While on vacation I started to read Tim Keller’s most recent book Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power and the Only Hope that Matters.  Yes, that is a long subtitle.  You’d think a Puritan wrote this book.

Others have tackled these topics, like Richard Foster in Money, Sex and Power.  But Tim Keller, for better or worse, frames it historically in light of the failure of many of these false gods in the economic crisis most of the world is experiencing.

This is an excellent book, though I am not sure it measures up to The Prodigal God.  Few books do.  This is a subject Tim Keller handles very well.

Some have been critical of the new, prevailing notion of idolatry as if it takes the place of sin.   Keller argues that the idea of idolatry makes more sense than the idea of sin (in this world of relativism).  Beyond that he refers to Luther’s point that idolatry is the root of sin rather than just being one of many sins.  So what Keller is doing here is trying to get to the root of our sin, the many false gods that we serve.

In the Old Testament (and New) idolatry was often (but not exclusively) the worship of created things.  At times it is also the attempt to be God.  Idolatry was  a huge problem for Israel, and Israel’s prophets spent much of their time addressing this problem.  I am currently reading Ezekiel, and Israel’s idolatry was the reason given for the exile.  All this to say that Keller is not undermining biblical theology- rather he is mining it richly.

Keller comes across as winsome and inviting, even as he gives you bad news about yourself and your heart.  He explores a biblical story to explain and illustrate how that false god operates in a person’s life.  He tackles love, money, success, and power & glory as the main false gods of our culture.  These are the things from which we often derive our identity.  And when you threaten someone’s idol, you get one angry person.

We watched the movie Deck the Halls the other night.  Finch (Matthew Broderick) bases much of his identity in being “Mr. Christmas”.  It is “his holiday” and he plans many of the communities events.  When Buddy (Danny DeVito) moves across the street, he inadvertently attacks Finch’s idolatry in his quest to make his own mark.  The new neighbors go to war with each other.  It is all about the counterfeit gods the men were serving.

Keller does not stop with merely discussing how idols work and our primary idols.  He has a chapter on the hidden idols in our lives.  Lastly he points to the end of counterfeit gods through the gospel.  He simplifies Thomas Chalmers’ sermon about the purifying power of a greater affection.

Jesus must become more beautiful to your imagination, more attractive to your heart, than your idol.  That is what will replace your counterfeit gods.  If you uproot the idol and fail to “plant” the love of Christ in its place, the idol will grow back.

Keller takes a profound and important message and conveys it simply and provocatively.  His gentleness is evident, but he does not back down from the truth.  Rather, unlike some he speaks it in love.

Tim Keller has given us another important, interesting and insightful book.  I am grateful for this.  I hope to begin giving this away since it hits the heart of every person I meet.  As Calvin notes, we are all idol factories.  But Jesus seeks to make us “praise factories” in response.

While we were engaged, CavWife and I discussed any number of things.  One of them being… Christmas.  We both wanted to de-emphasize gifts for the kids to try and keep the focus on Jesus.  We are not anti-Santa, as though he were demonic or anything.  It was just that we know the human heart, and it is covetous.

So, we really haven’t talked about Santa with the kids either way.  He shows up in a few stories we read to them.  We have not stopped and said, “now kids, you know Santa…”.  We’ve sort of let sleeping dogs lie.

Fastforward to CavGirl’s dentist appointment this week.  The hygenist brings the kids back alone for the first part of the appointment.  That was when the small talk happened, and Pandora’s Box was opened, never to be closed again.

I came back to meet with the dentist and hygenist.  The dentist asks about what she wants from Santa.  Did she send him a list?  “We really don’t emphasize Santa.”

The hygenist chips in, “she wants a Barbie.”  I’m sensing implanted memories here, because she doesn’t have a Barbie, and has NEVER asked for a Barbie.

After we get home, she keeps wondering what Santa will bring- as if her parents and grandparents don’t come through for her.  Once or twice she mentions  “she of the outlandish, impossible figure”- Barbie.

The seed of covetousness found fertile soil in her heart.  Discontent may now set in.  There may be drama, crying and whining.  These people assume everyone in America is all about Santa, and now may have tainted our family celebration.  I might be bummed.  But I know that I do have to pray that covetousness will die in their hearts, and mine.

I’ve reviewed some specific sections and issues from Andrew Farley’s The Naked Gospel.  He wrote the book in order to relieve people from the bondage of legalism which can come from misunderstanding the gospel.  That is a great thing.  But Farley seems to misunderstand the gospel in a different way.

He begins the book by inviting theological discussion.  Theological disputation is an important thing, but it must be done properly.  Where Farley, and his book,  ultimately fails is how he pursues theological disputation.

His book is filled with exegetical and hermeneutical errors.  Texts are often taken out of context.  His method of interpretation is profoundly flawed. He ignores texts that may have something to say about his points.  When talking about how we won’t stand before God at the Great White Throne, he tosses out Matthew 25 due the fact that it took place before the Cross.  Nor does he refer to Romans 14:9-12.

9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.  10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.  11 It is written: ”‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.’”  12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.

He fails to make theological distinctions which are of great importance.  As a result of this, he has a one-size fits all approach.  For him, all roads lead to justification.  One of my professors, Richard Pratt, often told us that you have to use the right medicine from the medicine cabinet.  We are to rightly diagnose the problem, and then give them the proper practical theology to address that problem.  If you have heart problems, taking medication for erectile dysfunction can be deadly.  There is no one medicine for all problems.  The gospel has many elements to it (regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, glorification etc.), and we must give them the proper one.  To offer the medication of justification when they have a sanctification problem is part of what keeps Christians in immaturity.

Another problem that disturbed me was the consistent use of the straw man argument.  Farley consistently portrays those with whom he disagrees in the worst possible light.  For example, he hones in on those who think we must confess our sins (post-conversion) and that the Spirit convicts us.

Convict means “to find guilty.”  Within a judicial system, conviction is followed by sentencing and then punishment.  Inside the word conviction is the term we usually reserve for a person who is incarcerated- a convict.  So should the verb convict be used to describe interaction between the Holy Spirit and children of God?  Probably not.

He’s right, IF that is the only meaning and intended use of the word.  As a professor of applied linguistics, you would think he would know this and explain this.  But he stacks the deck so his view sounds reasonable and the other view does not.

One definition of convict is to make aware of one’s sinfulness and guilt.  As a Christian, I remain sinful (Farley would disagree) and do wrong things (he’d agree).  The Spirit convicts me, in part, but making me aware of my wrong-doing in specific areas.  He is not condemning me, but humbling me and leading me to repentance (most of the churches are told to repent in Revelation 2-3).  Moreover, conviction can refer to a firm or fixed belief.  The Spirit convicts us in that sense too.  He established firm and fixed belief in us about what the Bible teaches and how we are to apply it.  These are the ways in which most Christians use these words- not in the way Farley claims.

As a result, this book- while well-intentioned- can do much harm to those lacking a sufficient biblical theological background to make the distinctions that Pastor Farley fails to make.  I hate sounding like a nit-picky, fault-finding guy.  But this book presents too many problems on too many fronts.

I’ve noted other books that may be of good use in understanding regeneration and justification.  A book that may be of good use in understanding sanctification is Walter Marshall’s The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification.  It is built on the reality of our union with Christ.  So, in some ways it is what Farley tries to do without the many theological errors that Farley embraces.  We do live out our new identity in Christ, being assured of His love for us due to the substitutionary death of Christ.   This would be a more fruitful use of one’s time and money.

Joseph is one of the forgotten men of Scripture.  Matthew’s Gospel is the only source we have for information about this pivotal man.  He is one of the links in the chains of God’s providence without which we have no Messiah, no Savior, no hope, no peace with God or one another.  Joseph … how can we not be thankful for Joseph?

Joseph is called a righteous man, and as a result he was going to divorce a mysteriously pregnant Mary.  We can see that his righteousness is like that of Abraham, who trusted God, instead of the Pharisees who sought to put God in their debt with their goodness.

They were betrothed, which in that day meant you were as good as married.  It was not broken off without just cause, and sexual indecency of some sort was about the only just cause.  It appeared that Mary had either been unfaithful, or raped.  Joseph sought to put her away quietly.  He did not want her exposed to severe penalties.  He was compassionate as well as righteous.

But here we find the first of many relevatory dreams Joseph receives.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.  21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:  23 “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”—which means, “God with us.”   24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.  25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The message is inconceivable.  A child by the Holy Spirit?  Unheard of.  Even Abraham’s child of promise was conceived the old fashioned way.  It was a miracle, though it used ordinary processes.  This was a different order of miracle- for this promised Son was to be the Savior.

We see the rest of the pattern in that Joseph woke up and obeyed.  He trusted God, just as Abraham did.  He then did as God said, just as Abraham did.  We see something of the nature of saving faith here.  It is not content to receive revelation, but also believes that revelation and acts upon it appropriately.  Joseph’s life will never be the same.  By faith he will raise a child that is not his, as if it was his.  By faith he resists the temptation to take the easy path and abandon Mary and Jesus.  To do so would have been to place them at great, perhaps mortal, risk.

Some time after Jesus’ birth (perhaps as long as 2 years) Joseph received another dream.  This after a visit from 3 Gentiles who wanted to pay homage to Jesus as Messiah, in fulfillment of God’s promises to Abraham & David (see Matthew 1:1 which alludes to Genesis 15 & 2 Samuel 7).  Herod fears any threat to his authority, and sends the army to slaughter all the male children under 2.  But Jesus is gone, safe, long before they arrive.

13 When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. “Get up,” he said, “take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.” 14 So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt,  15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Another dream, and more faith and obedience.  The dragon (Rev. 13) stirred up Herod to destroy this threat to their rule.  A simple carpenter stood in the way.  He was not a warrior as in the first Terminator movie.  Joseph does not fight back against insurmountable odds.  He does as God said, fleeing to Egypt.  If Joseph does not act in faith, Jesus is among the many children slaughtered by a demonically incensed King.

After Herod’s death, Joseph has another dream.  Once again he obeys, and they return to Israel.  But another threat to Jesus’ life emerges.  Joseph is afraid of Archelaus, who apparently like his infamous father.  Joseph is warned in a dream (this time we are not given the content of the dream).  But Joseph is again obedient by faith.  He brings his family to Nazareth, to live in obscurity in  a despised region filled with Gentiles as well as Jews.

Joseph often gets lost in the Christmas story.  He’s the odd man out it would seem.  Yet, his role was just as important as Mary’s.  But it cost him so much more.  It was not his child- but he believed Jesus was to be his Savior & Messiah.  So this man stood in the gap- standing between Him and danger human (religious & secular) and spiritual.  Take a moment to ponder this man of faith, and thank God for his vital role in God’s providential mercy & grace.

It has been a strange offseason for baseball to say the least.  There have been some surprising turn of events.  It has not turned out as expected by many experts, agents and players.

Last year the Yankees spent tons of money on 3 players.  Due to the economy, and fears of a prolonged recession, many players did not get big contracts, or long contracts.  Bobby Abreu, for instance, took a cheap (by baseball standards) one-year contract with the Angels.  He had a very productive year which he leveraged into a good contract.

Experts and agents expected big money to be tossed at players like Chone Figgens, Matt Holliday, Jason Bay, Adrian Beltre and John Lackey.  That really hasn’t materialized as expected.

Figgens got a good deal from Seattle, but not quite what many expected from a guy who showed himself a very good defender and lead-off hitter.  It happened fairly quickly as the Mariners began a process of remaking the team.  Figgens essentially replaced Beltre, who is asking for another rich contract.  Like many Scott Boras clients, Beltre sits waiting for the promised big deal that doesn’t seem to be materializing since Scott can’t create competition for his client’s services.   If the Red Sox back off of Beltre because he’s asking too much, most teams are probably hanging up on Boras.

Seattle has brought in Cliff Lee to join King Felix as an incredible 1-2 punch at the top of the order.  They added a bat by trading away the disappointing Silva for the tempestuous Milton Bradley hoping that Ken Griffey can chill him out.

The Red Sox moved relatively quietly and quickly.  Many people expected them to sign Scutaro, which they did.  But Lackey was a bit of a surprise and the public part of that deal was very short.  It was nearly over before people found out.  It was quickly followed by Mike Cameron joining their outfield.  They shifted to better pitching and defense- leaving Holliday and Bay (both of whom turned down offers in the hopes of better deals) without the necessary suitors needed to drive up their price.

A failed attempt to trade the aging Mike Lowell may create problems for the Red Sox.  If his hip has healed his defense may be better than his last in the majors effort last season.  It was not a lack of heart or effort on Lowell’s part.  His body betrayed him.  But now they have to pay $12 million to a guy who may not be able to offer them much (the Phillies have to ecstatic he turned down their longer, bigger offer to return to the Red Sox).  As a result, the Sox have less money for a bullpen, and some serious questions entering 2010.

The big surprise is the number of Scott Boras clients waiting for deals that may not materialize.  Johnny Damon priced himself out of New York with exorbitant demands.  He is now close to having to beg for a contract.  No one seems too hot after Beltre with his $10-13 million price tag.  Essentially St. Louis is negotiating against itself for Holliday.  Why they have not played hardball with him is beyond me.  No one else seems to be bidding for his services.

Jason Bay also made the mistake of demanding more years and dollars than would be prudent at this point.  The Red Sox made what they thought was a fair offer.  Rejected, they moved on.  Bay is left with the Mets, who have a park that plays against Bay.  It exposes his weaknesses and works against his strengths.  That big left field will create production problems which will create media and fan problems if he takes their offer.  But he seems to be holding out for something more.  The Mets, on the other hand, have no reason to offer more.  No one else seems engaged with his agent.

What we see is more of what happened last year, expect for the Yankees spending lots of money.  Lackey got Burnett money, not Sabbathia money.  Burnett was the guy who got the least amount of money from the Yankees.  I think that is the biggest contract this off-season.

Contracts are contracting both in terms of dollars and years.  The market is correcting itself, just as we see in much of America.  That an agent as smart as Scott Boras didn’t see this coming is surprising.  He has let down a number of clients.  His luster may have vanished (one can only hope).  Sanity may be restored to baseball over the course of the next few year.  We’ll see.

I really appreciated the perspective on leadership presented in Roger Parrott’s book The Longview.  I found it helpful to better understand my role as a leader and to avoid many of the traps that undermine leaders or waste their time with unnecessary work.

The B&B Media Group provided me with a copy of the book.  And they just provided a brief interview with the author about the book.  Here you go:

Many of today’s ministries suffer from a near-sighted vision.  Too often leaders choose easy solutions over principled, long-term strategies.  The results can be devastating, as ignored issues become full-blown crises, and small problems become big challenges.

The Longview (David C Cook, October 2009) is a fresh approach to leadership that will transform how readers make decisions and address problems.  Author Dr. Roger Parrott offers proven, practical principles drawn from scripture and his renowned career in educational leadership.  Parrott issues readers a timely challenge: Defy the trends of short-sighted goal-making for quick returns by learning to lead for long-term significance.

Do we have a leadership void today?

The problem is not that we don’t have great leaders, in fact, we’ve probably never had more educationally well prepared leaders than we have today.  The problem is that leaders are caught in an ever tightening vice grip of unrealistic expectations that pressure them into valuing turn-around over transformation. Today’s leaders are expected to find simple solutions to complex problems, and because these quick-fixes only hold for a short time, leaders from presidents to pastors disappoint those they are leading.

I believe this pattern started in American culture in the 1980s with the quest to get rich quick from junk bonds and buy outs, through the dot.coms in the 1990s, and the explosion of “want it now” credit card debt and built into the real-estate frenzy created by leveraged speculators in the past decide.  So leaders have been reared, tutored, and equipped to operate in a world that prizes immediate results over lasting significance.

For three decades skyrocketing incentives have been the norm for all manner of short-term producers—from stockbrokers to college coaches—as leaders at every level have indoctrinated us to believe immediate gains trump long-term consequences. This nearsightedness is eroding the foundational underpinnings of organizational quality and severely handicapping the effectiveness of leaders who are robbing the future to pay for today.

How did the Church become caught up on a short view approach and what are the consequences?

As we often do in the Church, we’ve followed the pattern of the world – in this case, the best of business and organizational teaching – but in mimicking the leadership patters of business and politics, we’ve strayed from the Longview leadership model given to us by Jesus.  Because this short view corporate culture has so permeated the church today, we in ministry have loosened our grip on the biblical model for leadership. We have grown to expect and even demand an ever-increasing cycle of measureable and immediate results from our leaders.

Our theology and our ministry passion draw us to talk about Longview outcomes as our heart’s desire, but we have been duped into fostering a generation of leaders, board members, employees, and constituencies who value short-term gain over Longview significance. Ministry leaders believe it and act accordingly—hiring and rewarding people who can promote Band-Aid fixes as monumental solutions, creating plans that promise the moon and always come up short, raising funds from unrealistically compressed donor relationships, and touting those results that can most easily be measured and applauded.

Why do you believe rising leaders are the generation who will value a Longview approach to leadership?

For three reasons I’m convinced this new generation of leaders are ready to embrace Longview leadership:

1.      They know the short view doesn’t work. This is likely to be the first generation that has not had a quality of life better than their parents.  And they know the reason is we are not dealing with Longview solutions in the macro problems of health care, terrorism, energy, and the economy. And they will be the ones to pay the price for patchwork fixes.

2.      They are connected to huge networks of real people through social networking, and listen to them rather than public relations messages – and they know from their peers that sugarcoating a problem doesn’t make it go away.

3.      This new generation of leaders is much more focused on mission significance and problem solving than on organizational stature and position climbing. They want to make a difference in the world, and they are willing to dig into problems to find lasting solutions.

The challenge for younger leaders is that they have never been given the tools to lead in a Longview pattern.  So the book is not just a call to Longview leadership, but mostly is deals with the everyday nitty-gritty issues of leadership from a Longview perspective.

Stay tuned for more….

Yes, I can’t believe I had to type in 2010.  Only one more year to go, or is it 2?  I plan to be preaching for some time as God displays His patience and graciously calls people to repent and believe the Great New about His Son and Jesus’ work on the behalf of sinners.

January 17 Desert Springs Presbyterian Church Colossians 1:28-29  Messiah is the Message

January 24 Frostproof ARP Church  Colossians 1:28-29  Messiah is the Message

(Subject to change in accordance with the providence of God)

Photo by Stuart Cahill

It is becoming most likely that both Jason Bay and Mike Lowell will be spending 2010 someplace other than Boston.  The left side of the field may see a complete turnover.  What gives?

Two words: offense, defense.

Defense: Lowell’s hip injury made him one of the worst 3rd basemen in baseball.  His recovery may be complete now, and he may do better next year.  But the run differential there was just too big.   The Red Sox decided they could not take the risk.  If you have great pitchers, why give the opposition some free hits?  Lowell, sadly not the defender he once was, was doing just that.

Bay’s defense was average at best.  He was better than Manny Ramirez, but that is not saying much.  One reason Texiera got so much money is that he was an elite hitter AND fielder.  Bay’s estimate of his value (greatly jaded by his agent no doubt) is overestimated, in part due to a failure to recognize his shortcomings in the field.

Offense: Both Lowell and Bay love to pull the ball.  That is a great strategy in Fenway Park.  It has that short left field.  But that strategy doesn’t always play well elsewhere.  A basehit in Fenway (thanks to that Wall) is an out in many other parks.  This was the problem Theo was talking about after the Red Sox wilted against the Angels.  Theo wants a more balanced offense to widen that run differential.  With better defense, and guys who can hit at Fenway and away from Fenway, they will get more wins and more easily.

Though these two guys are good/great teammates, and play hard each and every night, their shortcomings created problems for the Red Sox.  Those shortcomings led to their quick playoff exit.  Theo is in the process of addressing those shortcomings.  It may be painful now, but perhaps it will be a great relief later.

Update: we could include health.  Lowell’s issues are well documented.  But the Red Sox have reservations about Bay’s knee and shoulder which may have affected his game mid-season.

The 4th part of The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley is called Burning Matryoshkas, but the basic content is about justification and regeneration.  In this section Farley displays another aspect of a hyper-dispensationalist  method of interpretation- literalism.  The result is some profound distortions of the doctrines of justification and regeneration, and their effect on sanctification.

Properly understood, a literal method should take figures of speech, metaphor, genre and more into account to proper understand the author’s intention.  Literalism often ignores these literary tools, thereby distorting the author’s intention.

He attacks the view that our justification is positional.  He never really defines justification, but as he discusses it we find a fundamental rejection of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the foundation of our justification.

“God’s plan was actually an exchange of nature. … People who place their faith in Christ undergo a miraculous exchange at the center of their being.  Who they were in Adam is no longer there.  They become a new person, a child of God who is in Christ.  The key event causing this exchange is a death, burial and resurrection with Christ.  This miraculous exchange is not figurative or symbolic but literal and actual.  The spiritual part of every Christian has literally and actually been crucified, buried, and raised with Christ.”

In Paul’s writings we find the concept of being “in Christ”.  We enjoy a spiritual union with Him.  Since he is our representative, instead of Adam, all that happened to Him happened to us.  When Jesus literally died and rose again, He did it as our Substitute so we receive the benefits of His actions.  In Romans 4, one of the key phrases Paul quotes from Genesis is that Abraham’s faith was “credited to him as righteousness.”  Justification is the removal of our guilt (imputed to Christ at His death) and the imputation of His obedience to us.  Though we are not personally righteous, His righteousness is credited to all who believe.  Luther would say we are “at the same time just and sinners.”

“We find it difficult to grasp the idea that God calls us righteous because we actually are righteous. … But we’ve been perfectly cleansed.  And we’ve been made perfectly righteous at our core through spiritual surgery.  This is the only reason we can enjoy even a moment of relationship with Jesus Christ.”

So Farley essentially holds to a view of justification that is about infusion (instantaneously, unlike the Roman Catholic view) rather than imputation.  He is conflating justification and regeneration.  As a result, he distorts both justification and regeneration (and sanctification).

“I believe that Romans 6, for example, should be read in the same way we read the rest of the epistle- in a literal sense.”

This would seem strange to Paul who says we were baptized, or identified with,  into His death.  Paul sees baptism as a sign, but Farley sees it as imparting a spiritual reality meaning my old man died, was buried and raised in my baptism.  Not that I partake of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but that I really died, was buried and raised.  Later on he will make a big deal about the phrase “count or consider yourselves dead to sin”(6:11).  This is the same verb found in Romans 4 regarding Abraham’s faith considered as righteousness.  In Romans 4 it is in the past, here in the present.

He wants us to know that it is not we who sin- we are no longer sinners but have a completely new nature.  The flesh is merely a spiritual parasite.  But if you want to be literal with Paul, he literally says “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”  So, am I alive or dead?  I’m confused.

Farley argues that we are perfectly good and righteous (not positionally, actually).  We continue to struggle because of the power of sin and the flesh.  We fail to live out our new identity because we don’t understand how free we really are.  The flesh uses the Law to promote sin, and has many a wrong desire.  But the flesh isn’t me, I’m not a sinner (so much for Paul calling himself the “greatest sinner” in the present tense, 1 Timothy 1:15).   He ends up taking Romans 7:14ff as pre-conversion, even though there is a shift in from past tense to present tense at that point.  This is used to say Christians shouldn’t struggle with sin.  As before, the Law has nothing to do with sanctification, and neither to we.  He quotes Philippians 1:6, but forgets to hold it in balance with Philippians 2:12-13.

6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. … 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,  13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (NIV)

His passivism finds no place in Philippians 2.  Paul continues to  ground our activity in grace- for God works in me so I will will and work.  He sounds much like a hyper-Calvinist here (yes, a plethora of errors).  He views sanctification as monergistic rather than synergistic.

“We must realize that saying no to sin is not saying no to ourselves.  As God’s workmanship, our regenerated selves are not the problem.  Sin is the problem, and our calling as new creations in Christ is to say no to sin and to say yes to who we truly are.”

Sounds great, but aren’t we to “purify ourselves” as John says all who have this hope do (1 John 3:3)?  What we find is that this is the proverbial “tar baby”.  As a Reformed Christian, I understand that all doctrines are connected to one another in the gospel.  You can’t mess with one without messing up others.  It snowballs on you.  The snowball effect here makes this book a frustrating read.  Every time I turn a page it seems like I’m encountering another problem.

I understand that Andrew Farley is frustrated by much of what passes for Christianity in America today.  I am too.  But rather than embrace a tried and true theological heritage, he descends into obscure and distorted/distorting views.

Andrew Farley would do himself (and us) a great big favor by reading Piper’s book Finally Alive! and Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in its Four-fold State to understand the true nature of regeneration.  He’d find that our regeneration is indeed total, in this sense: every aspect of our being has been changed.  It is imperfect in this life.  It is not just our bodies that will be glorified, but we will finally be like Him (though we’re becoming like Him) only when we see Him face to face (1 John 3:2).

I had been blogging through parts of The Longview: Lasting Strategies for Rising Leaders.  But then I became distracted from this very good book by a very bad book.  So I’m back with a less extensive review of this very good book by Roger Parrott.

I am not typically fond of books on leadership.  Particularly by Christians.  They tend to avoid the reality of the flesh which makes leading difficult in so many ways.

This is a book I wish was written long ago, for I found I could have used this book about 10 years ago.  I’ve made many of the mistakes he tackles.  I also found some of his advice counter-cultural, and more helpful than what you usually hear.

His basic premise is to lead like you’ll never leave.  This means forsaking leadership by the immediate, short-term focus which leads to a never-ending series of new ministry models.  The short-term success can often set you up for a long-term failure.

As this unfolds throughout the book, he discusses the problem of ego which can undermine a leader.  It does because it shifts vision from God’s purposes to the leader’s agenda, undermines team work and people just don’t like to be near the Big Ego.

One of the more interesting chapters had to do with long-range planning.  Parrott sees this as a sure way to sink your ministry.  After years of leadership he looked back at all the long-range planning he had done.  The results were not worth the energy, and the plans did not even remotely anticipate how their circumstances would change.  He is not against planning, but wants to shift to more reasaonable endeavors than 10 year plans and the like.  His plan is to identify stewardship opportunities (being faithful), operational planning (how we’ll get essential tasks done well), opportunity tracking (taking note of unexpected opportunities).  At times you will indentify an important opportunity which you will then plan to benefit from.

He offers many more important ideas in this book, and uses ordinary illustrations to show us the importance of those ideas.  I may not be a “rising leader” but this  book will stayon my desk to help me stay on track.  So, if you are a young church leader, this is one of the books you’ll want to read.