Interesting Interview

I found this interview quite edifying as you watch Harris, Driscoll and Chan work through different issues, but with respect and concern for one another:

What's Next for Francis Chan? A Conversation with Mark Driscoll and Joshua Harris from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

Christ Glorified in Jocks and Nerds

Just the other day, I listened to a keynote panel (audio/video) from the Resolved Conference including CJ Mahaney, Steve Lawson, John MacArthur, and Rick Holland. During the discussion, CJ made the following observation:

"These men have a voracious appetite to read, because they have a voracious appetite to learn, because these men have a voracious appetite to grow in their knowledge of, and love for, God."

After he shared this observation, each man took their turn sharing how they once were not interested in academics, but spent much of their youth pursuing athletics. A couple of these men had great success in the athletic arena, and any reading or school work was simply completed for the sake of maintaining eligibility. However, each man shared how either at their conversion, or upon the call from God into ministry, they began to develop a new love for reading. They shared how this was such a radical change in their life that it was obvious it must have been wrought from God. CJ even shared (who experienced this change right at conversion) that it served initially as an evidence of grace in his life. Each man proclaimed that their love for reading had no other source than the love and grace of God.

But there was one other man on the panel.

Al Mohler does not share their testimony. Mohler joked that while the other members of the panel were outside playing with balls, he was inside reading books. Mixing his near-sightedness with athletic endeavors, Mohler quickly discovered, "This isn't working." Mohler explains the distinction:

I think we can make a virtue out of reading that can be an end in itself. But reading is not an end in itself, growth into godliness is the end; being conformed into the image of Christ. That's going to happen by Scripture, it's going to come by the teaching and preaching of the Word of God and it's going to happen by reading. So reading is not "the thing," it's not the end in itself. It is the way God has chosen to help His people grow, and it's been that way from the beginning. The Jews were dependent upon the scrolls. Paul says to Timothy, "Bring the books and the parchments in a hurry." It's just important and we realize we're not going to grow if we're not reading and studying.

I praise God for the testimony of both. The "reading jocks" remind us that you must read to be able to truly grow. But the "nerds" remind us that reading is not glorious if growth in godliness is not the goal. Without each other, neither message would be as clear.

Personally, I've never been smart enough to qualify as a "nerd" and certainly lack the athleticism to be a "jock." However, I will read, and call the sheep at Grace to read, because I trust in a sovereign God--for no other reason than to show His divine glory and mercy--delights in conforming His children into the image of His Son through His Word.

Gospel Centered Surprise

Last night, QT and I joined our JOY Club (Seniors' Ministry) for a hymn-sing. We sang many favorites which I haven't sung in a long time. Someone suggested I Love to Tell the Story. I remembered this one from church growing up, and always thought it was a song about evangelism. But it's about much more than that! I found the final verse particularly encouraging:

I love to tell the story of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory, of Jesus and His love.
I love to tell the story, because I know ’tis true;
It satisfies my longings as nothing else can do.

Refrain
I love to tell the story, ’twill be my theme in glory,
To tell the old, old story of Jesus and His love.

I love to tell the story; more wonderful it seems
Than all the golden fancies of all our golden dreams.
I love to tell the story, it did so much for me;
And that is just the reason I tell it now to thee.

Refrain

I love to tell the story; ’tis pleasant to repeat
What seems, each time I tell it, more wonderfully sweet.
I love to tell the story, for some have never heard
The message of salvation from God’s own holy Word.

Refrain

I love to tell the story, for those who know it best
Seem hungering and thirsting to hear it like the rest.
And when, in scenes of glory, I sing the new, new song,
’Twill be the old, old story that I have loved so long.

Perhaps the Amillennialists Are Right?

C'mon, Keith Shearer, you gotta admit that this makes you wonder if we aren't experiencing more of the Kingdom than we anticipated!

Christian Patriotism?

The following video is a great way to consider our role as Christians who live in the United States:

A couple quick notes:

1. This is not an assessment of the individual faith of the "founding fathers." Every single founding father could have been a believer (they were not), and yet the United States would not be a Christian nation.
2. This does not in any way mean that we do not enjoy incredible freedoms here in our country, all of which are a grace from God. We experience a lot of liberties here which allow us to freely pursue Christ. This is a gift for which we should all be thankful.3. A common grace God has given for us so that we can experience these liberties has been seen in the lives of soldiers who have served (or are serving) as well as those who have lost their lives protecting these liberties. These sacrifices cannot save a soul, but they are a glorious display of loyalty and sacrifice.



Why does this matter? Couldn't this issue simply be left for opinion? Why does this issue seem to rile me up so much at times?

In a nutshell, I think the crusade to "reclaim" the United States as a Christian nation confuses and distorts the gospel.

1. It reduces the essentials of saving faith. I've heard people state, "Look, the Declaration of Independence mentions a Creator God, this proves many founding fathers were Christian." Such a statement ignores that simply being a Theistic Creationist does not mean one has saving faith. I've also heard people exclaim, "But did you know that a majority of the founding fathers were pastors?" Again, this misses that salvation does not come by an office held within the church. (In fact, Gilbert Tennent preached On the Danger of an Unconverted Ministry in 1739.) I've met a disturbing number of pastors who do not know Jesus Christ, and it seems Pastor Tennent had met a number of them too...right around the time of the Revolution.

When we want to claim our nation as Christian because the founding fathers made some vague comments about God, we distort the gospel on two fronts. One, we make it seem like the gospel is simply to believe that God is a Creator and we eliminate the news of the person and work of Jesus Christ. We somehow imagine a Christianity that does not require the gospel. And two, we obscure what it means to be a genuine witness. We begin to assume we are taking a major stand by saying God exists and He made everything. Instead, we need to speak of Jesus, and how salvation is only found in Him.

2. It confuses our mission. A recently heard a pastor state, "Pastors have to start preaching to their people that this nation was founded on Christian principles or we'll never see this country turn around." But Christ's kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36). He will build His Church (Matthew 16:18). Surely this should be the focus of every disciple and pastor. The pastor who focuses on building this nation will a) find himself neglecting the proclamation of the gospel, for the gospel cannot be spread (or received) through political movement, and b) ignoring the fact that there are still 1.9 billion people who have not heard the name of Jesus, most of whom do not live in the United States. Our mission is to see God build a nation, not a country.

3. It does not call people to hope. Even if the United States had been founded as a Christian nation, such knowledge will not return people to those roots. Hope is not placed in the past (Romans 8:24). Such an effort falls victim to the naive assumption that the time of the Revolution was the glory days for our country.

Let's get this straight: Black people were slaves. Women were not given the liberty to vote. The Catholic church and corrupted Church of England were running rampant. People ignored Romans 13:1-7 and began to murder other people. And some people want to think of that era as the "glory days?"

The message of the gospel is set in the past, at what Christ did for us. But the hope of the gospel is set ahead of us. That we will be with Him some day! If this is as good as it gets, that's not "good news." If Resurrection Morning is as good as it gets, that's not "good news." The good news is good because in hope, I wait for the day that God will call me home and I will enjoy being in the presence of Christ for all eternity...freed from presence of sin and the curse placed upon creation for it. This hope is what can motivate people to proclaim His gospel and see His church built.

Independence Day is a day to celebrate. (There's double celebration in our family, as it is also my parents' anniversary.) Watch fireworks, go to a cookout, pray and thank God for our country...however you choose to celebrate. However, also remember that political and religious freedom is not true freedom. Freedom from sin and its punishment is the only true freedom there is.

And that's a message for every person, of every country.

Lessons Tested With Fire

Before the smoke cleared--literally--people were giving their commentary of the "Solid Rock Statue" burning up. Some people were saddened by the event, stating they felt bad for a church that was truly trying to face such a set-back. Others saw it as a humorous story, even seeing it as a confirmation that God is trivial, for why would He burn down a statue of Himself, if He really existed. Conversely, some saw it as a crystal clear indication of God's judgment (yet, they never seem to address why God would allow it to exist for eight years before burning it down).

But many of these comments remind me of Luke 13:1-9, we spend all our time speculating "why" it happened, and entering that debate, we miss the most critical step, asking "what" I should learn from the event. The following is a short list of things I've been processing since the statue burned down:

Theological Practice Matters--It's interesting to me that many people want to question the church's use of money (more on that below), and charge of idolatry (a charge the church denies by saying they truly worship Jesus, not the statue), but do not address a crystal clear issue regarding their theology. This issue is seen in nearly every article that includes a response from Solid Rock. Most of the quotes from Solid Rock come from Reverend Darlene Bishop. Why does this matter? Isn't this simply an issue of preference or interpretation? Consider the following well-written quote from T4G's Affirmations and Denials:

We affirm that the Scripture reveals a pattern of complementary order between men and women, and that this order is itself a testimony to the Gospel, even as it is the gift of our Creator and Redeemer. We also affirm that all Christians are called to service within the body of Christ, and that God has given to both men and women important and strategic roles within the home, the church, and the society. We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings and that men are to lead in their homes as husbands and fathers who fear and love God.

We deny that the distinction of roles between men and women revealed in the Bible is evidence of mere cultural conditioning or a manifestation of male oppression or prejudice against women. We also deny that this biblical distinction of roles excludes women from meaningful ministry in Christ’s kingdom. We further deny that any church can confuse these issues
without damaging its witness to the Gospel. (Article XVI, emphasis added)

I understand that the media will distort and omit quotations regarding the gospel from pastors, so I know it can be hard to assess a witness through the papers, but unfortunately I have not heard a quote from Solid Rock that lays out the gospel. When PETA made an offer to finance the rebuilding, the response was, "We’re not interested. We raise cattle. We never build a statue with stipulations that we would have to advertise for PETA."

Lesson for Me

I'm reminded that it is easy to be complementarian in theology but not practice. As a man, I am tempted to neglect my role of headship and passively take a back seat. Instead, Scripture reminds me that for the sake of the gospel witness (especially to the children in my home), I need to make sure the gospel is kept clear by keeping our roles in proper order.

Preaching is Still Primary In defense of Solid Rock building the statue, many speculated that it was simply their way to be a witness. However, we must remember that no one can be saved without preaching:

How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!"--Romans 10:14-15

Simply looking at the statue can leave you with plenty of questions. Why is Jesus in water? Why is the cross smaller than Him? Is this a picture of Him after the crucifixion or before? What of His ascension? Why does this matter? The statue cannot speak. It leaves you with questions that create gaps, that keep you from being able to place faith in Christ. The message must be spoken.

Lesson for Me Nothing can supplant preaching. Remember the great buzz generated by The Passion movie? I heard several preachers suggest that it was going to help usher in revival. I can honestly say I saw no discernible difference in conversions or sanctification after the movie was produced. Why? Because preaching is still essential. Yet, we remain easily tempted into thinking various methods, models and programs will be what God uses to build His church. Often, those programs can be the application of truths presented from the pulpit, but they cannot replace the pulpit. Mark Dever says, "What you win them with, you win them to." We don't want to seek to draw people in with distractions from the Word of God, but with the Word of God itself.
Critiquing Spending Habits is Dangerous Much of the outrage I read regarded the finances necessary for reconstruction. That money could be given to missions! That money could be given to the poor! Of course, if you do not believe it is wise to build the statue, then the cost seems all the more staggering. However, I haven't seen any church or individual step forward and offer themselves for public financial scrutiny.

Lesson for Me Nothing makes you rethink your spending habits like visiting a third world country. To be honest, meeting with these Haitian pastors this week and seeing their great needs does make me question the wisdom of building a giant statue. I also heard a latino pastor rebuke Haitian and Dominican pastors for a history of not reaching other people groups. He laid out the great need of reaching the unreached, again making it hard to imagine using steel, wood and styrofoam to build a statue rather than a church building. However, I miss the point if I don't immediately begin to evaluate my own personal budget and our church's. I am praying that the day comes that over 50% of our family budget and 50% of our church budget could go toward the proclamation of the gospel. Yet, even if that day comes, my could still be subject to scrutiny. While I can encourage others to spend wisely, for the sake of my own soul, I must remember that my spending habits can always be refined.

Ultimately, the statue serves as a reminder that all our lives will face fire.

Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man's work will become evident ; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.--1 Corinthians 3:12-15

And when we face that fire, it will be too late to consider reconstruction.

A Purpose-Driven Piper

John Piper's announcement that he has invited Rick Warren to speak at his conference has generated a lot of discussion. I've been thinking through it since I heard about it (ironically, the day before April Fool's...so I was skeptical at first). I've considered writing my thoughts out--for I've had several people ask, "What do you think?"--but have hesitated for the following reasons:

Who cares what I think? (That's been my default answer when asked.) It's Desiring God's Conference, and I do not sit on their board, and they do not use me as an advisor. If we ever hold a conference at Grace I will then be able to choose the speakers along with the other elders. How I would feel about the people Piper invites should never cross Piper's mind.

Who knows why Piper invited him? Watching the comments from some blogs, there is a form of Fundamentalism (using the word to refer to actions more than doctrine) that I don't think Piper would mind distancing himself from. I believe Piper wants to resist a loveless orthodoxy that can be proclaimed by some. His teaching ministry has resisted it, but I also believe he wants to avoid being associated with it, if possible. One comment I read said something like, "Can we now as fundamentalists admit that Piper is not one of us?" Reading from other comments the man made, I thought, "Yeah, Piper may be ok with not being "one of you." Perhaps there is some strategy here not only to state what Piper supports, but also passively eliminate that which he does not.

Who knows what Piper will do? It appears from the schedule that Piper will still speak at this event, despite his break from public ministry. For this reason, it seems to me that final judgement is best reserved until after the conference. You never know what Piper may do. I was at a conference once where Piper publicly asked the music leader not to sing a song again due to erroneous thinking communicated in the bridge of the song. He pointed out the error, and was gracious to the leader, even suggesting maybe changing the words or eliminating the bridge, but even stated publicly that he hates the words. Another time, Piper was sharing the pulpit ministry at a conference with another nationally known speaker. The other speaker was setting the crowd up for his next session by saying some rather controversial things. He finished and sat down. There were a couple of songs in between and then Piper took the pulpit. Piper's first actions were to publicly point out the concern he had, stated the concern he had for where the speaker was headed and told him he'd be listening very closely. He did all of this in the pulpit with the other man (who's neck turned very red) sitting on the front row. I don't see John Piper shying away from pointing out error, even if he invited the speaker to his conference.

Yet, I have to admit, I am a little baffled by Piper's decision. However, until I write a full blog post (and am probably leaning toward I won't), this is the best article I have seen. The concluding paragraphs of the article state:

I am glad that through his conferences John Piper is not trying to build the young, restless, Reformed as much as he's seeking to just preach truth. That is a good and noble goal. It is a goal that allows him to look outside of a safe little group of approved speakers. At the same time, Rick Warren is way outside that group and for good reason. Warren's critics have not always been fair to him and yet neither have they been without justifiable and significant concerns. His ministry is in so many ways antithetical to Piper's. It surprises me and maybe disappoints me a little bit that he has been invited to share that platform.

At yet let's heed Piper's warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let's do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

Seriously, you should read the whole article.

Also related, here's some video from Piper himself, regarding the issue: