Professing Christianty is in some pretty bad shape right now. Specifically, professing evangelical Christianity is in pretty bad shape right now. Writers like Phil Johnson (and a good many others) have noted this. Phil has begun to weigh in on the subject with posts like this. I look forward to his thoughts in the upcoming days.
I had the misfortune today to experience firsthand a little of the doctrinal ignorance and compromise that seems to be indemic to much of evangelicalsim today. I had just purchased "Through the Gates of Splendor" at the local Christian bookstore when a kind lady that has worked there for years struck up a conversation with me. She attends another church in the area which church two of my sisters and one brother-in-law attend. I have some differences with certain pragmatic philosophies espoused by the church, but there is still much that is good about it. I told the lady that I was happy to know that the pastoral staff had cancelled a speaker they had scheduled recently. The lady said that she did not understand the reason for the cancellation. I told her that the man had been asked not to come because he had recently returned to the Roman Catholic Church.
The woman still expressed some confusion about why they would not have the man. "After all, he seems pretty good to me, and my husband enjoys his radio broadcast." I pointed out that the man now espouses an unbiblical, damnable view on justification. I reminded her of the Bible's teaching on justification in the books of Romans and Galatians. She considered that for a moment and said, "Well, I am sure that there are many Catholics who really love God." My reply was that if they truly do, they are not good Catholics! They cannot truly hold to the church's theology and be lovers of God in truth.
She seemed a little troubled at this point pointand brought up the recent death of Pope John Paul II. She mentioned that Dr. James Dobson had spoken of the pope in glowing terms and said that he was a godly man. She also mentioned something about Dr. Billy Graham's comments which unequivocably numbered the former pontiff among the redeemed. I told the lady that I was extremely disappointed with the doctrinal compromise and error expressed by these men regarding the apostate Roman church. The lady seemed very shocked by my reply and quickly said, "Well, we don't know these people's hearts." I told her that the beliefs they express both in word and action surely mean something. If what they are saying and doing is what they believe, then they are unregenerate. They must be lovingly corrected and pointed to a Christ Who saves and satisfies completely apart from the deeds of the law. At this point the woman began returning to what Graham and Dobson had said, and how we must not judge. As we continued speaking it seemed that Paul had nothing on these guys! (OK, I am overstating things a bit!) She seemed so hesitant to contradict these men, even when confronted with very plain Scripture.
One could write this off as coming from a person within a compromising church, but the church elders had taken the right stand on the issue. I am finding this mindset in churches across the evangelical spectrum. I even recently had an individual in an ostensibly Reformed Baptist church say something similar!
May God give us the grace to say with Luther, "My conscience is bound to the Word of God."
Monday, July 25, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Some Books That Have Influenced Me- Part 2
Important details of life such as the birth of my son John Thomas have kept me from blogging for a little bit, and I now wish to return to this series regarding books that have influenced me.
After graduating from college I admit that I had a misguided view of preaching. The fault did not lie with my college classes alone, though I do think that my homiletics class presented the applicational aspect of preaching as perhaps too small a portion of the whole. I had the view that preaching was to be, above all, informational. My overemphasis on the importance of the didactic element led me to often compose an entire sermon with little or no thought to what change the truth presented should require of the listener. As I matured a bit my preaching did, too. I began to include applicational elements into sermons, but even at this point I knew that there was more that was needed.
In the Fall of 2001 I was called to be interim pastor of a small church near my home town. As my preaching ministry took shape week after week for the first several months I saw serious shortcomings in my messages. I was presenting life-changing truths, but not seeing life-changing results. As I evaluated myself, I realized that I was not presenting those truths as life changing truths. That is, I was simply bombarding my people with the facts without clearly pointing out to them how these facts were to impact their lives.
Sometime in first part of 2002 I was perusing books in the local Christian book store and came across Preaching that Changes Lives by Micheal Fabarez. I held off on buying it for a week due to the price, but finally caved after browsing it several times and seeing its important and relevant subject matter. The book was a Godsend. It hit the very issues and deficencies I was struggling with.
Fabrez very convincingly makes the case that the goal of preaching is transformational, not just informational. He shows the Biblical necessity of constant change in the life of the minister himself. He tackles difficulties that must be understood by the preacher and addressed by his preaching in our day, including the matter of postmodernity's difficulties with authority.
Fabarez impacted me very much philosophically regarding preaching, but some of his most important contributions are in very practical chapters regarding preparing life-changing sermons. From prayer to specific attitudes in Bible study to outlining to time allotments to understandability to Christ-centeredness to doctrinal foundations to church involvement through study to follow-up application Fabarez very practically sets forth brief, yet comprehensive manual on Biblically grounded, applicationally driven preaching. This book is important enough that I believe every preacher should have a well-worn copy on his shelf.
After graduating from college I admit that I had a misguided view of preaching. The fault did not lie with my college classes alone, though I do think that my homiletics class presented the applicational aspect of preaching as perhaps too small a portion of the whole. I had the view that preaching was to be, above all, informational. My overemphasis on the importance of the didactic element led me to often compose an entire sermon with little or no thought to what change the truth presented should require of the listener. As I matured a bit my preaching did, too. I began to include applicational elements into sermons, but even at this point I knew that there was more that was needed.
In the Fall of 2001 I was called to be interim pastor of a small church near my home town. As my preaching ministry took shape week after week for the first several months I saw serious shortcomings in my messages. I was presenting life-changing truths, but not seeing life-changing results. As I evaluated myself, I realized that I was not presenting those truths as life changing truths. That is, I was simply bombarding my people with the facts without clearly pointing out to them how these facts were to impact their lives.
Sometime in first part of 2002 I was perusing books in the local Christian book store and came across Preaching that Changes Lives by Micheal Fabarez. I held off on buying it for a week due to the price, but finally caved after browsing it several times and seeing its important and relevant subject matter. The book was a Godsend. It hit the very issues and deficencies I was struggling with.
Fabrez very convincingly makes the case that the goal of preaching is transformational, not just informational. He shows the Biblical necessity of constant change in the life of the minister himself. He tackles difficulties that must be understood by the preacher and addressed by his preaching in our day, including the matter of postmodernity's difficulties with authority.
Fabarez impacted me very much philosophically regarding preaching, but some of his most important contributions are in very practical chapters regarding preparing life-changing sermons. From prayer to specific attitudes in Bible study to outlining to time allotments to understandability to Christ-centeredness to doctrinal foundations to church involvement through study to follow-up application Fabarez very practically sets forth brief, yet comprehensive manual on Biblically grounded, applicationally driven preaching. This book is important enough that I believe every preacher should have a well-worn copy on his shelf.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
A Great Thought
Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel’s, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. (Mark 10:28-31)
“For my own part, I have never ceased to rejoice that God has appointed me to such an office. People talk of the sacrifice that I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply paid back as a small part of a great debt owing to God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own blest reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and in such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger, now and then, with a forgoing of the common conveniences and charities of this life, may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall be revealed in and for us. I never made a sacrifice.
- David Livingstone on December 4, 1857 to the students of Cambridge University
“For my own part, I have never ceased to rejoice that God has appointed me to such an office. People talk of the sacrifice that I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. Can that be called a sacrifice which is simply paid back as a small part of a great debt owing to God, which we can never repay? Is that a sacrifice which brings its own blest reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and in such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger, now and then, with a forgoing of the common conveniences and charities of this life, may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall be revealed in and for us. I never made a sacrifice.
- David Livingstone on December 4, 1857 to the students of Cambridge University
Saturday, July 09, 2005
Some Books That Have Influenced Me- Part 1
There is little doubt in my mind that Tom Well's book, A Vision for Missions is one of the most influential books that I have ever read. I treasure the book and its message so highly that I bring it with me on every trip (deputation or otherwise) that I take. I have read it probably six or seven times, and I am always in the process of reading it.
So what makes the book so special? It is the clearest presentation of a God-centered, passionate approach to world evangelism that I have ever encountered. Recently, (within the last five years) John Piper's book Let the Nations Be Glad has made a big impression in certain segments of fundamentalism. Yes, we fundamentalists are a bit late! Piper's book was published in 1993 and made a pretty big splash in general evangelicalism at that time. I am very thankful for Piper's important contribution to the subject. His opening paragraph in the book is probably the best articulation of the proper place of and reason for missions. As good and important as Piper's book is, I find Well's book to be even more so.
A Vision for Missions has two important theses. First, God is worthy to be known and proclaimed for who He is, and that fact is an important part of the missionary motive and message. I believe that we fundamentalists have long suffered under an inadequate impetus for world evangelism. So often the appeal to become involved in this great task has been that many around the world are dying and going to hell, and that if we do not involve ourselves in light of that then we are truly heartless individuals. Or the appeal has even come across (like A.W. Tozer said) as though God's great love and mercy has painted Him into a corner that He cannot extricate Himself from! With such flawed motivations and anemic views of God that often accompany them, it is no wonder that few today feel any lasting desire to become involved in world evangelism wherever that might take them! The greatness and sovereignty of our God is motivation at its highest. God is worthy to be known! How that knowledge should propel us into His harvest fields! Not only is it motivation, but it is also an important part of the message. The God that we proclaim to the world is worthy to be known! He is not some weak and helpless being that awaits man's sovereign assent. He is the sovereign, immutable God!
The second thesis of the book is those who know the most about God are the most responsible and best equipped to tell of Him. It is one thing to point out the flaws in another's theology and look down upon them as they present God in an incomplete and inadequate way. It is quite another to take a proper and complete view of God into the work and labour to turn men's eyes to that God ourselves. I find this thesis particularly challenging. I am one of those who can spot an unworthy God a mile away. But do I take the knowledge that I do have and use it to tell others of the true and living God, or do I simply look down my nose at the ones who proclaim God in an unworthy way? I fear that far too often my zeal for proper theology eclipses my zeal for the God of that theology. That is, I can discern, dissect, stew over, and debate the errors that I see in a person's theology and view of God; but how often I do not proclaim the message of God himself to the world that does not know Him! Well's book is an important reminder to me that zeal for theology may not necessarily be a zeal for God.
Wells writes about certain of God's perfections and how they are both motivation and message for missions. One of the best chapters in the book is "Glory...in the Face of Jesus" where he demonstrates that a God-centered theology of missions is a Christ-centered theology of missions. He also has an excellent chapter about God's glory and human need, showing that a God-centered philosophy does not eliminate an emphasis upon human need, but rather puts it into its proper place.
Several chapters of the book demonstrate how these great truths impacted particular missionaries when brought to bear upon their lives. The lives of David Brainerd, William Carey, and Henry Martyn provide vivid and accurate examples of these truths in action.
All in all, I cannot recommend this book too highly. I am thankful to God for bringing it to my attention, and pray that He would continue to burn its truths into my heart that I might live out my life in passionate pursuit of His glory.
So what makes the book so special? It is the clearest presentation of a God-centered, passionate approach to world evangelism that I have ever encountered. Recently, (within the last five years) John Piper's book Let the Nations Be Glad has made a big impression in certain segments of fundamentalism. Yes, we fundamentalists are a bit late! Piper's book was published in 1993 and made a pretty big splash in general evangelicalism at that time. I am very thankful for Piper's important contribution to the subject. His opening paragraph in the book is probably the best articulation of the proper place of and reason for missions. As good and important as Piper's book is, I find Well's book to be even more so.
A Vision for Missions has two important theses. First, God is worthy to be known and proclaimed for who He is, and that fact is an important part of the missionary motive and message. I believe that we fundamentalists have long suffered under an inadequate impetus for world evangelism. So often the appeal to become involved in this great task has been that many around the world are dying and going to hell, and that if we do not involve ourselves in light of that then we are truly heartless individuals. Or the appeal has even come across (like A.W. Tozer said) as though God's great love and mercy has painted Him into a corner that He cannot extricate Himself from! With such flawed motivations and anemic views of God that often accompany them, it is no wonder that few today feel any lasting desire to become involved in world evangelism wherever that might take them! The greatness and sovereignty of our God is motivation at its highest. God is worthy to be known! How that knowledge should propel us into His harvest fields! Not only is it motivation, but it is also an important part of the message. The God that we proclaim to the world is worthy to be known! He is not some weak and helpless being that awaits man's sovereign assent. He is the sovereign, immutable God!
The second thesis of the book is those who know the most about God are the most responsible and best equipped to tell of Him. It is one thing to point out the flaws in another's theology and look down upon them as they present God in an incomplete and inadequate way. It is quite another to take a proper and complete view of God into the work and labour to turn men's eyes to that God ourselves. I find this thesis particularly challenging. I am one of those who can spot an unworthy God a mile away. But do I take the knowledge that I do have and use it to tell others of the true and living God, or do I simply look down my nose at the ones who proclaim God in an unworthy way? I fear that far too often my zeal for proper theology eclipses my zeal for the God of that theology. That is, I can discern, dissect, stew over, and debate the errors that I see in a person's theology and view of God; but how often I do not proclaim the message of God himself to the world that does not know Him! Well's book is an important reminder to me that zeal for theology may not necessarily be a zeal for God.
Wells writes about certain of God's perfections and how they are both motivation and message for missions. One of the best chapters in the book is "Glory...in the Face of Jesus" where he demonstrates that a God-centered theology of missions is a Christ-centered theology of missions. He also has an excellent chapter about God's glory and human need, showing that a God-centered philosophy does not eliminate an emphasis upon human need, but rather puts it into its proper place.
Several chapters of the book demonstrate how these great truths impacted particular missionaries when brought to bear upon their lives. The lives of David Brainerd, William Carey, and Henry Martyn provide vivid and accurate examples of these truths in action.
All in all, I cannot recommend this book too highly. I am thankful to God for bringing it to my attention, and pray that He would continue to burn its truths into my heart that I might live out my life in passionate pursuit of His glory.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
A Good Lesson in an Unlikely PLace
I took a moment the other day in the local Christian bookstore to briefly peruse Donald Miller's book "Blue Like Jazz." The general content of the book was no real surprise to me. It represents so much of the worst that the Emerging Church Movement is bringing with it. The book emphasizes the exaltation of emotions and passions to the exclusion (not just diminishment) of propositional truth. It oozes with the bizzarre and outright foolish, and if you were to drop the book...well, let me just say it would be best not to step in it!
However, the book did include a story that made me think. Miller tells of a friend seeking out prominent religious figures to ask them what Jesus meant to them. The answers that he got did not really click with him. It is obvious that the replies were far to objective, and stated too much propositional truth. However, one encounter was different. When he asked the late Bill Bright (founder of Campus Crusade for Christ) what Jesus meant to him, Bill was so overcome with emotion that he could not even reply. Now, I know that Campus Crusade has some very major problems. I also know that Bill Bright has not exactly been the shining example of what a Biblical separatist should be! I also know that loving Christ does not necessarily mean that you dissolve into sniffles when questioned about Him! I know all of the these things. However, I believe that Bill's answer demonstrated a true and moving devotion to Christ. And so the late new evangelical made this young fundamentalist stop and think. Does the liberating, life-giving truth that I know of my Saviour cause me to have a true passion for Him? Or better, does my Saviour Himself call forth my entire being (mind, soul, strength, and heart) to exalt and rejoice in Him?
I decry the modern search for personal meaning by following the latest existential zap. I see the quest for individual significance that only follows the dictates of pure emotion as eternally harmful. But I also know that our relationship of worship with our God and Saviour is in "spirit and in truth," that is with both proper heart attitude and a Christ-centered, Scripturally grounded grasp of truth. Yes, the proper heart attitude is contingent upon humility and understanding before the Word. But what a tragedy to have a knowledge of truth without a passion and love for that truth and the God Who is the Source and Revealer of that truth- that God who became flesh and lived among us, Who so embodied truth that He referred to Himself as "the truth." He is not the truth because of His conformity to a standard of truth outside of Himself; He is the truth because He Himself is the Source of all truth! May God so move in my heart and mind that I might echo the words of the Psalmist, "As the hart (deer) panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O God (Psalm 42:1)!"
However, the book did include a story that made me think. Miller tells of a friend seeking out prominent religious figures to ask them what Jesus meant to them. The answers that he got did not really click with him. It is obvious that the replies were far to objective, and stated too much propositional truth. However, one encounter was different. When he asked the late Bill Bright (founder of Campus Crusade for Christ) what Jesus meant to him, Bill was so overcome with emotion that he could not even reply. Now, I know that Campus Crusade has some very major problems. I also know that Bill Bright has not exactly been the shining example of what a Biblical separatist should be! I also know that loving Christ does not necessarily mean that you dissolve into sniffles when questioned about Him! I know all of the these things. However, I believe that Bill's answer demonstrated a true and moving devotion to Christ. And so the late new evangelical made this young fundamentalist stop and think. Does the liberating, life-giving truth that I know of my Saviour cause me to have a true passion for Him? Or better, does my Saviour Himself call forth my entire being (mind, soul, strength, and heart) to exalt and rejoice in Him?
I decry the modern search for personal meaning by following the latest existential zap. I see the quest for individual significance that only follows the dictates of pure emotion as eternally harmful. But I also know that our relationship of worship with our God and Saviour is in "spirit and in truth," that is with both proper heart attitude and a Christ-centered, Scripturally grounded grasp of truth. Yes, the proper heart attitude is contingent upon humility and understanding before the Word. But what a tragedy to have a knowledge of truth without a passion and love for that truth and the God Who is the Source and Revealer of that truth- that God who became flesh and lived among us, Who so embodied truth that He referred to Himself as "the truth." He is not the truth because of His conformity to a standard of truth outside of Himself; He is the truth because He Himself is the Source of all truth! May God so move in my heart and mind that I might echo the words of the Psalmist, "As the hart (deer) panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O God (Psalm 42:1)!"
Monday, July 04, 2005
Pragmatic Foolishness Undercuts the Power of the Word
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching (or "the message preached") to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Corinthians 1:17-25)
I have been dismayed recently by the extreme pragmatism that I have both personally seen and heard of within independent, fundamental Baptist churches. Though our movement is characterized by those who would claim that they "just preach the Bible" in superior comparison to all the other Christian movements in the world, I am finding that the claim is not quite as accurate as they would suggest. To my dismay, I am finding that there are many who really do very little preaching of the Word, filling their public addresses with a high percentage of pragmatic, emotionally-driven appeals instead of the sincere milk and meat of the carefully exposited Word. I will give two recent examples.
At a recent youth conference in a church that I love dearly, whose pastor is a godly man and friend in the ministry, a visiting speaker gave a message on hell. The topic of the message is certainly not wrong. (In reality, this topic is often bypassed in much of evangelical Christianity today since it is too negative. To the "seeker-friendly," emerging church the certain everlasting punishment of wicked men is far too negative to weigh people down with emotionally!) However, the attending antics were certainly wrong. The speaker at this youth conference had the church turn the heat up in the building as high as it would go during the "preaching" of his message on hell. The conference was in the late spring/early summer, so it was plenty warm already! Anyway, he had also sequestered a certain percentage of those in attendance to scream, moan, and wail at key moments during his "message" as though they were the very souls of the damned! He filled the evening with many stories of the lost and conjecture regarding specific experiences they had and were having. Of course, he did not state that it was conjecture! Now when I say he "filled the evening," I do mean exactly that. He "preached" for over two hours. By the end of the evening, the whole group was worn down emotionally by the content of his "message," and physically by the exposure to extreme heat for such a long period of time. He was able to get almost everyone up to the front to make one decision or another. The amazing thing is, he is lauded for his preaching in a certain segment of fundamentalism! The whole "That is a man who knows how to get results" awe follows the mention of his name. Finney would have been proud to know this man! (See this article for more regarding that statement.)
The other story occured in a VBS program. At the end of the week the children were to cast their vote for either Jesus and Heaven or the Devil and Hell by placing a folded paper "vote" into the corresponding barrel. Throughout the week, the children were bombarded with emotional appeals about how good Jesus and Heaven were and how bad the Devil and Hell were. When that moment of voting came the children were ushered by the two barrels. The barrel representing Jesus and Heaven was decorated beautifully with appealing colours. The barrel representing the Devil and Hell was incredibly ugly and even had smoke issuing from it! Not surprisingly, every child put their "vote" into the Jesus barrel! The church then broadly proclaimed to anyone that would listen (and a few that would rather not) how they had seen incredible numbers of children saved at their VBS!
What these individuals are saying in a very blatant fashion is that the "message preached" is not sufficient to the task. When a man implements these emotionally manipulative practices, he very clearly demonstrates what his true hope of "results" lies in. Within our movement today the words of our LORD must be heard again "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it (Isaiah 55:11)." Also, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:16-17)." And "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe (I Corinthians 1:21)". Proclaim the message boldly and passionately; but above all proclaim it accurately in dependence upon the very Spirit who spoke it into existence, trusting that He will, through His Word, do His work in the hearts of men.
I have been dismayed recently by the extreme pragmatism that I have both personally seen and heard of within independent, fundamental Baptist churches. Though our movement is characterized by those who would claim that they "just preach the Bible" in superior comparison to all the other Christian movements in the world, I am finding that the claim is not quite as accurate as they would suggest. To my dismay, I am finding that there are many who really do very little preaching of the Word, filling their public addresses with a high percentage of pragmatic, emotionally-driven appeals instead of the sincere milk and meat of the carefully exposited Word. I will give two recent examples.
At a recent youth conference in a church that I love dearly, whose pastor is a godly man and friend in the ministry, a visiting speaker gave a message on hell. The topic of the message is certainly not wrong. (In reality, this topic is often bypassed in much of evangelical Christianity today since it is too negative. To the "seeker-friendly," emerging church the certain everlasting punishment of wicked men is far too negative to weigh people down with emotionally!) However, the attending antics were certainly wrong. The speaker at this youth conference had the church turn the heat up in the building as high as it would go during the "preaching" of his message on hell. The conference was in the late spring/early summer, so it was plenty warm already! Anyway, he had also sequestered a certain percentage of those in attendance to scream, moan, and wail at key moments during his "message" as though they were the very souls of the damned! He filled the evening with many stories of the lost and conjecture regarding specific experiences they had and were having. Of course, he did not state that it was conjecture! Now when I say he "filled the evening," I do mean exactly that. He "preached" for over two hours. By the end of the evening, the whole group was worn down emotionally by the content of his "message," and physically by the exposure to extreme heat for such a long period of time. He was able to get almost everyone up to the front to make one decision or another. The amazing thing is, he is lauded for his preaching in a certain segment of fundamentalism! The whole "That is a man who knows how to get results" awe follows the mention of his name. Finney would have been proud to know this man! (See this article for more regarding that statement.)
The other story occured in a VBS program. At the end of the week the children were to cast their vote for either Jesus and Heaven or the Devil and Hell by placing a folded paper "vote" into the corresponding barrel. Throughout the week, the children were bombarded with emotional appeals about how good Jesus and Heaven were and how bad the Devil and Hell were. When that moment of voting came the children were ushered by the two barrels. The barrel representing Jesus and Heaven was decorated beautifully with appealing colours. The barrel representing the Devil and Hell was incredibly ugly and even had smoke issuing from it! Not surprisingly, every child put their "vote" into the Jesus barrel! The church then broadly proclaimed to anyone that would listen (and a few that would rather not) how they had seen incredible numbers of children saved at their VBS!
What these individuals are saying in a very blatant fashion is that the "message preached" is not sufficient to the task. When a man implements these emotionally manipulative practices, he very clearly demonstrates what his true hope of "results" lies in. Within our movement today the words of our LORD must be heard again "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it (Isaiah 55:11)." Also, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith (Romans 1:16-17)." And "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of the message preached to save them that believe (I Corinthians 1:21)". Proclaim the message boldly and passionately; but above all proclaim it accurately in dependence upon the very Spirit who spoke it into existence, trusting that He will, through His Word, do His work in the hearts of men.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Some Thoughts to a Friend on the Nature of Foreordination and Evil
Here are some thoughts on the subjects that I once hashed through with a friend-
The foreordination is a very deep issue, and it is no surprise to me that you have incomplete understanding of it. (I know that I have an incomplete understanding as well.) Did God cause sin? Is He the Author of wickedness? I won't try to pretend to be the great master of all knowledge in this issue. Let me ask you to evaluate some of the things that you said. You said that God is good and cannot create evil and because sin is evil God can't have created evil. Where did sin come from? Well, if we take Augustine's opinion to be accurate, as many thinkers have throughout the years, sin is a negation or privation of that which is good. Therefore it is not created in the same sense as other products of God's special creation. It does not have a positive or efficient cause, but a negative and deficient one. Good itself is not a created thing in the sense that there was a time when it did not exist, for it has existed for as long as God Himself has. Evil is a negation or privation of good. Now the question to ask is how is an action constituted evil? Puritan Jerom Zanchius spoke wisely when he said, "By proceeding from a wrong principle, by being directed to a wrong end, and by being done in a wrong manner." Something else to toss into the pot is that fact that whatever God wills and does is not willed and done because they were in their own nature previous to God willing them just and right, or that God ought to will and do them, but they are just, right and proper because He who is holy wills them and does them. (This is a paraphrase of Zanchius as well.) We often miss this perspective when we consider such things as God's eternal decree.
Does God create sin? No. God is not a negative or deficient cause with respect to good. God cannot twist what He is, for in doing so He would no longer remain what He is. (I hope that this is not causing an Exedrin headache, or horrible flashbacks of me explaining natural revelation to Stirling!) This contradicts the very plainly taught doctrine of God's immutability. Can we ever say that God does things from a wrong principle? No. Can we say that He does things directed toward a wrong end? No. Does he do things in a wrong manner? No. He does all things well. Now when God moves an unsaved man to do something, is that action going to be good? No, for he is destitute of faith. He has no desire for the glory of God. These actions are done for all the wrong reasons (mentioned above) and are thus to be properly deemed evil. So God moves the man to do something. When the man performs the action, it is evil. But is God the author of that evil? Without God, the man would never have done anything at all for in Him we live and move and have our being. But does that mean that God is the cause of sin? In the sense that He is the Supreme Author of all mankind's action, perhaps; but when we see what makes an action evil there is a great gap between that and what God is and truly does. We think of Christ delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God slain by the wicked hands of men. Was the act evil? Absolutely! It goes without saying that to murder the Son of God is evil. Was God's act evil? In no way. I hope that this is not too complicated and boring to you.
Now just a note on the origin of evil. Was God evil to create Satan? Was God evil to give Satan the very ability to sin and draw away a third of the angels with him? Was God evil to give him the power to tempt Eve and thus bring Adam's race to sinful ruin? This is a very hard topic, but we must remember that God has created all things yea even the wicked for the day of judgment. I don't have problem when a person says that God allows sin, but when you really get in to thinking that whole matter through, there is more to it than people usually mean. Are only the hearts of good kings in the hand of the Lord? and on and on the questions could follow.
The foreordination is a very deep issue, and it is no surprise to me that you have incomplete understanding of it. (I know that I have an incomplete understanding as well.) Did God cause sin? Is He the Author of wickedness? I won't try to pretend to be the great master of all knowledge in this issue. Let me ask you to evaluate some of the things that you said. You said that God is good and cannot create evil and because sin is evil God can't have created evil. Where did sin come from? Well, if we take Augustine's opinion to be accurate, as many thinkers have throughout the years, sin is a negation or privation of that which is good. Therefore it is not created in the same sense as other products of God's special creation. It does not have a positive or efficient cause, but a negative and deficient one. Good itself is not a created thing in the sense that there was a time when it did not exist, for it has existed for as long as God Himself has. Evil is a negation or privation of good. Now the question to ask is how is an action constituted evil? Puritan Jerom Zanchius spoke wisely when he said, "By proceeding from a wrong principle, by being directed to a wrong end, and by being done in a wrong manner." Something else to toss into the pot is that fact that whatever God wills and does is not willed and done because they were in their own nature previous to God willing them just and right, or that God ought to will and do them, but they are just, right and proper because He who is holy wills them and does them. (This is a paraphrase of Zanchius as well.) We often miss this perspective when we consider such things as God's eternal decree.
Does God create sin? No. God is not a negative or deficient cause with respect to good. God cannot twist what He is, for in doing so He would no longer remain what He is. (I hope that this is not causing an Exedrin headache, or horrible flashbacks of me explaining natural revelation to Stirling!) This contradicts the very plainly taught doctrine of God's immutability. Can we ever say that God does things from a wrong principle? No. Can we say that He does things directed toward a wrong end? No. Does he do things in a wrong manner? No. He does all things well. Now when God moves an unsaved man to do something, is that action going to be good? No, for he is destitute of faith. He has no desire for the glory of God. These actions are done for all the wrong reasons (mentioned above) and are thus to be properly deemed evil. So God moves the man to do something. When the man performs the action, it is evil. But is God the author of that evil? Without God, the man would never have done anything at all for in Him we live and move and have our being. But does that mean that God is the cause of sin? In the sense that He is the Supreme Author of all mankind's action, perhaps; but when we see what makes an action evil there is a great gap between that and what God is and truly does. We think of Christ delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God slain by the wicked hands of men. Was the act evil? Absolutely! It goes without saying that to murder the Son of God is evil. Was God's act evil? In no way. I hope that this is not too complicated and boring to you.
Now just a note on the origin of evil. Was God evil to create Satan? Was God evil to give Satan the very ability to sin and draw away a third of the angels with him? Was God evil to give him the power to tempt Eve and thus bring Adam's race to sinful ruin? This is a very hard topic, but we must remember that God has created all things yea even the wicked for the day of judgment. I don't have problem when a person says that God allows sin, but when you really get in to thinking that whole matter through, there is more to it than people usually mean. Are only the hearts of good kings in the hand of the Lord? and on and on the questions could follow.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
What About Live 8?
"Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble (Psalm 41:1)."
Several days ago I was asked what my thoughts were regarding the upcoming Live 8 concert. I had to confess that I did not know much about it at the time. Of course, one portion of the world-wide concert is being held in my home town (Barrie, Ontario) and I should have had more of a clue, but other matters had occupied my attention so I did not really think much about it until the question pressed me to do so. I believe that to answer a matter before hearing it is foolish and shameful (Proverbs 18:13), so I did not reply in ignorance. I simply said that I did not know.
Since then I have been confronted with the concert(s) every evening in the news as my home town has both geared up for the influx of people from around the country and made physical preparations for the concerts itself, and I have thought through certain of the issues that surround it. Of course, as you probably know, the concerts held around the world are free concerts organized for the stated purpose of raising awareness of the impoverished situation specifically, but not exclusively, in African nations. In hearing further interviews with the organizers, I have come to understand that their desire is not simply to raise awareness on an individual lay level, but to pressure the major economic powers of the world (G-8 nations) to change or adjust certain policies in order to eliminate poverty. One specific policy that the organizers would like to see enacted is a cancellation of all debts owing from these underdeveloped nations to the G-8 powers. Theoretically, the money that would have been used to pay off the debt would then be directed to humanitarian efforts. From what I have heard and observed, a major sentiment seems to be that the great wealth of these G-8 nations is morally wrong in contrast with sad situation in Africa. The organizers have not sought to make money at these events, and have barred charities that work directly in these impoverished nations to seek to raise funds for their charity efforts at the concerts.
After having spent some time considering Live 8, these are my thoughts.
First, the raising awareness of extreme need has been eclipsed by the emphasis on the stars and their music. I am not suggesting that this emphasis is a motivation to all of the stars for being involved in the concerts, but it has been a major result. The attitude of the vast majority of concert-goers in this area seems to be a star-struck, "Dude, where else could you go to a concert with Bryan Adams (or whoever) for free?!" Despite the fact that most of the artists are including comments about the great need, the message seems to have had little effect on the average concert-goer. I would be interested to see if there is much of an increase in charitable giving to help in these nations, and how long such an increase in giving will last. This leads into my second observation.
Second, the concerts seem to send a confused message regarding poverty and riches. If my observations are accurate, the organizers and many of the artists seem to have cast aspersion on the richer nations in the world becuase of their riches in the face of the poverty of other nations. Yet those performing on stage are fantastically wealthy! To vilify wealth in the face of poverty on a national and international level while ignoring it on a personal and individual level is somewhat skewed. If you accept their proposition that it is wrong for one nation to have extreme wealth while other nations have little or no wealth, does this not have philosophical repurcussions on an individual level?
Third, it seems that their propositions for the elimination of poverty are overly simplistic. To simply cancel a debt to an under-developed nation will not raise their status. There are many other factors that must be elevated for this to occur. Advancements in the areas of technology, agriculture, education, and medicine seem to be much more needed than a cancellation of debts. The G-8 nations constantly increase their own debt from year to year in the form of budget deficits, among other things. This has not caused extreme poverty. I am not saying that it theoretically should not. The global economic system today does not work off of the old simplistic money in/ money out ideals. What I am saying is that personal poverty has not increased because of incredible governmental debt load in major industrialized countries. Furthermore, the poor nations in question are not really seeking to pay off the debt. They are absolutely unable to do so! The debt that hangs over their head at this time is not what is causing them to sink into the mire of poverty. So many factors other than national debt play a much more major role. When a monetary gift is given (I realize that charity can be given in other more specific forms, but we seem to have a history of simply throwing money at problems) there is an incredible likelyhood that the money will not reach its proper destination due to governmental corruption. So there are major needs in the area of governmental reform. Of course, many nations are seeking to do such and have been mired in destructive civil wars that seem to be interminable. Often the physical geography of a country plays a major part, particularly in African nations where desertification of prime land is inceasing. So there are major needs in terms of agricultural education and technology for the purpose of geographical ammendments. In many of the nations the health of the people is terrible as wave after wave of horrible disease sweeps over them. When individuals are unable to produce because of poor health, the nation is not likely to be able to produce. Thus there is extreme need for advances in health care. The current health crisis in many of these nations is often due to contaminated water sources, and there is great need for new wells and water purification systems. And these are only a sampling of needs! Perhaps we can see why our Saviour said, "The poor you have with you always."
Fourth, the concerts place undue emphasis on governmental involvement at the expense of emphasis on personal kindness and charity. The situation calls to mind the not so distant tsunami relief effort in Southeast Asia. The media cried loudly about the great need for governments to give more and more money to the effort, but it was the contributions of individual citizens that made the greatest impact. My impression of the concert's emphasis has been that one could go and listen to all the songs and artists, be personally gratified by the free musical entertainment, get a little piqued a the governments of wealthy nations, and yet leave feeling little personal responsibility to help. It seems to me that this is reinforced by the concert's barring of charities seeking to raise funds for relief in these countries.
Fifth, the concert obviously ignores the deepest need of these nations- their spiritual need. These countries are buried beneath a great poverty of soul. They need to experience the grace of God that brings salvation. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" asked Paul in the book of Romans. I pray that God might move in the hearts of His people that we might see and be moved by not only the physical poverty of the needy in our world, but also be moved by their spiritual poverty. May such concern be not merely grounded in our emotions for the people of these nations, but by the overwhelming desire to see the glories of our Saviour's name spread through all the earth abroad! May God send a multitude to these needy areas with the burning passion to display the supremacy of Christ. Perhaps these impoverished souls will see in them the surpassing glory of Christ as Christains give of themselves to clothe and feed and care for the downcast, not seeking their own personal comfort. I am not suggesting that these activites be performed apart from the passionate proclamation of the Gospel, but that the Gospel be lived out before the needy visually as it proclaimed to them verbally. And may God use the efforts of His servants to magnify His surpassing glory.
Several days ago I was asked what my thoughts were regarding the upcoming Live 8 concert. I had to confess that I did not know much about it at the time. Of course, one portion of the world-wide concert is being held in my home town (Barrie, Ontario) and I should have had more of a clue, but other matters had occupied my attention so I did not really think much about it until the question pressed me to do so. I believe that to answer a matter before hearing it is foolish and shameful (Proverbs 18:13), so I did not reply in ignorance. I simply said that I did not know.
Since then I have been confronted with the concert(s) every evening in the news as my home town has both geared up for the influx of people from around the country and made physical preparations for the concerts itself, and I have thought through certain of the issues that surround it. Of course, as you probably know, the concerts held around the world are free concerts organized for the stated purpose of raising awareness of the impoverished situation specifically, but not exclusively, in African nations. In hearing further interviews with the organizers, I have come to understand that their desire is not simply to raise awareness on an individual lay level, but to pressure the major economic powers of the world (G-8 nations) to change or adjust certain policies in order to eliminate poverty. One specific policy that the organizers would like to see enacted is a cancellation of all debts owing from these underdeveloped nations to the G-8 powers. Theoretically, the money that would have been used to pay off the debt would then be directed to humanitarian efforts. From what I have heard and observed, a major sentiment seems to be that the great wealth of these G-8 nations is morally wrong in contrast with sad situation in Africa. The organizers have not sought to make money at these events, and have barred charities that work directly in these impoverished nations to seek to raise funds for their charity efforts at the concerts.
After having spent some time considering Live 8, these are my thoughts.
First, the raising awareness of extreme need has been eclipsed by the emphasis on the stars and their music. I am not suggesting that this emphasis is a motivation to all of the stars for being involved in the concerts, but it has been a major result. The attitude of the vast majority of concert-goers in this area seems to be a star-struck, "Dude, where else could you go to a concert with Bryan Adams (or whoever) for free?!" Despite the fact that most of the artists are including comments about the great need, the message seems to have had little effect on the average concert-goer. I would be interested to see if there is much of an increase in charitable giving to help in these nations, and how long such an increase in giving will last. This leads into my second observation.
Second, the concerts seem to send a confused message regarding poverty and riches. If my observations are accurate, the organizers and many of the artists seem to have cast aspersion on the richer nations in the world becuase of their riches in the face of the poverty of other nations. Yet those performing on stage are fantastically wealthy! To vilify wealth in the face of poverty on a national and international level while ignoring it on a personal and individual level is somewhat skewed. If you accept their proposition that it is wrong for one nation to have extreme wealth while other nations have little or no wealth, does this not have philosophical repurcussions on an individual level?
Third, it seems that their propositions for the elimination of poverty are overly simplistic. To simply cancel a debt to an under-developed nation will not raise their status. There are many other factors that must be elevated for this to occur. Advancements in the areas of technology, agriculture, education, and medicine seem to be much more needed than a cancellation of debts. The G-8 nations constantly increase their own debt from year to year in the form of budget deficits, among other things. This has not caused extreme poverty. I am not saying that it theoretically should not. The global economic system today does not work off of the old simplistic money in/ money out ideals. What I am saying is that personal poverty has not increased because of incredible governmental debt load in major industrialized countries. Furthermore, the poor nations in question are not really seeking to pay off the debt. They are absolutely unable to do so! The debt that hangs over their head at this time is not what is causing them to sink into the mire of poverty. So many factors other than national debt play a much more major role. When a monetary gift is given (I realize that charity can be given in other more specific forms, but we seem to have a history of simply throwing money at problems) there is an incredible likelyhood that the money will not reach its proper destination due to governmental corruption. So there are major needs in the area of governmental reform. Of course, many nations are seeking to do such and have been mired in destructive civil wars that seem to be interminable. Often the physical geography of a country plays a major part, particularly in African nations where desertification of prime land is inceasing. So there are major needs in terms of agricultural education and technology for the purpose of geographical ammendments. In many of the nations the health of the people is terrible as wave after wave of horrible disease sweeps over them. When individuals are unable to produce because of poor health, the nation is not likely to be able to produce. Thus there is extreme need for advances in health care. The current health crisis in many of these nations is often due to contaminated water sources, and there is great need for new wells and water purification systems. And these are only a sampling of needs! Perhaps we can see why our Saviour said, "The poor you have with you always."
Fourth, the concerts place undue emphasis on governmental involvement at the expense of emphasis on personal kindness and charity. The situation calls to mind the not so distant tsunami relief effort in Southeast Asia. The media cried loudly about the great need for governments to give more and more money to the effort, but it was the contributions of individual citizens that made the greatest impact. My impression of the concert's emphasis has been that one could go and listen to all the songs and artists, be personally gratified by the free musical entertainment, get a little piqued a the governments of wealthy nations, and yet leave feeling little personal responsibility to help. It seems to me that this is reinforced by the concert's barring of charities seeking to raise funds for relief in these countries.
Fifth, the concert obviously ignores the deepest need of these nations- their spiritual need. These countries are buried beneath a great poverty of soul. They need to experience the grace of God that brings salvation. "How shall they hear without a preacher?" asked Paul in the book of Romans. I pray that God might move in the hearts of His people that we might see and be moved by not only the physical poverty of the needy in our world, but also be moved by their spiritual poverty. May such concern be not merely grounded in our emotions for the people of these nations, but by the overwhelming desire to see the glories of our Saviour's name spread through all the earth abroad! May God send a multitude to these needy areas with the burning passion to display the supremacy of Christ. Perhaps these impoverished souls will see in them the surpassing glory of Christ as Christains give of themselves to clothe and feed and care for the downcast, not seeking their own personal comfort. I am not suggesting that these activites be performed apart from the passionate proclamation of the Gospel, but that the Gospel be lived out before the needy visually as it proclaimed to them verbally. And may God use the efforts of His servants to magnify His surpassing glory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
