrigued at the author’s suggestion that werewolves are a creation of political anxiety. In other words, they express public fears in times of uncertainty and disorder.

"A figure of disorder, of trouble which must absolutely be warded off, the lycanthrope [werewolf] also tells something about politics. Witchcraft often appears in the texts already mentioned as a representation of social or political degeneration .” (191)

That is, it is suggested that tales of werewolves arise especially in times of social disruption like civil war. Such legends seemed more widespread during cataclysms like the wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. The author continues,

“In Plato's Republic it is the king's metamorphosis into a tyrant that gives birth to the emergence of the werewolf figure. In certain traditions, still alive in fourteenth-century Normandy, for example, the varouage designates a nighttime journey that an excommunicated individual accomplished on generally set dates, from Christmas to Candlemas or during Advent, and for a set length of time, most often four or seven years."

One similar story wasn’t the stuff of fantasy, but of history. The Bible tells of Nebuchadnezzar, who "was driven from men and ate grass like an ox; his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair had grown like eagles' feathers and his nails like birds' claws" for "seven times seven." (Daniel 4:34) The king descended into an animal-like state simply for spiritual reasons—the king’s pride caused him to fall under God’s judgment.

Why werewolves? Because beyond their spooky ability to fascinate us, the monsters we invent help make sense of our world.

Not Unto Death

2009-09-20T20:44:00.000-07:00

Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." (John 11:4)

On occasion, unexpected meanings emerge from familiar Bible verses. This morning my eyes fell upon John 11 and the story of Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus. There, a family calls for Jesus in their time of need. Verse 3 says, “So the sisters sent word to Jesus, ‘Lord, the one you love is sick.’”

But Jesus determined not to come when he was asked. Verse 6 says, “Therefore when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.” In making that decision, he was letting his friend Lazarus die. Jesus’ sense of what is needed often conflicts with our own. If Jesus had gone to his friend, he could have kept him from dying. Instead, he chose to wait until Lazarus died.

Apparently, this decision does not contradict, but corresponds with love. Verse 5 reads,
“Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” Then verse 6, therefore (or “so”) he stayed before going to them. In other words, he delayed not in spite of his care for Martha and her sister and Lazarus, he delayed because he loved them. In his love, Jesus had a greater plan for his friends’ good than they could possibly understand. Sometimes Jesus doesn’t answer our prayers or come to us in the way we asked, but he does it because he loves us, and sees what we cannot anticipate.

In verse 4 Jesus says, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." In other words, to show God’s glory is a greater act of love than keeping Lazarus from dying would have been. Jesus didn’t come in the way they asked because he loved them. That means he’s doing a greater good, a bigger thing than we can even ask or imagine.

God’s default is to give us what we ask for. In fact, he will always say yes to our prayers unless saying yes would do us harm. That means our pain is not in vain. God’s glory is seen through it, and we will see that glory in ways we can’t yet envision.

That is why Jesus brought Lazarus back to life. When he did that, he demonstrated God’s power over death, and he showed his glory. He revealed his love in a wholly unexpected way. It gives us hope for life’s losses. It gives resilient hope even for the churches of Jesus Christ, so bruised and wounded in our time. Urgently needing healing, renewal, and reformation, nevertheless “this sickness will not end in death.” We have resurrection in sight.

Impressions on a Local Fair

2009-09-08T05:53:00.000-07:00

This morning my Chicago brother’s family and I packed ourselves into the car and drove fifteen miles to the Geauga County Fair. Since the county was founded 200 years ago, it doesn’t surprise that its venerable fair has been around since 1823. At that time the nation was not yet fifty years old, and Northeast Ohio was a daunting wilderness, with tough pioneers beginning to carve farms out of ancient hardwood forests.

Fairs being what they are, we expected to see livestock and diligent youth fussing over 4-H displays. I asked one adolescent in the swine barn which pig was hers, and she beamed as she pointed out a massive, sleeping sow. We saw llamas, alpacas, rabbits and cows, and spent more time that I had hoped in the chicken coops since we were accompanied by a five-year-old who was fascinated with desperate-looking hens that fetched $85 to over $300 from corporate sponsors. But the competitions impressed me with their diversity—miniature horses to draft horses, races, and wagon-pulls.

The people ranged from tattooed behemoths to meek Midwestern middle-aged parents. Most noticeable to me was the ethnic make-up: to scan the crowd, it appeared that 99 per cent was white. A large portion of that group wore Ohio State University paraphernalia. At a state fair in the Far West, a very large percentage would be Hispanic, African-American, and other races. Geauga Country remains overwhelmingly Caucasian (including a large number of Amish, some of whose buggies we saw parked on the grass fields outside the fair.)

We made our way to the carnival section of the fair, past the midway. It looked like a carnival you could find in many parts of the world: rides made to look like giant clowns, dragons, or teddy bears, in garish pink and gaudy green, along with hawkers exhorting passers-by to try their luck in the shooting galleries and penny arcades. My brother and I speculated on how many outstanding warrants one would find among the crusty barkers running the rides. Dim collective memories of distant medieval fairs seemed preserved in the faux-medieval castles and freak shows. All of it fun as far as it goes, but I can only take so much of the cacophony and clutter.

Just as my nerves began to fray, a rainstorm dumped, sending hordes running for the barns and covered pavilions, and us to the car. It’s not easy keeping a cell phone dry when you’re sans umbrella and soaked to the bone. All in all, not a bad way to spend half a day for $7 entrance. Still, I’m glad Cleveland has an art museum.

Do Pastoral Candidates Need Theology?

2009-08-28T18:56:00.000-07:00

It’s interesting to see people’s take on preparation for ministry. What are the core competencies needed, and how do we as a denomination insure their presence in our future leaders? I was a part of an electronic exchange recently that went like this (with names changed.) In particular, we were talking about the “ords,” the ordination exams required as a part of the process of becoming a pastor (that is, a “Minister of Word and Sacrament”) in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Joe: Good luck to all those who are taking Ordination Exams.

ME: You mean "luck" in a theological sense?!

Rick: Luck has nothing to do with it! It's a totally modernist way of approaching call. When will we let it go and replace it with a more communal process of discernment? Aaaarrrrrgh. I've read the exams in the past. Fortunately they are only one indicator and not the whole process.

Steve: As a lay person, I wonder what the purpose of the exams really is? Is it just to show that you know a lot of theological concepts and can regurgitate them back on command? Do they test your spirit, your heart, your compassion, your faith, or your administrative abilities? Or are they just like most school tests that test your ability to fit into a defined system of questions and predefined responses?

Joe: I'm not sure of the stated purpose but it gives us the feel of having a professional exam like the bar for lawyers. Creativity or theological flexibility do not seem to be encouraged in any portion of the call/ordination process including the ordination exams.

ME: Wait a minute, Bob--written exams alone can't adequately test for missional competency and spiritual maturity. But they do have a role in assessing theological and biblical preparedness, which are crucial for leadership in ministry. I think it would be possible to assess those values differently, say, through a mentoring process culminating in an oral exam. But let's not dismiss the importance of theological concepts. They are the basis of our confession.

As an artist and a student of culture, I advocate innovative approaches to ministry. But I don’t believe the major challenge of preparing candidates is to insure, as Joe suggests, creativity or “theological flexibility.” Candidates take not only written exams, but follow a process, in addition to theological education, that includes ministerial internships, accountability to a supervisor, and often a clinical pastoral (chaplaincy) internship as well. Even in these practical, mentor-oriented aspects of preparation, the teaching of the tradition undergirds praxis.

At the very least, new tactics and solutions in pastoral preparation have to be held in balance by faithfulness to classical Reformed and evangelical Christianity. Certainly we should not overlook that balance even as we adapt to changing times and as we insist learning must go beyond the rote. Candidates for ordination must do more than simply “regurgitate” doctrines, but ignorance of the teachings of our tradition is solution is no recipe for reform.

A Scriptural Blessing

2009-08-20T15:58:00.000-07:00

God has given us such much, from provision for our physical needs, to the freedoms we enjoy, to the friendship and support in Christ’s body, the family of faith. In fact, from the beginning of time until the end, all of God’s work is a blessing.

The Bible records many words of blessing. The book of Numbers relates one such instance:

May the LORD bless you, and keep you;
May the LORD make his face shine to upon you, and be gracious to you;
May the LORD turn his countenance to you and grant you peace. (Numbers 6:24-26)

The passage recounts God’s instruction to Moses that the Aaronic priests were to “put God’s name” on the Israelites, representing God’s gracious claim upon them, and his intention to bless them.

One of God’s best blessings is the way he speaks to us in his word. The Bible tells us the story of God’s redeeming love, a love so sacrificial that God came to us as a Servant and laid down his life for us rather than lose us.

In light of that great story, the following blessing expresses my prayer for you this season. It is a slightly modified version of a blessing written by the Reverend Darrell Johnson, one of my significant mentors, to a Doctor of Ministry seminar (Darrell is currently Professor of Preaching at Regent College in Vancouver, and soon-to-be installed as Pastor and Head of Staff at First Baptist Church there):

Whenever you open the Bible, may you do so asking of the text, “have you seen him whom my soul loves?”, and may you experience the text leading you beyond the words to the Word himself.

May Jesus meet you and give his life to you, causing you to live out “the obedience of faith” to which the text calls you.

Like Jacob who became Israel, may you wrestle with not only the text, but with the God of the text.

As you read the Bible, may you be filled with the discipline of Matthew, with the spontaneous enthusiasm of Mark, with the prayerful compassion of Luke, and with the intimacy and adoring wonder of John—so that you too can only call yourself, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

May you live out the practical wisdom of James, because you, too, are a doer of the word and not just a hearer.

May your experience of Jesus be as wide and long and high and deep as that of the apostle Paul (“to me, the least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach the unfathomable riches of Christ.”)

May you live in the power of the Holy Spirit, and may you always have the confidence that when you read God’s word, he speaks to you, and that when God speaks, something always happens.

And in that something, may you be surprised by joy!

God's blessings to all his people!

Growth of Islam in Europe is a God-Given Opportunity

2009-07-31T18:02:00.000-07:00

In his new book “Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West," Christopher Caldwell insists that Muslims immigrants are supplanting European culture; a blurb on the cover describes it as “patiently conquering Europe’s cities, street by street.”

The Muslim population of Europe today is the unintended result of bringing thousands of Turks, Moroccans, Algerians, Tunisians, and Pakistanis to fill worker shortages from the 1960s to 1970s. These guest workers were supposed to leave, as Omer Taspinar points out on the Brookings Institute web site, but instead were allowed to settle permanently and to bring into their country of residence their extended families from home.

Most measures point to a far more advanced state of Islamic influence in Europe than in the U.S., according to such commentators as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bruce Bawer, Bat Yeor, Daniel Pipes, and of course Caldwell. The latter maintains that Europe had almost no Muslim residents in the 1950s, and today they have from 15 to 17 million. Birth rates among most European countries cannot sustain their current populations, while Muslim birth rates accelerate. Taspinar writes,

More [Muslims] are on the way. Today, the Muslim birth rate in Europe is three times higher than the non-Muslim one. If current trends continue, the Muslim population of Europe will nearly double by 2015, while the non-Muslim population will shrink by 3.5 percent.

Sections of London, Brussels, Paris, and Malmo, for instance, operate under de facto Sharia. The Turkish Muslim presence in Germany is influencing that country’s support for Turkish membership in the European Community. The presence of 5 to 7 million Muslims in France, far outnumbering the Jewish population of some 700,000, is seen as contributing to a rise of anti-Semitism. The Muslim population in Europe is largely unassimilated, maintaining its identity as a minority community rather than as citizens of Germany, France, or Britain.

In contrast, the largest group of immigrants in the United States over the last generation was overwhelmingly Hispanic and Catholic, not Muslim. Conservative Christianity has a much more visible presence in America, in spite of the hegemony of liberal/progressives in academia, journalism, and government.

What should concern us is not the question of whether South Asians or others change the racial composition of Europe. Rather, the issue is the erosion of the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman foundations for Western civilization. But this moment presents us with an opportunity to re-evangelize the continent, and not simply in order to revitalize the spiritual life of secular Europeans. With Muslims immigrating to the West, they are accessible as potential brothers and sisters in Christ. Believers have the opportunity to share the Gospel with Muslims in Europe and America as they cannot freely do in the Muslim world, and new Muslim background believers can in turn bring the gospel to their cultures of origin with cultural understanding unlikely for those raised as members of mainstream culture in the West.

Transforming Culture--Sometimes It's Loving to Say No

2009-07-14T15:08:00.000-07:00

Today, I received a group email from the Presbyterian Coalition, a faithful and effective renewal organization within the PCUSA headed by Dr. Jerry Andrews. The email encouraged readers to give feedback to a special committee of the General Assembly seeking input on the question of homosexual civil unions. The committee is considering what the Church's response should be, for instance, when a same-sex couple who has been married by the state wants a church wedding or blessing. How should the church respond if the state legalizes marriage between persons of the same gender? The email quoted Thomas Gillespie, retired president of Princeton Seminary, who maintains that "We Presbyterians have got to learn to become counter-cultural." He explains that past generations of Presbyterians have helped transform culture, and that culture now "needs to be reclaimed by the Gospel." In order to help reshape public life, we must stand out as those who stand for something different. We must be characterized by Scripture's values and vision, and therefore must at times say "no" to our culture. I believe that's what has often been called "being prophetic." Sometimes, a counter-cultural stance leads us to renounce evil. That is the other side of a positive announcement of the good news about Jesus Christ.

I wrote the following few lines in response to the invitation for input:

Dear Committee,

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the question, "What is the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community?" I believe it is important for the committee to hear the voice of the church on this matter. Indeed, we find perspective when we hear the historical witness of the church as well as hear the voice of the broader, worldwide church today.

In light of those voices and in light of the best critical reading of the Bible texts, we cannot support same-gender partnerships that approximate marriage. Those partnerships distort the complementary nature of the image of God in persons, and fail to demonstrate that God's love is counter-intuitive, sacrificial, radical, and transforming. As such, love sometimes requires saying no to human desire and impulses, and only then can enable us to be "renewed according to the image of Christ." Homosexual partnerships encourage a fixation on, even an idolatry of, the self. The church should not give its blessing to such unions, but instead, teach on God's call, regeneration, and repentance, the only process that really sets people free for a new kind of life. Whether "gay" or "straight," our identity is no longer in our sexual orientation, nor is our fulfillment found in it, but in Christ alone.

Sincerely in Christ,

Randy Working

We have until August 16 to give feedback to the special committee. I encourage you to correspond with them and to offer your thoughts. If we hope to be a counter-cultural presence and a force for biblical renewal in our denomination, we need to make known our views to those in positions of responsibility.

A Call to Hope

2009-07-03T15:32:00.001-07:00

One of the most poignant depictions of the power of beauty to convey hope and transcendence appears in the 1997 film Life is Beautiful (La Vita e Bella). The film begins as a romantic comedy centering on Guido, a young Italian Jew in 1930s Italy. With slapstick humor and a wondrous sense of life’s possibilities, he woos the object of his devotion, an Italian Gentile woman named Dora. In time the couple marries, and the film skips forward to their life with their son Giosué, who appears to be about four years old. The whimsical undercurrent of the film continues with Guido’s lighthearted approach to parenting. When Giosué hides in a small cabinet to avoid taking his bath, Guido pretends to have the power to magically move objects. He calls to the cabinet, which raises from the floor and walks to him, his son inside.

At this point, the tenor of the film changes, and the mood darkens. Italy is now a part of the Axis between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Guido and Giosué are deported to a Nazi concentration camp. But Dora refuses to escape the fate of her family, demanding to accompany them onto the cattle car that will take them to the camp. Guido bravely mounts a complicated deceit in order to convince his young son their imprisonment is all a great game. He never despairs, allowing himself only brief moments of discouragement, and never in front of his son’s eyes. The father’s devotion and the son’s innocence combine to ensure the effectiveness of the ruse. When Guido returns exhausted from a day of carrying anvils in the camp foundry, he still manages to hoist his son upon his return to the dormitory, and to pretend it is all part of the game’s intricate point system.

Guido is eventually assigned to serve in the officers’ dining room. One day, he sneaks into an adjacent room and puts a record on the phonograph, turning the amplifier to point out an open window. He starts the turntable and turns up the volume; the record is the from Les Contes d’Hoffmann, by Offenbach. The notes of the aria rise above the brutality and despair of the camp, and the camera records Dora, in another section, as her eyes lift above her sleeping comrads to the moon, a symbol of purity beyond human depravity. The song is a piercing call to hope.

I include a video of the aria, sung by the Romanian soprano Irina Iordachescu and her sister Christina.

Focus in Worship

2009-06-22T13:14:00.000-07:00

Architect Lukas von Hildebrandt designed the Piaristenkirch church “Maria Treu” in Vienna in the year 1700. Today the church is considered a masterpiece of eighteenth-century design, following the rounded forms of the Italian Baroque. In spite of a packed and ornate visual vocabulary, the church achieves an airy effect and lightness of touch. Marble columns, gilded Corinthian capitals, massive paintings in the side chapels, and oak pews and choir stalls harmoniously complement whitewashed walls. The ceiling frescoes draw the eye increasingly upward, through depictions of architecture (arches and balustrades) to the spectacle of what appears to be Mary’s coronation as the Queen of Heaven.

As an evangelical, I focus on Jesus Christ “in whom all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell” (Colossians 1:19). In addition, as a Reformed Christian (albeit an artist) I retain a sense of unease over visual representations in the setting of worship. This springs from a long-held Reformed wariness over picturing God, given the prohibitions of the Second Commandment. Nevertheless, it is impressive to see the beauty and the care given to the sanctuary, and its capacity to elevate the spirit of the worshiper. Yet let us not dismiss the fact that from the faith of ancient Israel, the Lord was concerned not only with who we worship, but how we worship. God is apprehended, it seems, primarily through the ear and not the eye. For those who have ears to hear, let them hear!
Click here for a gigapixel picture. What do you think?

http://photoartkalmar.com/Photoart%20Kalmar%20high%20res/Gigapixel/Piaristenkircheflash.html

The Year 2012--Do We Have a Future?

2009-06-18T21:04:00.000-07:00

There’s been not a little interest over the year 2012, when some believe the world will come to an end through catastrophic events. The year corresponds to a prediction of an ancient Mayan “Long Count” calendar marking “the end of a 5,126-year era.” (USA Today, 3/27/07) The History Channel devoted an episode to the Doomsday scenario as well.

Jesus told his disciples, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matthew 24:36). Consequently, I think it's absurd for people to suggest we can know a time-line for Jesus’ return or for the end of the world, whether from the Book of Revelation or any other place in Scripture. Such speculations are in fact unbiblical, more likely popping up in Bible Code schemes or in Nostradamus, a French contemporary of Calvin who obsessed over alchemy, astrology, and the occult.

Most people who try to figure out when the world will end start with Daniel 9:20-27; they apply the weeks to years to attempt to construct a time line, and have linked God's clock with events like the founding of Israel in 1948; with the capture of East Jerusalem in the Six-Day War in 1967; the rise of the European Common Market, later the European Community; or Y2K in 2000.

Revelation includes a vision of the martyrs crying out, "How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?" (Rev. 6:10) They don't know when the final judgment is coming. The judgment scene recounted in Rev. 20:11 ff. simply tells us it takes place after the millennium mentioned in 20:3. All we can know for certain is that from God’s perspective it's coming soon (1:3, 22:12). If we trust Jesus, we need to press on in the vocation he’s given us, knowing that always, life is fleeting and our time is short.

Jesus told his followers to trust him with the timing and to be prepared at all times for his return. Those in the past who have tried to piece together specific time-lines have historically looked pretty silly. Instead, we need to live each day as if it were our last, and each day as if we had a great future ahead of us.

Creation, Both Fabulous and Frightful

2009-06-16T08:00:00.000-07:00

One fascinating yet repugnant aspect of the natural order in Ohio is the snapping turtle. It dwells in mud, lives up to 200 years, grows as large as a manhole cover, and can bite your toes off. Fish and Game agents discovered musket balls inside of one turtle. Like its more benign cousins the eastern box turtle and the painted turtle, it can be seen lumbering across country roads in the spring and summer. Last week, my daughter saw a foot-long snapping turtle as she left the stables where she takes riding lessons. Someone lifted the turtle by the sides of its shell to remove it from the road, and it whirled its head around, hissing as it torqued about. Here's an example of snapping turtle congeniality from Youtube:

Wherever we look in the universe, we see at least some dim imprint of God's glory. All of nature, in fact, he created for his glory and for our delight.

But organisms like the snapping turtle, along with leeches, mosquitoes, and germs, serve as vivid reminders that we live in a fallen creation. Sin affects not only human capacity to reason and to perceive God, but also creation itself. The world not only manifests the beauty, intricacy, and order of the Creator, but also danger, death, and decay. Even if human ability were restored to its original pristine estate, nature is now tarnished, no longer the majestic theater in which we apprehend God's glory unambiguously. So, while snapping turtles and poisonous snakes serve their purpose in the ecosystem, they also illustrate the sinister aspect of the natural world, a world that is savage and cruel. Nature is not a clear window into true knowledge of God. While it speaks of his glory, it cannot convey saving knowledge. That can only come through the Word of God; Psalm 19 tells us "the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (1b) and then contrasts and amplifies that witness with God's explicit speech: "The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul...the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes" (19:7, 8b).

In our sinful condition, we tend to "serve the creature rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25b). Human evil and death show how far the created order itself has fallen from God's intended design. It, like we, now needs to be restored to its original integrity: "For the creation was subjected to futility...the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now" (Romans 8:20,22).

Fearsome creatures like snapping turtles remind me, then, of God's creativity and power; of nature's predicament and yet possibility; and of our stewardship over all things.

The Geography of Nowhere

2009-06-09T12:33:00.000-07:00

Last night on my way to the airport to pick up a family friend, I dropped by the college town of Berea for a coffee. As I drove through the modern outskirts of the city, I lamented the dismal clutter typical of a modern commercial zone, and found myself growing stressed by the scale-less streets, wind-swept parking lots, strip malls and fry-pits. Soon, though, I came to streets lined with large trees and dignified rows of nineteenth-century Romanesque buildings. In the center of town, filled with churches and stone college buildings, was a triangle marked by the statue of a Civil War hero. I found myself sighing with relief, and I think that had to do with more than simply finding a coffee house. The triangle enveloped me within a welcoming space that was both public and personal, historic and yet living.

Anthony Vidler, in his book Warped Space: Art, Architecture, and Anxiety in Modern Culture, explores “the anxious visions of the modern subject caught in spatial systems beyond [his or her] control and attempting to make representational and architectural sense of [their] predicament.” That is to say, architects and artists express the angst of our age. In turn, inhumane built-environments cause all of us stress. Vidler explains that we suffer psychologically as we live in a progressively more overwhelming metropolis. Increasingly, we see space “defined as a product of subjective projection…as opposed to a stable container of objects and bodies.” You could say, we shape buildings, and they in turn shape our own mental space. The effect of that shaping is often negative. In fact, it is a tension between claustrophobia and agoraphobia (the fear of open spaces) that reflects the mental condition of the twenty-first century.

According to Vidler, we are in inner pain, and therefore we see “architectural space as claustrophobic, urban space as agoraphobic, all warpings of the normal to express the pathological [as] the leitmotivs of avant-garde art.” That’s a dense statement, but if I understand correctly, he’s arguing that our culture’s crisis of identity in the city led to ambiguous abstraction in art and architecture. The forms of today are born out of “spiritual dread of space.”

If Vidler is right, maybe we can draw a couple conclusions from his insights. For one, it ought to help us better see the emotional and mental effects of certain kinds of space. It’s similar to understanding what lack of sleep, or over-consumption of food or alcohol does to us. If we understand the consequences of intemperance in terms of memory loss, susceptibility to infection, and obesity, then when we feel a certain way, we’ll more likely change what we can.

Second, if we learn anything about reading the artifacts of our culture, we can see the spiritual malaise out of which they spring. Perhaps we can also see echoes of the gospel in the inchoate longings expressed in what people build. Might we then become more sensitive to the spiritual plight of those around us?

Our society is estranged from its surroundings, as we discard more humane forms in favor of defensive geometries: vertical windows for slits in concrete walls; parking lots for town greens. We have the technical ability to design and construct greater formal complexity than ever. But the most important change is not space per se, but our way of conceiving it. Space is symbolic our inner state. Vidler helps me understand why urban wastelands induce stress, while town squares reassure us.

Remembering Calvin

2009-06-05T21:28:00.000-07:00

At this point I’m up to page 670 in volume one of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion (I'm following the reading plan for the Institutes on Princeton Theological Seminary, occasionally retracing my steps through my own copy.) I had never read through the entire tome, even though I’ve been convinced for some time that it’s one of the seminal works of the Western Christian tradition. Next month is the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth, and in the face of eroding religious consensus in Europe and America, it seemed to me worthwhile to take the time to read it. It’s not only that we lack in biblical knowledge, but we also lack in common presuppositions about how we are to approach scripture, even within the churches. You don’t have to agree with everything Calvin wrote, of course, to be a good Christian. But he had an expansive worldview, a fresh way of conceiving of biblical faith, and cogent rhetorical skills. Biblical prowess and the ability to reason are sorely lacking in our contemporary religious scene. A friend reported that in his presbytery, in response to a pastoral candidate’s insistence that Jesus was the only Savior, one minister member stood and proclaimed to the assembly that he wished to go on record that Jesus was not the only Savior. I would have pointed to Jesus’ words, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father apart from me” (John 14:6), or perhaps to Peter’s declaration, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). But the problem with a rejoinder like that in such a setting is that our brothers and sisters who differ with us theologically would simply dismiss or explain away those absolute statements.

At the January meeting of our presbytery, one minister transferring into our membership read what I thought was a rather vapid statement of faith. When we were invited to ask questions of the minister, a couple asked such things as a cheerful “Tell us what you like to do on your day off!” I asked the moderator to be recognized, and asked, “Ms. So-and-so, do humans need saving? If so, how does that happen, and what are the implications for pastoral ministry?” Incredulously, the person responded, “Well, the whole earth needs saving. Species are going extinct all the time.” The answer went downhill from there. (In the subsequent vote, I said “Nay!”)

It is doubtless naïve to suppose Calvin would have the power to persuade our theological opponents with whom we differ radically on issues like the sovereignty of God, the hopelessness of the human predicament apart from grace, and the nature of sin and salvation. I think the value in reading the Institutes is to disciple those who are untaught and still open to learning. Calvin is both severe and tender, bracing and pastoral. For example, he mocks the Catholic division of venial and mortal sins, making the point that all sins are mortal sins—even a little lie has the power to condemn us to hell (see Institutes III. IV. XXIX ff.) And yet he would free us of the burden of having to confess every particular sin, saying this is impossible given the idolatrous nature of our hearts. He saw human nature as desperately evil, capable of turning anything into an expression of rebellion, a way of avoiding God. Even the medieval church’s penitential system became, Calvin claims, a way of avoiding real repentance and confession. Along with Luther, he taught the bondage of the human will since the fall of Adam. Now it is impossible to fulfill the law of God; indeed, we tend toward sin in all our actions.

Forgiveness is granted solely on the merit of Jesus Christ. No longer must we engage in the complicated processes and the intermediary role of priests as representatives of God. Through simple faith in the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God makes us right with himself, forgives us of all our sins, delivers us from their penalty, and daily gives us a new beginning.

Calvin’s vocabulary isn’t difficult or obscure, but his ideas are mind-stretching in their grandeur. It's not too late to spend a little time with him this year.

Falling Off To The Right Or The Left

2009-05-26T21:30:00.000-07:00

Charles Washington Baird, a pastor in the Scottish Presbyterian Church, wrote a book in 1855 he called EUTAXIA or the Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches. He quoted a prayer variously attributed to Calvin, Beza, or the Swiss reformer Oecolampadius. The prayer implores God the “Almighty Father”:

In removing our guilt and our pollution, grant us the daily increase of the grace of thine Holy Spirit; that acknowledging from our inmost hearts our own unrighteousness, we may be touched with sorrow that shall work true repentance, and that thy Spirit, mortifying all sin within us may produce the fruits of holiness and righteousness well pleasing in thy sight.

The prayer contrasts dramatically with our own. Over the weekend, I consulted the Book of Common Worship, put together as the principle liturgical resource for our Presbyterian churches in 1993. I’ve appreciated its generally graceful language and cogent connections to the ancient office of the church. But as I leafed through the pages this time, I spied two troubling prayers that had previously escaped my attention. The first, titled For the Sexually Confused, read:

God of creation,
You made men and women to find in love
fulfillment as your creatures.
We pray for those who deny physical love,
who are repelled by flesh,
or frightened by their daydreams.
Straighten us all out, O Lord,
and show us who we are,
so that we may affirm each other bodily in covenants of love,
approved by Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

What does this drivel actually mean?

The prayer addresses the “God of creation.” While not inappropriate, the church knows God principally as the God of redemption. Even Psalm 19, which begins with a celebration of revelation in the natural order, moves to a celebration of the Law, wherein God comes into clearer view. In like manner the Apostle Paul writes that while human beings discern enough of God in the world to make them culpable, they do not know enough to save them. Even the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, when they refer to the creator God, amplify the meaning with “Almighty.” God is not simply identified with creation, but transcends it. The prayer affirms what is rather than what God is calling us to become.

The prayer goes on to suggest God intends us to “find in love fulfillment…” True, but not in generic love. We find our fulfillment in God’s love for us, a love which renews us in the likeness of Jesus Christ.

Next, the prayer names those who: “deny physical love”; who “are repelled by flesh”; and those “frightened by their daydreams.” Excuse me? Is the problem of sexual confusion in our culture that we’re succumbing en masse to the seductions of asceticism? Is it not rather our tendency to libertarianism? People more likely need deliverance from lust, addition to pornography, or from infidelity—not a lack of fleshly desire. That, however, is not the prayer’s last word. It concludes by asking God’s help that “we may affirm each other bodily.” What does that mean? Are we to discern what is right and true through corporeal compatibility? At this point the prayer strikes as comical at best, and as tragically obtuse at worst. Concluding ambiguously “as approved by Jesus Christ our Lord,” the prayer leaves us wondering whether we are to conform to Christ, or he to our impulses.

The second prayer that startled me read:

Eternal God,
You are the one God to be worshiped by all,
The one called Allah by your Muslim children,
Descendants of Abraham as we are.
Give us grace to hear your truth
In the teachings of Mohammed, the prophet,
And to show your love as disciples of Jesus Christ,
That Christians and Muslims together
May serve you in faith and friendship. Amen.

This prayer states what many Christians are unable to affirm, namely that Allah and “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” are one. Then, it grants that Muslims are God’s children, against the apostolic understanding that those who received Jesus, “to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.” (John 1:12) Finally, it states that Mohammed is the prophet, and asks that we might hear the truth of God in his teachings, a hope which is named as a grace.

This is highly problematic, since Mohammed’s teachings deny the divinity of Jesus. One might even say that Islam is intrinsically anti-Christ, since it denies the crucifixion, and therefore the resurrection, the most essential tenets of our faith. John’s first letter to the church warns,

“Every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.” (1 John 4:3)

It is certainly positive if Christians and Muslims engage corporately in acts of service, but that must not come at the cost of acquiescence to Muslim theological demands.

In his commentary on Matthew 15:21-28 Calvin wrote,

“Faith will obtain anything from the Lord; for so highly does he value it, that he is always prepared to comply with our wishes, so far as it may be for our advantage.” (The Harmony of the Gospels, vol. II)

God’s default is to grant our petitions. Let us thank him that, in his mercy, he gives us according to his glory and our good, and not merely as we desire. Perhaps an appropriate way to begin our prayers is with the repentance to which the reformers and the biblical writers themselves called God’s people.

The Baseline for Beauty

2009-05-18T13:27:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you have sat in on a public debate where conflicting values come into play—-a debate, say, how to balance economic growth with the need for preserving the community. Or how to balance the right of free speech with respect for others' feelings? Behind those discussions lies the desire for beauty, truth, and goodness. It can be confusing, to say nothing of exhausting. What is our touchstone for understanding these ultimate values?

The Bible tells us that in the end, beauty, truth, and goodness come from God himself, because they reflect his character and being. Sometimes we get confused about these overarching virtues when we lose sight of God. That helps explain why we sometimes distort the truth, fail to work for the common good, or put beauty to wrong use, leading to lust, covetousness, and idolatry.

But there’s a corrective to the false use of beauty. That is to recognize that true beauty comes from God, from his being, character, and works. Some of the many words the Bible uses for God’s beauty include majesty, glory, honor, loveliness, comeliness, delightfulness, and excellence. He embodies all things beautiful. When one apprehends the divine, one is moved to proclaim, “How great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty!” (Zechariah 9:17).

It’s not enough just to know about God—-we need to experience him, to know him personally in order to receive the life and blessing that come only from him. In short, we need to worship, which can be conceived of as a kind of wondrous gazing. When we do that, we can then discern echoes of God all around us, from creation to the work of our hands. Like the Apostle Paul wrote, “Whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence…think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). When we contemplate these things, we are in fact turning our lives in the direction of God, whose magnificence radiates in Jesus Christ. When we look at Jesus, we see infinite beauty in tangible form, the “Word made flesh,” “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). May we enjoy his beauty, goodness, and truth, and in turn express that to others.

Buildings Should Delight Us

2009-05-14T16:09:00.000-07:00

Architecture forms a visual language. Of course, it concerns building, but you can focus on its technical aspect (what a building is made of), or its function (what a building is made for), or on the emotional experience of those who utilize the finished space.

The first-century Roman architect Vitruvius wrote that architecture needed the three characteristics of firmness, commodity, and delight. Surely he has an important insight here: these elements are foundational for us as well.

Firmness suggests that structure must insure stability; it must hold together and endure against the elements. Commodity has to do with usefulness; the building must function well according to its purpose. This encompasses whether the built space achieves its particular intention. A house must allow for shelter and the human activities associated with daily living such as eating, sleeping, or playing. A theater must accommodate the passage of numbers of people, comfortable seating, and good lines of sight for performance. A factory must allow sufficient light, maneuverability, and work space. A meeting hall must allow for social interaction, and enjoy good acoustics. These qualities define whether a building fulfills its function, entailing “commodity.”

Delight is the aesthetic quality of a building. We human beings need something beyond quality of construction and efficacy of functioning. We also need that which pleases the senses. We need spaces that instruct, embrace, and inspire. Beauty has to do with taste. But even if that’s nearly impossible to define, we know it when we see it. Umberto Eco explains maintains we can contemplate with a “detached attitude that allows us to define as beautiful some good that does not arouse our desire.” This kind of appreciation isn’t a wish to possess, but is simply enjoyment “for what it is, irrespective of whether we possess it or not” (History of Beauty, New York: Rizzoli, 2002, 8.)

It’s not that we think the cathedral of Notre Dame is beautiful because it is well made, or because it functions well. We find it to be pleasing to look at. It elevates the spirit, and enlarges the soul. It seems both proportionate and harmonious. Vitruvius states, “Symmetry is a proper agreement between the members of the work itself, and the metric correspondence between the separate parts and the scheme as a whole…symmetry springs from the proportion that the Greeks called analogy: no building can be satisfactorily ordered in the absence of analogy with the correct proportions of the human body.” (Ten Books on Architecture, I.II.XIV) Different mathematical conceptions for perfection, and therefore beauty, have been proposed from Plato to Da Vinci. But the search for an ideal is itself evidence of the universal value of beauty, or delight. For our investigation, we must hold in tension the idea of a building in a utilitarian sense, along with the idea of the building as a work of art.

In the face of postmodern fragmentation, our cultural context is confused. We have no consensus about ideals of beauty and goodness, or the meaning of symbols. Maybe a first step in finding common meaning in our built environment today is to affirm that buildings should delight us in order to be worthy of our care.

Missional Small Groups

2009-05-11T19:57:00.000-07:00

At First Presbyterian Church of Bellevue, a couple of us pastors developed a small groups curriculum for the fifty-year anniversary celebration, a time of Jubilee that encouraged our members to reach out in acts of service that showed our larger community the real Jesus. I'm thinking of that now as we work to make my current congregation a missional church. One lesson of the study material encouraged small groups to reach out in a practical act of service to the homeless. Seems like one good way to get started:

Do a street walk. Make sandwiches with your small group. In 3s or 2s (always with a partner for safety sake) go to downtown Seattle, Capital Hill, Pioneer Square or other places where homeless people hang out. If it’s cold outside, hand out sandwiches and hot chocolate or socks and blankets. If it’s warm, iced tea and sandwiches. Start up conversations with the homeless. The point is not to hand out as many sandwiches as possible, but to show the love of Jesus to people who have been told they are worthless over and over again. Ask them questions (what’s your name, how’d you get here, where are you from, what’s your story?). Don’t be afraid to ask if they ever feel that God is with them or not. The homeless are often very eager to talk, and it is often much easier to talk about God with them than with middle class people. Don’t try to convert them, just ask them questions. Offer to pray with them at the end. If they don’t want to talk, respect that and move on. The point is not food; it’s to offer them dignity. Pray with your small group before you go.

Afterward, get together over coffee and debrief the experience. What was it like? What was easy? What was hard? Where, if anywhere, did you see God, or at least the need for God?

Discipline or Discipleship?

2009-04-30T20:59:00.000-07:00

I share below an article originally published in the Fall 2002 edition of Re-News, the journal of Presbyterians for Renewal:

The Pompidou Center in Paris, also known simply as the “Beaubourg”, rises like an oil refinery above a tightly packed neighborhood of seventeenth and eighteenth-century houses. An icon to modernism, Beaubourg displays its innards with heating and air conditioning ducts, electrical and water conduits wrapping around the building’s vast exterior. The interior houses an extraordinary collection of painting and the visual arts, covering the span from the post-Impressionists to the movements of the 1980s and 1990s. I walked through it this summer with my wife and high school daughter. We scrutinized everything from experiments in color composition and artistic freedom, to the nihilism of contemporary performance artists being filmed cutting themselves. I left overwhelmed by the diversity of modern visual expression, and also with a sense of a western culture in sharp decline.

Is decline an apt description of the church’s culture as well? Are we of the Presbyterian Church (USA) a culture in decay? The signs appear manifold that we no longer share a moral consensus. Like the larger society in which we share, we grope for values that once seemed so clear.

Perhaps the problem is a constitutional crisis in the church. Many might argue so, and convincingly, for the higher courts of the church seem unwilling to enforce the standards of the Book of Order, let alone the values of the Book of Confessions, let alone the mandates of Scripture itself. Some congregations, disagreeing with the dictates of the Book of Order and the judgments of the General Assembly, disobey with impunity. Some pastors cover deviations from Scripture, tradition, and the standards of community by claiming freedom of conscience. Profound doubt has taken root as to the nature of God, the source of knowledge, the value of human life, and even the ability to know reality at all. Indeed, something is amiss in our house.

The problem is not discipline but discipleship

It seems clear to me that the source of our cultural discontent in the church is more radical than political and constitutional differences of opinion. The issue is not a matter of interpretation of Scripture by those who otherwise share a common worldview. The root of our dissatisfaction is a spiritual malaise. The troubles that hound us are analogous to the artist so despairing and so bored she can no longer create, but only destroy. They are symptoms of nominal Christianity within our own house.

In his work In Name Only: Tackling the Problem of Nominal Christianity, Eddie Gibbs makes the case that the issue is the gap between the baptized and those living as disciples of Christ. The dividing line between vital faith and nominal formalism may be seen in such practices as participation in a group beyond Sunday morning worship; in praying with others; in talking with others about God; and in an awareness of the presence of God. Other signs of living faith might be personal participation in mission or family devotions (the principle responsibility of Christian parents is to disciple their own children, or as Luther said, to be a pastor to their own children.)

We have allowed culture to define for us the true, the good, and the beautiful. Secularism scarcely believes any more that these virtues exist in any universal sense. It leaves us with personal preference, and the melancholy vision of human worth defined in solely economic terms. Yet the church has believed we could let the wider culture establish our values in the area of abortion, sexual ethics, consumerism, and careerism. We have set aside the ennobling doctrines of the image of God, of human responsibility, and of vocation, attempting to lay the Christian life on top of a pagan worldview. Ironically, even the doctrine of total depravity is more hopeful than the secularist utopian vision of the perfectibility of humankind; consider the outcome of the French Revolution (the Reign of Terror) and the Russian Revolution (the purges of Lenin and Stalin), or the specter of an elite group of people determining the genetic design for humanity’s future.

Usually as driven and purposeless as the surrounding culture, we in the church simply haven’t had time for prayer, for the community of faith, for ministry, or family; and when the values come into direct conflict we allow the culture to trump the kingdom. We have privatized our faith, assigning it to an isolated sector, irrelevant to the rest of our life choices. Whatever is left over, after we have made our choices autonomously, we consign to the realm of faith. Thus, the culture defines our lives, declares what is of value, and fills our time.

More specifically, the contemporary church has not generally educated our leadership the great ideas of evangelical and Reformed theology. Always pushed to excel and to accomplish, we wax apologetic (judging from my own experience) about asking our leadership to take the time for reflection and for spiritual formation. Maybe it’s because we ourselves have not experienced the transforming fellowship of a dynamic covenant community.

Church discipline alone is not enough

This is not to say church discipline is not an appropriate response to those who disregard our constitutional standards. The Protestant Reformers believed discipline was one of the distinguishing marks of the church, and the instruction of the New Testament makes it clear the church can no longer be the church when anything and everything is permitted. “Some have rejected [faith and a good conscience] and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, who I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” (I Tim. 1:19-20) The Apostle Paul concludes his admonitions on discipline in the Corinthian church with the resounding “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (I Cor. 5:13) Our Lord brings to a close the process for discipline and restoration with, “If he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Mat. 18:17) Discipline is crucial and must be exercised if the church is to be authentic.

My concern, however, is that discipline in and of itself is insufficient to hold us together. By nature it is remedial, with the intention and hope of restoring the offender to fellowship. Discipline is for the disciple. It is intended for the apprentice of Jesus, to use Dallas Willard’s term, who has gone astray. But the church cannot hold together without a common set of values and cultural assumptions. It cannot survive in the current condition of cultural Christianity marked by nominalism.

Along with exercising discipline we need to make disciples of Jesus. Why is it some in the PC(USA) defiantly tear at the fabric of our faith? To answer that, we need also ask why we are unable to produce a serious, biblical, and integral program for disciple making. It’s because we have largely lacked a transforming experience of Christ in supportive, teaching congregations whereby we can grow up in Christ. We scarcely know what it is to commit to a costly regimen of faith formation. Just look at the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to see to what extent the first believers took seriously the demands of discipleship. The purity of a community refined by discipline and reflecting the power of God impressed outsiders and led some to faith. It pushed others away who did not wish to give up personal autonomy. All were impressed to count the cost of following.

The larger problem than discipline is we have the unconverted within our own membership, and we have untaught leadership. We have built a church culture where serious discipleship is seen as an option, as if there were such a thing as biblical Christianity without discipleship.

Many of our sisters and brothers are anxious that we pursue current processes of discipline in the courts of the church. It is right to pursue these cases to an appropriate conclusion. But, we cannot forever hold together a community that does not share core values and convictions. Our church culture will turn around when we recommit to making disciples who fully embrace the faith catholic, Reformed, and evangelical.

How do we recover a biblical vision for the church? Personally and corporately, we must begin with genuine repentance, with godly sorrow over the state of our church. We must call one another to genuine conversion, knowing that authentic faith begins in a vital commitment to Christ. We must take seriously the whole biblical witness: redemption and general revelation, following the way of Jesus as well as trusting in the Word and work of Jesus. We must engage with discernment the larger culture, with the goal of transforming it, and not capitulate to its values.

Further, we must enter an intentional program of discipleship, which apostolic Christianity came to know as the catechumenate, that includes inquiry into the faith, initiation into the faith, imitation of Christ, investment in ministry, intimacy with the Spirit in the life of prayer, and initiative in the mission of God.

Our denomination teeters on the edge of the abyss of individualism and subjectivism. We have been shaped more by a culture that is sick unto death than by the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Yet in the face of the threat we can discern hope. Moving out of nominal, cultural Christianity, we might once again experience the vigor of apostolic Christianity.

We must embrace discipleship as the preeminent calling within the PC(USA), for it is the disciple who worships, who receives the kingdom, who participates in the mission of God. Then we will experience the power, the faithfulness, the renewal God has in mind for his people, and we will be a clear expression of the wholeness of Christ Jesus.

Feeling the Heat

2009-04-22T15:22:00.000-07:00

I’m writing from a sweltering cabin in the California coastal redwoods of Santa Cruz, wilting in the unseasonable 102-degree heat. It’s the afternoon break from the teaching and seminars of the West Coast Presbyterian Pastors Conference, which has drawn people this year not only from California, Oregon, Washington, and the Far West, but also as distant as Kentucky, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and East Coast states. We have gathered to hear excellent biblical and pastoral instruction, to make connections, and to see what the Lord is doing in our denomination to establish his kingdom. Our evening speaker is Dr. Stanley Ott, an effective and faithful advocate for Christian formation who reminds us of the vision and passion needed to sustain pastoral leadership over the long haul. In the mornings we’re addressed by Dr. Mark Labberton, who is concluding his ministry as senior pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, California to take the Lloyd Ogilvie Chair of Preaching at Fuller Theological Seminary. Labberton is expounding on the theme of the kingdom of God in the Gospel of Matthew, a subject close to my heart. It fills me with gratitude to be able to benefit from the wisdom of such leaders.

One lesson this conference reinforces for me is the importance of community. For the past 35 years, evangelical Presbyterian (USA) pastors have met eight days after Easter to support one another and to provide resources and connections for ministry. What holds the group together—some 200 individuals this year—is a commitment to renewal in our denomination as we serve, witness, and support one another in fellowship. I’ve been coming here almost 20 years, and I know that in good times and bad, we will find strength and a fresh encounter with God.

Another lesson I’m learning is the importance of following God’s unique call on us as a congregation. There are pastors from very large, corporate-size churches such as First Pres. Berkeley, First Pres. Bellevue, Bel Air Pres. in Los Angeles, and First Pres. Colorado Springs. Most churches aren’t of that scale, but have anywhere from 100 to 300 in attendance. I talked with a couple pastors last night who lead churches of about 25 persons. For each of us, our calling is to serve the Lord in our own context. It is in our own particular setting we must learn to be missional, that is, to embody the kingdom and to witness to Jesus Christ without compromise in a changing world. The church in America is moving into a new time of testing, but it will be a time to see the Lord work in powerful new ways, and to participate in that work ourselves. With prayer and by God’s grace, the fruit of our labor will last longer than the ancient redwoods themselves.

New Life Through Jesus, the Lamb of God

2009-04-11T17:06:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow we come to the high point of the Christian year, the celebration of the Lord’s resurrection from the dead. The English word “Easter” comes from an ancient name for the spring equinox, but in French, the word for Easter is “Pâques.” That word comes from the Hebrew name for the Passover, Pesach, from which we get the adjective “paschal.” That makes sense, because Jesus taught that his death and resurrection fulfill the Jewish Passover, represented for us in the Lord’s Supper.

The gospels tell us that Jesus gathered his followers to share a Passover meal together before his arrest and crucifixion. John’s Gospel explains that Jesus was killed at the very time of the slaughter of the Passover lambs, which is his way of making the theological point that Jesus is “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world” (John 1:29). Every time we gather at the Lord’s Table, we remember the historical event of the cross and of Easter, and that’s reason for joy.

I love Easter because it shows us so powerfully that God brings life out of death. Sometimes in our lives we can feel that “Nothing good could come out of this!” It's at just such times when God can bring in fresh beginnings and new life. Look at all the times in the Bible when he gives a miracle child to a barren woman, or when he saves his weak and helpless people from an overwhelming enemy. The greatest enemy is death itself, and God has triumphed over it once for all. What could be a greater sign of his goodness, power, and love than the empty tomb of Easter morning? At this Easter time, let’s ask God to roll back the stone of our lives to let his sunshine in.

Battered but Standing Still

2009-04-03T16:52:00.000-07:00

Pastor and commentator Michael Spencer has written recently on his blog and elsewhere about what he sees as the “coming evangelical collapse” http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/the-original-coming-evangelical-collapse-posts.

Spencer’s blog styles itself as “dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness.” The term evangelical has been used more broadly than to mean the American religious subculture Spencer describes. It is also a general synonym for Protestant, and in the most generic sense describes that which relates to the Gospel, or euangelion in Greek. In that sense, all the regenerate might be called evangelicals. In any case, we might also apply the terms post-Christian, post-Constantinian, and postmodern to this bewildering age in which the church must find its way.

Spencer has a variegated background, shaped by many currents in the evangelical, Wesleyan, and Reformed Christian streams. His vision of institutional religious conservatism is bleak. It’s provocative for him to say it’s “collapsing,” but I think he's right that the evangelical movement as we've known it is morphing. That doesn't mean that the Christian faith is dying, of course, nor Christian orthodoxy, nor even, necessarily, our historic denominations. But unquestionably, they're changing to face a radically different world than the one we were born into. I think Spencer is right to suggest that evangelicalism as a specifically American, middle-class, politically conservative movement will be greatly diminished. And the congregations who do not come to terms with this sea change and who do not learn to become truly missional in our new context will undoubtedly die.

The general cultural change within evangelicalism strikes me as both good and bad—bad in that many Christian communities are losing the ability to think biblically and to engage creatively yet critically with culture (many older, loyal members of the denominations have never really been converted, and many younger Christians have never been discipled--see the theological immaturity of so many emergent believers); good in that our conservative movement has sometimes too closely identified itself with consumerism and militarism, mirroring liberal Christianity's acquiescence to a worldly agenda on abortion and sexuality. I'm not sure that Catholics and Orthodox churches will benefit from the shrinking of cultural Christianity, however, as Spencer suggests in an article in the Christian Science Monitor from March 10. He presents no evidence to justify that theory, and last month Bishop Richard Lennon of the Diocese of Cleveland announced the closure of 29 parishes and the merging of 41 others, a total loss of 52 parishes planned for June 2010, as CNN reports. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/03/25/cleveland.catholic.parish.closures/index.html, accessed April 4, 2009) The article cites a report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life that “Catholicism in America has lost more affiliated members than any other faith tradition.” Spencer notes that Protestants are converting to Catholicism; the inverse is certainly true as well.

I appreciate it that Spencer doesn't claim infallibility, saying he is no prophet, and also that he's hopeful over God's faithfulness and ability to free us from idolatry in this time of change. He reminds us of the words of one commentator that "Christianity loves a crumbling empire." We may sometimes suffer confusion, uncertainty and grief as old forms we've grown to love fall by the wayside. Nonetheless, it's an opportunity for a renewal of the ministry in new gospel forms less compromised by secular values.

Holy Places, or a Holy People?

2009-03-23T09:41:00.000-07:00

How Did Reformed Christians Understand the Holy?

In seeking to understand Reformed sense of sacred space, it is instructive to consider how a Reformer such as Pierre Viret employs forms of the word “holy.” Viret was a Swiss reformer, theologian, and pastor of the church in Lausanne who also preached extensively in France. He was, along with Calvin, Theodore Beza, and William Farel, one of the most important reformers of his generation. Further, he was the only native Swiss of this company, born near Lausanne in the city of French-speaking city of Orbe. In his Instruction Chrétienne En La Doctrine De La Loi Et De L'Evangile (1564), a word count reveals he used the masculine or feminine form of the word “holy” (saint and sainte) a total of 2311 times, and variant spellings of the words another 34 times (Viret, My examination of the catechism section (the Brief Sommaire de la Doctrine Chrétienne, Fait en Forme de dialogue et de Catechism, de la Principlale Cause et Fin de la Creation de l’Homme), used for the development of a distinctively Reformed doctrine of human nature, reveals that Viret consistently uses the term holy or divine as an adjective, and almost never as a noun. The most common referents are Saint Esprit, “Holy Spirit” (24 times), saintes écritures, “scripture” (22 times), and the sainte bible another time; sainte volonté, [God’s] “holy will” (14 times), and saint sacrament, “holy sacrament” (13 times). Less common uses of the term refer to the Apostle Paul (7 times), the Evangelists Matthew and Luke (2 times each), the communion table (6 times), Hannah the mother of Samuel, the ministry of the gospel, the Christian life, the mouth of God, the doctrine of the Church, the company of Jesus, and God’s garde et protection (1 time each.) The company of saints or the individual believer as saint are referred to 9 times, and the church another 4.

This suggests that Viret understood holiness in relation to the person of God as he is apprehended through his Spirit and Word. The Lord’s Supper is holy because it is sanctified by the Word of God. In similar fashion, the human ministry of the gospel is also holy insofar as it is the proclamation of the good news of the kingdom and the covenant of grace. The community of saints, the church, is holy because it is redeemed by Christ’s blood and sanctified by the Word. Notable is the absence of any attribute of holiness to objects of the cultic apparatus of Catholicism: not furniture or relics or places of worship or pilgrimage. The Reformed tradition emphasizes a people made holy by God’s grace, not a hallowed place made holy by his presence.

Thinking About Seminary: Some Tips for Presbyterians

2009-03-10T11:44:00.000-07:00

"The place God calls you to is the place where your deep gladness and the world's deep hunger meet."
— Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking

Exploring God’s call to service is important for all followers of Jesus Christ. For those considering full time or ordained ministry, evaluating options for theological education is a crucial component of that exploration. Whether one anticipates a life of service as pastor, educator, chaplain, or Christian therapist, the process of preparation will include seminary (or, in some cases, a divinity school or Bible college). A seminary education certainly doesn’t guarantee one will be faithful and competent as a leader in Christ’s church, but immaturity and lack of spiritual and intellectual discipline don’t help either. The kingdom of God is worth our very best effort and investment, and the preparation of leaders for the work of the kingdom is of top priority.

Support:

In order to hear God’s voice, we do well to seek support and accountability from others who understand the particular issues in moving toward seminary. While the process of considering God’s call might include stress over finances and social disruption, self doubt, and personal stretching beyond the familiar and comfortable, it can also be an exciting time of new discoveries, joy, fulfillment, and a sense of abandon in following God’s leading. An ongoing small group for prayer, support, and sharing ideas can bring encouragement and help us make progress toward the goal. In Jesus’ own ministry, he modeled the importance of that mutuality with the disciples, whom he sent out two-by-two for service (see Luke 2:1).

Where do you want to end up?

Where you go to seminary depends on what your goals are. Are you preparing for ordination in the PC(USA)? If so, you need to go to an ATS-accredited school, and your choice needs to be acceptable to your sponsoring or home presbytery. In times past, presbyteries were often opposed to students going to non-Presbyterian seminaries; these days, they are more open, but it is still important to make your decision in consultation with your presbytery’s Committee on Preparation for Ministry (CPM). In addition, for ordination as a pastor you need the Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degree. While not all ministry positions require that degree, your earning potential is tied in part to your education, and the M.Div. is the foundational professional degree for the pastorate.

If you intend to pursue a further academic degree, it might be important to choose a masters-level program designed to lead to higher degree programs, like a Master of Arts or a Master of Theology rather than a generalist or professional degree.

Are you seeking a specialized calling, such as youth worker or chaplain? If so, different educational requirements will apply. Or, are you simply interested in personal enrichment in your walk with Christ? If so, you’re free to pursue a wide variety of learning options, from independent, non-Presbyterian, continuing education, or non-accredited learning modes.

The key questions:

Among the many possible questions, the following seem to me to be the most pertinent over the long run in determining where you go to seminary. These would apply to the church tradition you commit to as well as where you go to be prepared for ministry:

1. Where is the place of your spiritual birth?
2. Where can you affirm with integrity the confessional standards? Consider the creeds and faith traditions of a particular seminary’s denominational tradition, if it has one, and the statement of faith of the seminary itself.
3. Where are there people who can be your mentors, challenging you academically and spiritually?

Recommended seminaries:

The following accredited graduate theological institutions are starting points for evangelical Presbyterians in NE Ohio/ Midwest/ East Coast who are exploring educational options in preparation for ministry. Your choice will likely be affected by the practical realities of home, family, and job, as well as desired future calling.

(commuting distance from Northeast Ohio):

1. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: http://www.pts.edu/ The oldest Presbyterian seminary, and one of the oldest seminaries in North America, PTS was founded in 1794. It offers a conservative reputation, a stately urban campus, outstanding faculty resources, and support available for Presbyterian students. (See Walther, James Arthur. Ever a Frontier: The Bicentennial History of the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishing Company, 1995)

2. Ashland Theological Seminary: http://seminary.ashland.edu/ This is an evangelical seminary, though in the Brethren, not Reformed tradition. Given its theological orientation, it can provide good ministerial resources, but will not be a natural choice for understanding our tradition or for preparing for ordination in the PC(USA). Located 60 miles south of Cleveland, this institution has an extension campus in Warrensville with limited curriculum options.

(distant):

1. Fuller Theological Seminary: http://www.fuller.edu/ At 4500 students, FTS is one of the largest seminaries in the world. (Full disclosure: I hold two degrees from this seminary and am currently enrolled in a third degree program.) Fuller enjoys a world-class faculty of scholars (the largest number of whom are PC(USA), an international student body from over 100 denominations in 60 countries, and strong support for PC(USA) as well as other mainline students. Located in Pasadena, California, Fuller is comprised of three schools (Theology, Psychology, and Intercultural Studies) and six extension campuses, hosts institutes that include worship and the arts, youth ministry, African American studies, and Pentecostalism, and offers a wide range of degrees from the Master of Divinity to the Doctor of Philosophy. Started as a reforming movement within American fundamentalism, the seminary was founded in the post-WWII years by radio evangelist Charles E. Fuller and supported by evangelical stalwarts such as Harold Ockenga and Billy Graham. One problem, given its inter-denominational identity, is its higher cost than PC(USA) seminaries. (See Marsden, George. Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company., 1995.)

2. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary: http://www.gcts.edu/ With 2000 students in four locations, GCTS is a large, independent, evangelical, non-denominational seminary in the Boston metro area. The school has been considered mainstream evangelical, and has often had large numbers of PC(USA) students.

3. Princeton Theological Seminary: http://www.ptsem.edu/ The flagship seminary of the American Presbyterian tradition is now independent from, but cooperates with, Princeton University. With over 50 faculty and 700 students, the seminary encompasses a wide array of theological positions, from liberal/progressive to evangelical.

4. Regent College: http://www.regent-college.edu/ Founded as a college for evangelical lay theological education, Regent cultivated an identity as the “un-seminary.” Today its outstanding faculty include J. I. Packer, Gordon Fee, and Eugene Peterson (emeriti); John Stackhouse, and Darryl Johnson. The campus is located adjacent to the University of British Columbia in beautiful Vancouver, two hours’ drive north of Seattle.

(online):

1. University of Dubuque Theological Seminary: http://udts.dbq.edu/ This PC(USA) institution was founded to educate German Reformed settlers on the American plains. It has traditionally focused on pastoral preparation.

Web Sites:

http://seminarysurvivalguide.com/

http://www.goingtoseminary.com/

PC(USA) Preparation for Ministry Handbook (PDF file): http://www.pcusa.org/prep4min/

PC(USA) grants: http://www.pcusa.org/financialaid/programs/grants.htm

Books:

Cooper, Derek. So You're Thinking about Going to Seminary: An Insider's Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008
Noll, Mark. The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishing Company, 1995.

Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical & Global Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002

Contending for the Faith

2009-03-03T09:57:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary California, wrote on his blog (http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/ March 3, 2009):

We should also ask those who are upset with the state of the Presbyterian mainline (the PC(USA)) why are you still there? Do you realize that there is a struggling, fledgling Reformed and Presbyterian sideline who could use your energy and commitment to orthodoxy. There are presbyteries and classes where you can be Reformed without being ashamed. We have our issues, but you won’t have to pretend to be what you aren’t. You can come out of the closet, as it were, as the Calvin-loving Presbyterian you are.
--R. Scott Clark

That stirred me to respond, provoking the following exchange:

Why we’re still a part of the PC(USA)? Because this is our home, it’s where Christ has put us, and we find it unthinkable to turn over the resources of our great tradition to the liberal/progressives. There’s still much faithfulness in our denomination, and many evangelicals have concluded God wants us to work for reform here.

Orthodox believers I know within the PC(USA) are open to working with those you mention, as well as Christians of other traditions, “who could use [our] energy and commitment to orthodoxy.” I am certainly not ashamed to show my true colors, not even in a very liberal setting like the Presbytery of the Western Reserve in the Cleveland metro area. Furthermore, we have countless vibrant, faithful churches, and entire presbyteries that are fighting for the conservative cause: surely you’re aware, for example, of the Essential Tenets of San Diego and Santa Barbara Presbyteries, which provide a basis for refusing the credentials of pastors who fail to adhere to biblical and confessional standards.
--Randy Working

Hi Randal,
I appreciate this post. For a bit of background, I investigated entering a Chicago Presbytery (PC(USA)) when I was at Wheaton. I was told by a colleague, a member of the Presbytery, that unless I could affirm the Confession of ‘67 (and a Barthian view of Scripture) and the ordination of females that I was not eligible for ministry in the PC(USA). I’ve been told by PC(USA) ministers that even the most conservative presbyteries (e.g. San Diego) would not receive our graduates because they hold the Westminster Confession.

As a historian I look at what has taken place since 1929 and the pledge of conservatives to “stay and fight” over all that time. I know there have been memorials and protests but is it really possible to “fight” for real, unadulterated, historic, (Westminster Standards) confessional Reformed Christianity in the PC(USA) or just conservative versions of the dominant views in the PC(USA)?

Are the “Essential Tenets” really a good standard for what counts as “Reformed”? Why those and not the Westminster Standards?
--R. Scott Clark

Hi Scott,
The faith of American Presbyterians was defined by the Westminster Standards from the first presbytery in Philadelphia in 1706 to the formulation of the Book of Confessions in 1967. I know some would say that introducing 11 separate statements of faith and ecumenical creeds opened the door to confusion and compromise. Many legitimately Reformed groups would look to other standards than the Westminster, however, from the Canons of Dort to the Heidelberg Catechism. Doesn’t that make sense given the international character of the Reformed movement?
I suppose the broader the collection of material, the greater the likelihood of granting some freedom of conscience in regard to it. I wonder whether that would be permissible or inevitable in your mind. For instance, say someone objected to the Westminster’s understanding, following 1 Corinthians 14:14, that prayer in worship, “if vocal, [must be] in a known tongue.” (WCF XXI.3) Is that particular point essential, in your view, for ordination as a minister of Word and Sacrament or for admission into church membership? Unless you hold to the plenary and verbal inspiration of the historic confessions of the church, it seems to me reasonable to develop some form of essential tenets.

As for presbyteries not receiving your graduates because they hold to the Westminster Confession, that would be outlandish, especially for a conservative presbytery. I won’t claim outlandish things aren’t done in any of the Christian churches, but even if a liberal presbytery tried it, they could only do it by subterfuge: for instance, they would not likely deny outright a point of doctrine like the substitutionary atonement, but rather by call an examinee “uncompassionate” or “judgmental” or “exclusive.” They couldn’t simply bar a candidate from membership by pointing to his or her loyalty to our historic standards. I think you could find minister colleagues who would tell you nearly anything, but what’s pertinent is what the Committee on Ministry affirms in explicit written policy.
Blessings,
Randy

Rev Working,
1. I don’t have a problem with the large B of C but I do have major problems with the Conf of ‘67 which is Barthian. See Recovering the Reformed Confession on this. See also Skilton, ed. Scripture and Confession, a resp. to the Conf of ‘67.
2. Of course few Presbyteries are likely to say in public (though they might), “Look here, we just don’t believe the WCF any more — although the preface to the Conf of ‘67 makes that pretty clear. Again, see RRC on this.
3. The PC(USA) hasn’t been recognizably confessional for a very long time. The horse is out of the barn and has been since ‘29. I’m puzzled by the implicit claim in your post that I’m being too hard on the PC(USA). Must I detail the many blatant ways in which the PC(USA) has rejected just about every vestige of historic Reformed Christianity?
--R. Scott Clark

Hmm, that struck me as provocative! I responded,

Scott,
I don’t find C-67 to be our strongest confession, but my reason for that isn’t because it’s Barthian. For me this is the subject of another discussion, however.
“Must I detail the many blatant ways in which the PC(USA) has rejected just about every vestige of Reformed Christianity?” Well! Obviously, I don’t believe we’ve yet arrived at quite that degree of apostasy; I merely wanted to question your call for me and my like-minded colleagues to desert the church that formed us in the Reformed and evangelical faith. I don’t call for you to leave your church. Rather, I pray you can be faithful to your calling to speak the truth—in love–where God has placed you.
Randy

Rev Working,
You seem to assume that you can pick and choose among the confessions. The Book of Cs makes it pretty clear that the Conf of ‘67 is binding and superior to all others. How does that work? If the B of Cs is clear about the order of the confessions and if the WCF is really a museum piece (and perhaps the C of ‘67 is now a museum piece too?) then can one really pick and choose?

I understand that there’s been an influx of “evangelicals” into the mainline and, were it the case that people were teaching the theology, piety, and practice of the Westminster Standards without equivocation and were it the case that Machen lived, as it were, in the PC(USA) and that congregations were filing charges against sem profs and the like, and facing the ecclesiastical consequences, that would be one thing. That isn’t really happening is it?
Does the PC(USA) have the marks of a true church? If not, then it’s a mission field.
Do any of those ostensible confessionalists who remain in the PC(USA) really treat it as a mission field?
Do the evangelicals and confessionalists who remain in the PC(USA) know the history of the Machen case?

Before I responded to Scott, another person added:

Dr. Working,
Your scenario of ousting orthodox, congregationally approved and presbytery-affirmed candidates by calling them “unloving” or whatever is PRECISELY the case for me. And this was in a “conservative” presbytery.

My unloving act was to publicly point to their reception and installation of a minister who scorned (not simply denied) the physical resurrection, the inspiration (no specific plenary, verbal, etc) of scripture, and the personality of the Triune Godhead. (Well…that and to say that some notorious and scandalous cases of adultery by ordained clergymen be at least given a look.)

There is little room for Gospel-driven love in the PC(USA). That’s why it takes over 10,000 PC(USA) members to support a single missionary. (The same number of members in the PCA sponsors 18 full-time foreign missionaries, while in the EPC it sponsors 10.)

In answer to both, I said:

Scott,
Keeping property isn’t an appropriate reason, in itself, to stay in the denomination, but neither would it be faithful to walk away with no consideration at all for property. Now, can you show exactly how I assume one can pick and choose among the confessions? And the PC(USA) has not determined that the latest confession trumps all earlier ones. “Museum piece” is your term, not mine. Incidentally, Westminster Seminary also has a kind of summary of confessions that begins to look rather like a list of essential tenets.

I’m not sure I follow your syntax with the sentence about “an influx of ‘evangelicals’,” but filing charges against seminary professors and non-compliant churches is precisely what some of us are doing. I agree that that’s necessary when professors, transferring ministers, and candidates cannot affirm classical Reformed doctrine.

Calvin’s notion of the visible and invisible church means that PC(USA) as well as NAPARC churches are mission fields, of course. I remind you that even the church in first-century Corinth, for all its problems in doctrine and ethics, was nonetheless the church of Christ.

Chris, I’m sorry for your experience in the PC(USA). It sounds painful, and I can imagine how it would cause you to think there’s little room for “Gospel-driven love” in our house.
Randy

Randall [sic],
The faculty at WSC subscribe “ex animo” the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. We’ve published two testimonies to highlight certain issues of concern to our constituency but we’re bound by the Scriptures as confessed by the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.

In the background of my comments is the doctrine of Belgic Confession Art 29 where it distinguishes between true and false churches. There are three marks of a true church, the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and the administration of discipline.

The most obvious place where the PC(USA) falls is at the last mark, When was the last time a PC(USA) minister was disciplined for contradicting any of the confessions contained in the Book of Confessions?

If I understand your claim re the Book of Confessions and the superiority of the Confession of ‘67 I would encourage you to re-read the preface to the B of C.
I quote: “Therefore when there are differences between the confessions,
initial priority should be given to contemporary confessions. This is only initial
preference because further reflection may reveal that at some points the church in earlier times was more able and willing to be guided by the Spirit than the contemporary church.”
As I wrote in RRC, “It would be good to know whether, since 1967, and in what particulars, the mainline Presbyterians have decided that the Westminster Assembly was correct and modern theology is wrong….According to the mainline Presbyterians, in principle, therefore, there can be no fixed definition of what is to be Reformed, but only a temporarily fixed address locating what most mainliners think the Spirit is saying at a given point.” See RRC for more.

At this point, losing steam for a circular conversation, not seeing responses to some of my questions, and desiring to not be defensive, I responded simply,

Thanks.

A Rapidly-Changing World—What Does It Mean for the Churches?

2009-03-01T10:53:00.000-08:00

The Missional Church Network included on its web site (http://missionalchurchnetwork.com/, February 10, 2009) a cogent description of our contemporary spiritual climate. It is taken from the February 2004 Anabaptist Network Newsletter published in London, UK. It considers, in particular, the situation of British Christianity in these days where the church no longer enjoys privileged status in society, but much of it applies as well to our situation in North America. We might expect Anabaptist Christians (which include such groups as the Mennonites, Amish, Church of the Brethren, and Hutterites) to hold some important insights about discipleship in an indifferent or even hostile broader culture, since Anabaptists from their sixteenth-century origins lived under opposition, isolation, and persecution. In that context, they consistently voiced a critique of the mainstream church’s compromise with political power, and modeled an alternative Christian lifestyle.

The Anabaptist Newsletter suggests the following elements of the postmodern shift from Christendom to post-Christendom:

From the centre to margins: in Christendom the Christian story and the churches were central, but in post-Christendom these are marginal.

From majority to minority: in Christendom Christians comprised the (often overwhelming) majority, but in post-Christendom we are a minority.

From settlers to sojourners: in Christendom Christians felt at home in a culture shaped by their story, but in post-Christendom we are aliens, exiles and pilgrims in a culture where we no longer
feel at home.

From privilege to plurality: in Christendom Christians enjoyed many privileges, but in post-Christendom we are one community among many in a plural society.

From control to witness: in Christendom churches could exert control over society, but in post-Christendom we exercise influence only through witnessing to our story and its implications.

From maintenance to mission: in Christendom the emphasis was on maintaining a supposedly Christian status quo, but in post-Christendom it is on mission within a contested environment.

From institution to movement: in Christendom churches operated mainly in institutional mode, but in post-Christendom we must become again a Christian movement.

As Christendom unravels and post-Christendom becomes a reality, many Christians are searching for fresh ways of thinking about discipleship, church and mission. And the Anabaptist tradition– which for nearly 500 years has been critical of the Christendom mindset and offering alternative perspectives – is proving a valuable resource.

The reader may notice that the preceding seven characteristics describe the church of the Book of Acts more than the mainline denomination of the mid-twentieth century. The shift from a position of status is an uncomfortable one for us, but it provides great spiritual and missional opportunities as we return to a New Testament dynamic. Of course, the Anabaptist tradition has not engaged with mainstream culture as much as retreated from it, and therefore has not often been known for its vital mission to that culture. But genuine transformation of culture surely begins with an awareness of the distinctiveness of the Christian message and lifestyle.

The Brick Testament

2009-02-19T21:13:00.000-08:00

Scripture illustrated with photographs of dioramas constructed of Lego bricks, peopled with Lego figures—sounds like a fresh take on children’s Bibles, harmless enough, does it not? With this one, well, you better take a closer look.

The scale of the project alone is impressive. The author, named as “The Rev. Brendon Powell Smith,” claims “the Brick Testament is the largest, most comprehensive illustrated Bible in the world with over 3,600 illustrations that retell more than 300 stories from The Bible” (from the web site http://www.thebricktestament.com/faq/index.html. In addition, Smith shows remarkable ingenuity in his creations. They are typically well composed and often humorous. The text is usually taken from The New Jerusalem Bible.

But all is not as it seems. The entire project makes a mockery of the message and spiritual purpose of scripture. When it serves the author’s purpose, Smith eschews the Bible text and inserts his own imaginative dialogue or narration, words that often ring with sarcasm or point out what he sees as contradictions in the Bible accounts. Many scenes are included that are not intended for young children. In others, Smith apparently misses the point altogether, and includes the story for shock value, as if to say, “How outlandish what the Judeo-Christian tradition endorses.” Periodic brief commentary below the photos undermines or ridicules the plain meaning of the Bible passage. In the scene describing the background to the great flood, we read:

"Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. 12 God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways.” (Genesis 6:11)

That’s from the Bible, but the Lego illustration depicts a scene of debauchery that includes gambling, fighting, an apparently inebriated man lying among empty bottles, and a naked man (in the yellow that is Lego flesh) fornicating with a sheep. This in a Bible for our youngest members!

Throughout the story of Noah in Genesis 6 to 9, God is depicted as an aging patriarch standing before Noah. Noah, naked, is shown lying in a drunken stupor. Many stories are included that have no business being tossed cynically to little ones without any help or interpretation. There are many examples, including:

Shechem rapes Dinah (Genesis 34:2); later, he is shown circumcising himself, as are all the male citizens of his city. Jacob’s treacherous sons run through Hamor, the city’s king, with a sword. They decapitate his son Shechem, and slaughter all the people of the city.

Reuben sleeping with his father’s concubine (Genesis 35:22).

Onan spilling his semen on the ground rather than fulfill his familial duty (Genesis 38:9). The story concludes with verse 10, “What he did offended Yahweh, and Yahweh killed him too.” The illustration shows Onan, cut in two, lying in a pool of blood, with God striding away with axe in hand.

Birds pick at the body of the Pharaoh’s baker, who is hung (Genesis 40:22).

The Israelites massacre the Amorites (Deuteronomy 2), Bashanites ( Numbers 21), and the Midianites (Numbers 31).

Titles of other stories include “Instructions for Genocide,” “God Dooms His People,” “A Plague on the Sympathizers,” and “Sabbath-Breaker Stoned.” Under the Law, there’s “When to Stone Your Children,” “Bestiality,” “Homosexuality,” “Incest,” “The Occult,” and “How Long to Hang Somebody.” From Judges, there’s “Gang Rape and Dismemberment” (Judges 19). And from 1 Samuel, “God Tortures the Philistines” (1 Samuel 5). 2 Samuel 2 brings us “God Kills a Baby.”

Then, about the life of Jesus, Smith offers “Jesus Has a Temple Tantrum” (John 2:15), a novel interpretation of the temple cleansing. On Acts 9:22 (Saul baffled the Jews living in Damascus by demonstrating that Jesus is the messiah”), Smith put these ridiculous words into the Apostle Paul’s mouth:

“Jesus blinded me and then one of his followers unblended me, therefore Jesus is the messiah.”

All the above scenes are not merely described, which would be questionable enough in a children’s Bible, but are depicted with Lego mis-en-scenes, cartoon-like but clear. What can possibly be Smith’s object, but to destroy the faith of children? His project shows real creativity, to say nothing of stamina, put to sinister purposes. Worse, he does it by subterfuge. His web site presents the project overall as a help to churches, and published in seven languages, “a labor of love.” Love! How ironic that Smith seems to see no irony in using the term. Indeed, his true purpose comes out further through his web site, http://www.thereverend.com/. He is profane, sometimes sloppy (he refers to his visit to “Bonn, Switzerland.” One presumes he means either Bonn, Germany, or Bern, Switzerland); sometimes clever, always irreverent, always callous.

It wasn’t so long ago that atheists simply wanted the freedom to believe or not believe as they wished. But now we’ve grown accustomed to Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others, feverish with the desire to eliminate faith, who itch for a fight. Or at least for a target at which to hurl scorn. Because scorn for the Christian faith and for its children taints Smith’s work. But in his obsession with repudiating what is only a caricature of the Living God, the gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. Lastly, our Lord’s warning comes to mind: And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin [stumble, lose his or her faith], it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.” (Mark 9:42). The consequences of spiritual duplicity can be calamitous.

Questions from a Skeptic

2009-02-14T14:49:00.000-08:00

This past week, I received the following questions from a person wrestling with the truth claims of the faith. Of course, one can find far more comprehensive replies than these on the internet; my answers are an unorganized attempt not to overwhelm, but to identify assumptions behind the questions and point to some possible lines of resolution.

If there's only one god, why are there so many different religions with people worshiping different gods?

In postmodern thinking, there is no such thing as ultimate truth, because truth is relative. But the Judeo-Christian tradition holds that there is such a thing as ultimate truth because there is one God who created all reality, and that the other gods are illusory. If the Christian faith is wrong, it must be shown to be wrong through logic. But the fact that many others claim alternate views of ultimate reality proves nothing. There are many theories on economics, for example, and this does nothing to prove whether communism or capitalism is correct on what builds economic success.

That many religions exist only proves that God has made us with free will. Since there is only one God, the Creator of the universe in all its order, intricacy, and beauty, humans are accountable to recognize and worship him. In a moral sense, the plurality of religions demonstrates both human spiritual longing and ignorance.

I respect all religions.

What does that mean? That all are true? Even if one teaches that there is one God, and another that insists there are many gods, or perhaps no gods? When religions are mutually exclusive or contradictory, they cannot all be true at the same time. If by respect you mean all religions reflect something true about the human condition, few would disagree with that. But do you respect the Muslim idea of Jihad, or that non-Muslims are of lesser value than Muslims? When one examines the truth claims of various religions, it is untenable to suggest they are all the same or equally valid ways to salvation. Christianity makes exclusive claims; Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through me.” (John 14:6) That claim can only be right or wrong, and there is no middle ground.

There are many different religions but people, whether Christian or not, have the same faults.

Christianity holds that all people share the same intrinsic value (see Psalm 8) as created in the image of God (see Genesis 1:26-27). They also are equally tainted by sin. (Romans 3:23) We don’t claim to be better than others. We simply strive to share the good news of a gracious Savior for all people.

I'm basically a good person...I don't steal, murder.

The Christian faith holds that our standards of goodness do not measure up to God’s standards. Indeed, if God is truly God, that is, transcendent and sovereign, he, not we, determines what is good, true, and beautiful. He decides how imperfect human beings may be reconciled to him.

Why does God have to be a man; why not a woman?

God the Father is not a man but a spirit. In Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, God assumed human nature and flesh, and in so doing took humanity into the godhead. God could have equally made himself a woman in the incarnation, but he could not have been a neutral, sexless being, and still be fully human. Perhaps he became a male human being for cultural reasons (the priests of Israel were all male), wherein his representative status as mediator between God and humanity could be made more clear.

I just can't convince myself there's one god and not many or not any, or that there is a heaven and hell.

Christians believe that ultimately, it is the Spirit’s role to convince us of the reality of God and the trustworthiness of Jesus. C. S. Lewis argued that Jesus only left us the option of seeing him as a lunatic, an evil being, or indeed who he claimed to be, that is, Lord. If he was God, then he knew what he was talking about when he affirmed heaven, hell, and a spiritual reality beyond what we can see.

Are we spirit when we die? Why not when I die that's it—nothing?

The Bible teaches that the spirit is created, but immortal. When we die, our bodies are corrupted, but our spirits go to be in God’s presence. When Jesus returns in judgment to claim his people, close history, and renew the world, then the bodies of the dead will rise and be rejoined with their spirits.

What do you mean "doing things for God’s glory"—praying?

It means doing whatever is good, because this is God’s will. It shows his purpose in the world, and gives him credit rather than take it for ourselves.

I'm an agnostic, always have been. I have no way of knowing. I'm a thinker.

I commend you for thinking; God wants that from us, and that’s why he gave us minds. The truly open mind is open to reality beyond what we can empirically measure with our limited means and senses. Therefore it is not surprising that some of the best minds of history have embraced as credible the message of the Bible.

Revival and the Reformed Tradition

2009-02-05T08:26:00.000-08:00

What do Presbyterians Belief about the Holy Spirit?

A friend wrote today asking about the Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship (TACF). I don't know much about that movement, but early in its history it was associated with the Vineyard church. A statement of faith attributed to the TACF I saw on the internet (not on the TACF site) is orthodox and mainstream; it doesn't even speak of a second blessing or insist, for example, that all Christians speak in tongues. There's nothing I saw in a brief look on their web site that's a cause for concern. I'm not aware, though, of what's actually going on there these days. In historic revivals, like the First Great Awakening in the American colonial period, there seems to be fringe behaviors that need to be reined in. But those shouldn't discredit the mainstream, positive, healthy aspects of the greater renewal movement. So for example if there's barking and roaring, yes, that's weird; it strikes me as a violation of Paul’s admonition that all things must be done “decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40), with attention being given not to ourselves but to Christ. But maybe barking and roaring are aberrations, and not representative of the larger movement. That should be tested by its conformity to Scripture and to the quality of its love.

The work of the Spirit is understood as threefold in the Reformed tradition: witnessing to Christ, inspiring and illuminating the Word, and sanctifying the believer. The purpose of that threefold work of the Spirit is to bind us to Christ and to put God's grace in the elect to full effect, empowering them to grow in faith and holiness. Calvin did not extensively deal with the gifts of the Spirit (as in 1 Corinthians 12:4-6) as also manifesting grace among the elect.

I think the Pentecostal and charismatic churches have discovered a dimension of the faith and experience of the Holy Spirit that has sometimes been overlooked in the mainstream Reformed and evangelical tradition. Of course, the basis for the exercise of the gifts is the fruit of the Spirit Paul talks about in Galatians 5:22. We teach about the fruit and power of the Spirit and the variety of his gifts, but sometimes have arbitrarily limited God's sovereign expression of them. I think the public emphases of many churches in our Reformed tradition are first service and secondarily teaching. It's good that there's room for revival, and may the Spirit be pleased to bring it.

What's a Pastor to Do?

2009-01-31T11:32:00.000-08:00

The role of pastor is one of the most complex, creative, and risky callings conceivable. Building up the church, recognizing what the Holy Spirit is doing and aligning oneself with it for the sake of the kingdom, requires many things. To become a fruitful, spiritually reproducing, missional church depends on a number of factors, not the least of which is the decision of God to prosper it. But the leadership role is indispensable. There is plenty a pastor-leader can to do quench the Spirit. One of the dangers is that the pastor will succumb to a maintenance model, which assures eventual atrophy. Certainly a congregation seldom rises above the level of its leader's vision. And if the church's leadership concerns itself with meeting the needs of those on the inside to the detriment of those not yet in, it will fail in its mandate of going "into all the world," making disciples, and teaching all that Jesus commands us.

I've already shared a blog posting from Tod Bolsinger, pastor of San Clemente Presbyterian Church in Orange County, California. I think his reflection on the pastoral role is worth considering. Here are his thoughts from his column of Friday, January 30, considering the book The Starfish and the Spider. http://bolsinger.blogs.com/

Starfish and the Spider #11: Chaplain? CEO? Or Something else? Hybrid-Starfish Leadership

For many years, the ideal of a pastoral leader was a “Chaplain”. A pastoral care-giver, who prayed, taught the scriptures and administered rites of passages. Churches built sanctuaries and chapels in the middle of town. In a Christendom world where the purpose of the church was to be “religious service providers”, being a chaplain was an important and necessary role.
As culture began to change, the church took on the role of meeting the felt needs of people who had left behind or looked beyond the church and faith. The church became “life services providers” offering healthy recreational opportunities for kids, marriage enrichment classes, groups for support and social needs. Downtown churches sold their chapels and sanctuaries, moved to the suburbs and built “campuses” with gymnasiums and coffee shops and bookstores. This rich amalgam of services needed leaders who were not only preachers and pastors, but administrators and fundraisers. The Chaplain gave way to the CEO.

But if the world is shifting again and the decentralized network is once again (See The Acts of the Apostles for an early version of this model!) the most effective means for being a witness for fulfilling a mission statement, than a new type of leader is necessary.

And this, of course, is where the subtitle of Brafman and Beckstrom’s The Starfish and the Spider is terribly misleading. No matter what the cover says, a hybrid-starfish network is certainly not a “Leaderless Organization”. And even the authors admit as much:
“Managing a decentralized network requires someone who can be a cross between an architect, a cheerleader, and an awestruck observer…At their best catalysts connect people and maintain the drumbeat of the ideology.” (p. 207)

In the last post, I discussed the importance of “shared values”, what Brafman and Beckstrom call here the “drumbeat of the ideology.” This responsibility cannot be overstated in a decentralized organization. If Leaders do nothing else, they must protect, preserve and promote the shared values of the organization. If this “intelligence” is lost, the organization dies.

However, there is more to decentralized leadership than being a “custodian of values.” And in a healthy “hybrid-starfish” it actually takes two types of leaders. Sometimes they are found in the same person, often they are not. But the partnership between “Catalysts” and “Champions” is the key to an effective “hybrid-starfish organization.”

In the words of the authors, “Catalysts Rule.” Catalysts are those who inspire new ideas, (“A catalyst develops an idea, shares it with others and leads by example.” p. 94) connect people, form circles, (“Circles don’t form on their own.” p. 93) and then usually fade into the background. (Mary Poppins is a catalyst.) She changes the family that enters and then flies away. Catalysts are restless, contagious, curious souls who see possibilities within possibilities generates ideas, leads by example, gives away the ministry and fades into the background eventually.

But as important as a Catalyst is, even they need a “Champion.” While Catalysts are visionaries, Champions are implementers. Champions take the ideas and vision of the Catalysts and make it stick, they “sell” the vision, they insure its survival and they usually stick around (Think Maria Von Trapp instead of Mary Poppins). While Catalysts are natural connectors, Champions are natural promoters. (“A champion is relentless in promoting a new idea. Catalysts are charismatic, but champions take it to the next level.” p. 99.)
Together they create the leadership center for the ultimate goal in a decentralized system: Networks of healthy, engaging, growing, mutating circles of shared values.

Now here is the most important thing: neither Catalysts nor Champions are CEOs. They don’t fill the roles they fill because of position, power, prestige, but because of personality, passion, and purpose. They are not necessarily the people at the top, in fact, they’d prefer if there wasn’t a top. But make no mistake; if there is a healthy network, it is usually the work of a catalyst and champion.

So what is pastor to be?

Chaplain? Yes, at times. We add value to the network with our particular skills and training. When people need us to be a preacher, teacher, care-giver or convener of rituals and services, we offer them.

CEO? Yes, At least in a few of the roles. But less than we used to be. In a truly HYBRID-starfish organization, that is both strong and healthy there will always be some need for fiduciary responsibility, administrative savvy strategic initiative, generative thinking and a public face for the organization.

Catalyst? Again, yes. Serving as “architects,” “cheerleaders” and “awestruck observers” connecting people and maintaining the drumbeat of ideology.” But I believe that the very best Catalysts in a healthy organization are visionary lay leadership that arises from the ground up.

I contend that for the health of the organization, a pastor has to function most often as a Champion. When the pastor functions as a champion, the catalysts emerge. The organization becomes “catalytic”, the whole environment nurtures creativity and innovation, while resolutely reinforcing the SHARED vision and values.