Considering Total Church

I’ve come across Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and Community via the internet.  A growing number of church planters are utilizing the concept.  Steve Timmis, one of the authors of the book, is the new director of Acts 29 Europe.  The San Diego Church Planters’ Boot Camp, hosted by Kaleo, was on Total Church.  I’ve begun to listen, and just borrowed the book from a friend.

The concept is intriguing to me.  The church is a gospel-formed community of people being gospel-shaped.  They have a community-centered understanding of the gospel, which runs counter to the individualistic mindset of most Christians and churches today.  I’d like to consider the relationship between the gospel, community and mission more thoroughly.  It seems less like the “latest, greatest program” or method, but an attempt to return to the power of the gospel, and the emphases of the gospel.

Here is an interview with Tim Chester on Desiring God Ministries blog:

DG: Tim, what do you and Steve Timmis mean by the title Total Church?

Tim Chester: The phrase is actually adapted from the world of football (or soccer in the States!). “Total football” was a style of play associated with the Dutch international side in the 1970s.

“Total church” is our way of capturing the idea that church is not one activity in our lives. Church isn’t a meeting you attend or a building your enter. It’s our identity, our community, our family.  It’s the context for the totality of the Christian life.

DG: How would you summarize the message of the book?

TC: Total Church argues for two core principles: We need to be gospel-centered and community-centered.

Being gospel-centered means we’re word-centered (because the gospel is a message; it is good news), and it means being mission-centered (because the gospel is a message to be proclaimed; it is good news).

I think most conservative evangelicals are strong on this. But we also need to be community-centered. The Christian community is the biblical context for evangelism, discipleship, pastoral care, social involvement, and so on. That doesn’t mean meetings. It means the shared life of the community.

One of our catchphrases is “ordinary people living ordinary life with gospel intentionality.” It means doing the chores, having meals, watching sports, and so on with an intention to talk about Jesus, to pastor one another with the gospel, and to share that gospel with unbelievers.

DG: At several points in the book, you mention the value of hospitality. Do you see this virtue as lacking in the church today, and is there is an especially significant need for it in the 21st-century church?

TC: Here’s what I think is the key issue. In the book, we tell the story of a young man who invited us to do some street preaching with him. When we said it wasn’t really the way we did things, he clearly doubted our courage and commitment.

We began to talk instead about a whole life lived in mission and community, in which we were always looking to build relationships and always looking to talk about Jesus. By the end of the conversation, he admitted he wasn’t sure if he was up for that.

He wanted evangelism you could do for two hours on a Saturday afternoon and then switch off. Tick. Job done for the week. He didn’t want a missional lifestyle.

I think that’s the issue with hospitality. People want to put church and evangelism into a slot in the schedule. But we need to be sharing our lives with others—with shared meals and open homes. That can be demanding, but it’s also wonderfully enriching.

Read Full Post »

Considering Responsibility and Control

My friend, the Jollyblogger, has been commenting on his unexpected journey as a cancer patient.  He says some very good things about what he has learned and the difficulty he has experienced.

One thing he mentions is the realization that so much is out of your hands.  We like to think we are control of large parts of our destiny (I’ve taken too many tests for job openings that expect you to answer that success is the result of ONLY hard work).  I can identify with that sense of powerlessness, that lack of control, in my own set of circumstances.  Mine are different- I’m not facing the possibility of death.  But there are some incredibly unattractive alternatives encircling me.

I have little to no control over the outcomes as I search for a new position.  My fate, seemingly, is in the hands of others.  I can’t control pastoral search committees.  I can’t control human resource departments.  I appear to be at the mercy of other sinners who are just as inconsistent as myself.

I’m not called to be in control, but to be responsible.  Surely, no search committee will call me to be their pastor if I don’t apply for that position.  The same goes locally as I attempt to make ends meet while searching for a new pastorate.  I must take the time to fill out forms, send out e-mails, look on the internet.  I must then WAIT (and wait, and wait- while continuing to follow other leads).

Read Full Post »

Considering Gospel Humility

I was pondering this from A Gospel Primer for Christians yesterday.

“According to Scripture, God deliberately designed the gospel in such a way as to strip me of pride and leave me without any grounds for boasting in myself whatsoever.  This is actually a wonderful mercy from God, for pride is at the root of all my sin.  … Therefore, if I am to experience deliverance from sin, I must be delivered from the pride that produces it.  Thankfully, the gospel is engineered to accomplish this deliverance.

Preaching the gospel to myself each day mounts a powerful assault against my pride and serve to establish humility in its place.  Nothing suffocates my pride more than daily reminders regarding the glory of my God, the gravity of my sins, and the crucifixion of God’s own Son in my place.  Also, the gracious love of God, lavished on me because of Christ’s death, is always humbling to remember, especially when viewed against the backdrop of the Hell I deserve.”

He points to a few important ways that the gospel undercuts my pride, which is a source of many/most of my sins.  My sin was so awful that its forgiveness required the death of God’s own Son.  Yet He loved me in my unloveable condition.  My pride & His gracious love put Jesus on the Cross.  I have nothing about which to boast- except Christ.

“Pride wilts in the atmosphere of the gospel; and the more pride is mortified within me, the less frequent are my moments of sinful contention with God and with others.  Conversely, humility grows lushly in the atmosphere of the gospel, and the more humility flourishes within me, the more I experience God’s grace along with the strengthening His grace provides.  Additionally, such humility intensifies my passion for God and causes my heart increasingly to thrill whenever He is praised.”

You can tell whether the gospel is being preached and believed or not by the level of pride and demandingness in a congregation or person’s life.  This is part of the problem with Joel Osteen (and other prosperity teachers).  They demand things from God that He has not promised.  Their doctrines promote pride and selfishness- which are diametrically opposed to the sound living produced by sound doctrine in accordance with the gospel.

It is this pride which drives the fights and battles we find in James 4.  They have made good things ultimate things (as Keller would say).  The cure is to humble yourself before God.  The gospel is God’s means to humble us (and how it plays out in providence).  As humbled people, we submit to God rather than clamor for our way.  We become gentle as we plead for others to submit to God’s way.

I suspect we could all use more gospel humility.

Read Full Post »

Review: The Prodigal God

Tim Keller’s The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith is a much needed book.  I needed to read it, and I can see how many in the churches I’m familiar with need to read it as well.  It is short, well-written, well-illustrated and keeps pointing the reader to Christ.  What more could you want?

Tim uses the Parable of the Lost Sons to examine the heart of the the Christian message.  He examines the Parable in the context of his audience in Luke 15.  He also compares and contrasts it with the parables that precede it (the lost sheep and the lost coin), to get the message ‘right’.  And that message is that both sons were lost- one thru license and the other thru legalism.  While we see the licentious brother return home (much like the sinners how heard Jesus and placed their trust in Him), while the elder brother resents the father’s grace (much like the Pharisees who were listening).  We just aren’t sure how he responds, so the question bounces back on all those elder brothers- will you enter the joy of the Father or maintain your ‘rights’ and sit alone and angry?

In this process Keller redefines both sin and lostness (as I’ve addressed in a previous post).  He doesn’t redefine so much as deepen our understanding of these concepts, expanding them so we can recognize how easily we can sin and appreciate our tendency to wander back into self-reliance.

Keller points us to the True Elder Brother, Jesus, who left the Father’s side to seek and save the lost.  We can only return home because He left, and lost His life.  This helps us to redefine, or deepen our understanding of, hope.  This hope culminates in the Feast of the Father- a picture of heavenly celebration.

In the process, Keller draws upon the thinking of Jonathan Edwards, C.S. Lewis and Martin Luther among others.  The last is particularly important since Luther understood too well that legalism is the default mode for most of us.  We quickly lapse back into the sins of the elder brother (pride, self-righteousness, lack of compassion).  He illustrates with movies (both popular and obscure) as well as novels that have captured people’s attention through the years.

So I found the book to be both convicting and comforting, humbling and encouraging.  Yes, big sinner.  Yes, bigger Savior who continues to change my heart so it resembles His.  This quote is one from the final chapter gives us something to chew on:

I have explained in this book why churches- and all religious institutions- are often so unpleasant.  They are filled with elder brothers.  Yet staying away from them simply because they have elder brothers is just another form of self-righteousness.  Besides that, there is no way you will be able to grow spiritually apart from a deep involvement in a community of other believers.  You can’t live the Christian life without a band of Christian friends, without a family of believers in which you find a place.

This is Keller’s hope- to transform the church and society as we recognize our frequent relapses into self-righteousness and rely more fully and completely on the only Savior- Jesus.  I think this is must reading for pastors, church leaders and ordinary Christians.  It is accessible to all- so don’t shilly-shally (as Steve Brown would say) and drink deep and drink often.

Read Full Post »

Considering Sin and Lostness

I’m not sure if enjoying is the right word.  I guess the right word would be benefitting.  I am greatly benefitting from my reading of The Prodigal God by Tim Keller.  He is able to expand on some ideas found in his sermons on the Parable of the Lost Sons.  He develops a better understanding of both sin and lostness.

We tend to tie sin in with rebellion- which it is.  But sin is craftier than that.  It can look like obedience!

It is not his sins that create the barrier between him and his father, it’s the pride he has in his moral record; it’s not his wrongdoing but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast of the father.

His obedience produces a pride that keeps him apart from his father and younger brother.  Sin can work thru “obedience” to keeps us from Christ and His people.  We seek to save ourselves.  This is the work of the religious fanatic Martin Luther said lives in each of us, the default of our hearts, trying to earn merit before God.

You can avoid Jesus as Savior by keeping all the moral laws.  If you do that, then you have “rights.”  God owes you answered prayer, and a good life, and a ticket to heaven when you die.  You don’t need a Savior who pardons you by free grace, for you are your own Savior.

Because sin is not just breaking the rules, it is putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord, and Judge just as each son sought to displace the authority of the father in his own life.

Keller continues to say that these 2 conditions are not equal.  It is easier for the licentious to see his sin and seek to return home.  The legalist thinks he already is home!  He is more blind to his sin because he looks so good.

What are the signs of an elder brother (legalist, self-righteous, Pharisee)?

The first sign you have an elder-brother spirit is that when your life doesn’t go as you want, you aren’t just sorrowful but deeply angry and bitter.

Keller notes this can function in 2 ways.  If I perceive I have been obedient- I am angry with God and rage against him.  If I perceive I have not been obedient- I am angry with myself and become filled with self-loathing.  Hey, been there, done that- and still take trips there.

Read Full Post »

Considering Our Prodigal Message

Started in on The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith by Tim Keller tonight.  I couldn’t wait.  I’ve heard his sermons on the Parable, but I like books.  So much easier to interact with the content. 

So I found this at the end of the first chapter:

“Jesus’ teaching consistently attracted the irreligious while offending the Bible-believing, religious people of his day.  However, in the main, our churches today do not have this effect. … The licentious and liberated or the broken and marginal avoid church.  That can only mean one thing.  If the preaching of our ministers and the practice of our parishioners do not have the same effect on people that Jesus had, then we must not be declaring the same message that Jesus did.  If our churches aren’t appealing to younger brothers, they must be more full of elder brothers than we’d like to think.

Hard to hear, but I suspect it is more true than we want to believe.  Many churches hear messages of moralism and self-help.  The broken remain broken, unable to discover the balm of the gospel.

I have ministered in “Elder Brother-ville” for lo these many years.  I know I have a tendency to be an older brother (though in my family I’m the one who wandered off the reservation only to be discovered by Jesus).  Grace just doesn’t seem to register to most church folks here.  It’s like “that’s nice, but can you give me something to do?”  They refuse to see themselves as lost and in need of rescue- they think they just need some direction and maybe a little assistance.  As a result, most churches are filled with smug, “we’re okay,” living in denial, self-righteous people.

I ponder those I “ran off” in my years of ministry here.  They fall into 2 categories: those who wanted cheap grace- acceptance without any need to change, justification with no sanctification- and those who didn’t understand how grace applied to them- the self-righteous looking for tips on being a better person, sanctification without justification.  But there was a group who “got it,” recognizing grace was for them, that God loved them despite their sin AND wanted to remake them in his image.

Pastors who play into the hands of cheap grace are often called liberals.  Pastors who play into the hands of the self-righteousness look like conservatives.  Both are missing the point of ministry, and offer people partial or false gospels.  We have to start realizing that our churches are filled with lost people- and some of that is our fault.

Read Full Post »

Following Up

In listening to some Tim Keller sermons there were a few leads I wanted to follow up. If you are like me, you might think “I really need to find that”, but aren’t really sure where to find it.

Tim is fond of mentioning Martin Luther’s Large Catechism in connection with idolatry.  I’ve been wanting to read it for myself.  I figure there is quite a bit I could learn.  Perhaps you are like me and aren’t sure where to look.  Well, it is part of the Book of Concord.  So, here is the Large Catechism.  Enjoy!

Keller also mentions a Thomas Chalmers’ sermon, The Expulsive Power of a Greater Affection, in connection to sanctification.  I’ve been wanting to read this sermon, but was not aware of any Thomas Chalmers’ collections.  He’s not the most famous of the Puritans.  Thank God for the internet.  Someone has put The Expulsive Power of a Greater Affection online.  Justin Taylor notes how Sinclair Ferguson makes use of this same sermon.

Sometimes we make the mistake of substituting other things for it. Favorites here are activity and learning. We become active in the service of God ecclesiastically (we gain the positions once held by those we admired and we measure our spiritual growth in terms of position achieved); we become active evangelistically and in the process measure spiritual strength in terms of increasing influence; or we become active socially, in moral and political campaigning, and measure growth in terms of involvement. Alternatively, we recognize the intellectual fascination and challenge of the gospel and devote ourselves to understanding it, perhaps for its own sake, perhaps to communicate it to others. We measure our spiritual vitality in terms of understanding, or in terms of the influence it gives us over others. But no position, influence, or evolvement can expel love for the world from our hearts. Indeed, they may be expressions of that very love.

Others of us make the mistake of substituting the rules of piety for loving affection for the Father: “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” Such disciplines have an air of sanctity about them, but in fact they have no power to restrain the love of the world. The root of the matter is not on my table, or in my neighborhood, but in my heart. Worldliness has still not been expelled.

The basic point is that our desire for particular sins will be lessened or removed only by having a greater affection for something or someone else.  We must love Jesus more than we love our favorite sins.  This is what Samuel Storms discusses at length in Pleasures Evermore.  It is what lies underneath John Piper’s Christian Hedonism.  Some great stuff- as I shared with someone caught in an addiction.  Avoiding our addiction can be a new idol- a mere replacement idol.  This person needs to meditate upon the work of Christ that he might grow in his love for Christ and be able to put this sin to death.  Otherwise we are using worldly means to deal with our sinful desires and habits.

Read Full Post »

Considering Triperspectival Exegesis

In Joshua Harris’ Sermon Notes series, he has a copy of sermon notes by Tim Keller.  My admiration just went up a few notches, for I can not understand how in the name of all things holy Keller can preach from those notes.  They are in short-hand and don’t seem well-organized to this small mind.  But I’ll let Joshua continue:

Tim leads Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and is the author of The Reason For God. I’ve asked my friend, pastor Tullian Tchividjian who leads New City Presbyterian Church, to write an introduction for Tim:

To be a great preacher, one needs to be tri-perspectival in their exegesis. That is, they need to be committed to the exegesis of the Bible, the exegesis of our culture, and the exegesis of the human heart. Some preachers claim that if you exegete the Bible properly, you don’t need to bother yourself with the exegesis of our culture or the human heart. The problem with this view, however, is that the Bible itself exhorts us to apply Biblical norms to both our lives and to our world.

As a preacher myself, I benefit greatly from listening to a wide variety of preachers. In some cases I learn what to do, and in other cases I learn what not to do. But in every case, I learn something. Some preachers teach me how to be a better exegete of the Bible. Others teach me how to be a better exegete of our culture. And still others teach me how to be a better exegete of the human heart. But no preacher has consistently taught me how to do all three in the context of every sermon more so than Tim Keller. His balanced attention to all three forms of exegesis makes him very unique, in my opinion.

Tim knows how to unveil and unpack the truth of the Gospel from every Biblical text he preaches in such a way that it results in the exposure of both the idols of our culture and the idols of our hearts. His faithful exposition of our true Savior from every passage in the Bible painfully reveals all of the pseudo-saviors that we trust in culturally and personally. Every sermon discloses the subtle ways in which we as individuals and we as a culture depend on lesser things than Jesus to provide the security, acceptance, protection, affection, meaning, and satisfaction that only Christ can supply. In this way, he is constantly showing just how relevant and necessary Jesus is; he’s constantly proving that we are great sinners but Christ is a great Savior.

Personally, I am grateful for Tim’s friendship. His interest in me as a person and a preacher shows a side to him that many perhaps do not see. I know how busy he is and how many demands he has and yet he has always found time to talk with me, advise me, meet with me, and in a thousand other ways, help me out. So Tim, thanks for all you do and for who you are. Preach on brother—we’re all listening!

Did you catch that?  Exegeting the Text (normative), our hearts (subjective/existential) & our culture (situational/circumstantial).  Too often Reformed guys focus on the text to the exclusion of our hearts and culture.  Emergent guys can focus on the culture to the exclusion of the text.  And the wheels on the bus go round and round.  To properly understand and apply the Text we must do all three.

This past Sunday I was so overwhelmed by the Text that I didn’t exegete the culture as much as I wanted to.  And it made my sermon the poorer.  Since Nehemiah was identifying himself in solidarity with the sins of his culture.  The sins of my city are often the sins of the churches there, too.  I did some of that, but didn’t spell it out sufficiently.

Rabbit Trail: How many of you pastors are usually disappointed with your sermons on a regular basis?

Read Full Post »

Considering Deaconesses

A few years ago, the ARP was in the process of evaluating (and eventually affirming) our statement on Women in the Church when explained why we do not ordain women as elders, and why the issue of women deacons is left up to the Session of each congregation.  There are some in the ARP that strongly oppose women deacons.  One of the hang ups I identified was the word “ordained”.  In talking with some men in my Presbytery I stated we probably ought to take the stumbling block out of the way and commission deacons rather than ordain them.

With this issue briefly addressed in the PCA this summer (sadly they decided to send it back to the Presbyteries rather than study it) Tim Keller has written an article entitled The Case of Commissioning (Not Ordaining) Deaconesses.   His article explains this much better than I ever could.

This is a view that upholds male headship (complementarianism) while seeking to honestly understand Scripture on this issue.  He presents historical as well as  biblical and theological evidence that we have to deal with before making a wise decision in this matter.

I particularly like this section:

Many opponents of deaconesses today are operating out of a “decline narrative.” They claim that having deaconesses is the first step on the way to liberalism. But Jim Boice and John Piper, the RPCNA and the ARP, B.B. Warfield and John Calvin, believed in deaconing women or deaconesses. Are (or were) all these men or churches on the way to liberalism? I don’t think so. Nevertheless, one person put it to me like this recently: “Sure, the RPCNA has had women deacons for over a century. Sure, a biblical case can be made. But in our cultural climate, allowing deaconesses would be disastrous. It’s a slippery slope.”

In other words, the Bible probably allows it, but let’s not do it because of the culture. Isn’t that also responding to the culture rather than to the text? If the PCA is driven either by reaction to or adaptation to the culture, it is being controlled by the culture instead of the Word. Let’s allow presbyteries and sessions to use women in diaconal work with the freedom they have historically had in our communion.

I agree completely with Ligon Duncan when he says that the current debate in the PCA is “to determine what its complementarianism is going to look like in the future.” That’s right. His article and mine represent an intramural debate within a strong commitment to biblical complementarianism. While we argue and discuss this let’s keep that in mind.

As those who claim to be “reformed and reforming” we should not dismiss this under the accusation of feminism or liberalism.  Let’s try to work together to better understand what the Bible really does teach on this matter and how best to implement it in our communities of faith.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Last Week of Vacation

Joined at the Hip

The last week seems to be a blur.  We are now back in hot, humid Florida.  The travel day was filled with way too much whining and crying.  Seems to put a damper on a good vacation.  Returning also means a return to my responsibilities- first of which is finding a way to support my family.  Yes, puts a damper on the whole thing.  But let’s ponder more interesting things!

Here are the “highlights”.

Monday night I learned that a church has begun checking references.  This is great news!  The result of the process is not certain, but the process has begun and maybe that will result in something really positive.

Tuesday we missed Tropical Storm Fay.  Our home got plenty of rain, but we did not experience the flooding many other communities in Florida and elsewhere did.  Better than that, CavWife and I stole away for a lunch alone.  A quiet lunch!  No crying, complaining etc.  We enjoyed each other’s company and talked about a few things- including my impressions of Job this time through (2nd time in a year).

CavWife

Read Full Post »

Considering the Prodigal God

Read a brief interview with Tim Keller about his upcoming book, The Prodigal God.  They talked about the title (the subtitle has been changed).  A commenter found the use of prodigal in reference to God to be blasphemous.  Richard Pratt used the dictum that “meaning is use.”  Words have a range of meaning, so you must ask which is being used.  So, I looked up the various meanings of prodigal.

–adjective

1.	wastefully or recklessly extravagant: prodigal expenditure.

2.	giving or yielding profusely; lavish (usually fol. by of or with): prodigal of smiles; prodigal with money.

3.	lavishly abundant; profuse: nature’s prodigal resources.

–noun

4.	a person who spends, or has spent, his or her money or substance with wasteful extravagance; spendthrift.

Not all of the uses in the range of meaning imply impropriety.  How Tim Keller is using it is determinative, not how a reader interprets it (unless we all want to become literary deconstructionists, which the aforementioned critic would quickly disavow). 

God is lavish in his love and grace, far more than we his people can be.  This is the point of the parable, that God is lavish in love and mercy while we self-righteous religious folks are anything but.  We’d rather hammer a brother over our misgivings about the title of a book.  I can be the Pharisee too … I need to repeatedly hear of God’s lavishly abundant love for me, the richness of his mercy and outpouring of his grace.  So, I’m looking forward to reading about the God who left home to bring people like me home to him.

Update: Tullian Tchividjian asked Tim about it, and got a great response.

Update #2: Between 2 Worlds (Justin Taylor) reminds us of Spurgeon’s sermon on this text-  Many Kisses for Returning Sinners, or Prodigal Love for the Prodigal Son.  Love the way he uses 2 different meaning for the same word in the same sentence.  Love Spurgeon!

Read Full Post »

Band of Brothers: My Answers

To be fair, I thought I’d put down how God brought me to embrace Reformed Theology as the most consistent understanding of biblical theology.

1. What was the first book you read that introduced you to Reformed Theology?   That would be Packer’s Knowing God, though I didn’t know it at the time.  I had been a Christian for less than a year when I bought it.  It remains one of my favorites.  After I “got” Reformed Theology, I re-read Knowing God, and saw all the seeds had been sown there.  Sproul’s Chosen By God was the one that gave me words to express what I had come to believe.
2. Besides the Bible, list the five most influential books in your Reformed theological journey.  In addition to the 2 already mentioned, Martin Luther- Bondage of the Will; John Piper- Desiring God; J.I. Packer- Keep in Step with the Spirit; Jerry Bridges- Trusting God; R.C. Sproul- The Holiness of God.
3. List three preachers and/or teachers who were most influential in your journey? Prior to seminary, R.C. Sproul.  I devoured his books and audio tapes prior to going to seminary.  J.I. Packer, who joined Sproul in introducing me to the Puritans, the Reformers and Jonathan Edwards.  In seminary, I spent lots of time reading Edwards and the Puritans (particularly Burroughs, Owen & Boston).  Post-seminary it would be John Frame, Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller and Jack Miller.  Yes, I cheated.  But I affirm grace, baby.
4. If you could give one book to someone interested in Reformed theology, what book would you give them?  Probably Sproul’s Grace Unknown (I think it is now called What is Reformed Theology?) or Ferguson’s In Christ Alone.
5. What doctrine would you say distinguishes Reformed Theology?  Particular Atonement.  Packer’s intro to Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is must reading to understand how essential this doctrine is to grasping biblical Christianity, and how other theologies offer a different gospel.  This is a much understood doctrine thanks to the many straw men those opposed to it put up.  This is usually the hardest distinctive doctrine for people to accept.

Read Full Post »

Band of Brothers: Ivan Lambert

On his blog, former Ligonier co-worker Anthony Carter asked some friends of his questions for a book he’s working on.  He wants to show how some African-American Christians came to embrace Reformed Theology.  So I thought it would be interesting to ask my friends these same questions to see their answers.  Perhaps they will help some of you as you think about these things, or help others think about them.  I suspect we’ll see God using many different instruments.

The first to respond was Ivan Lambert.  Ivan and I went to RTS Orlando at the same time.  We didn’t know each other well.  We were both Calvinistic Baptists, but he was a commuter on the 4 year plan.  We both graduated as Calvinistic Baptists.  5 or 6 years later we ended up in contact: both of us having become conservative Presbyterians.  A little over 2 years ago, Ivan became the pastor of Covenant PCA here in town.  We have enjoyed time talking about theology and ministry.  We meet with a few other guys monthly to encourage and pray for one another.  He’s gracious enough to grant me pulpit supply opportunities during my transition.

Here is (some of) his story.

1. What was the first book you read that introduced you to Reformed Theology?  Study Guide on Bible’s Teaching on Election by John MacArthur
2. Besides the Bible, list the five most influential books in your Reformed theological journey.  Knowing God                                         J I Packer
       Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God     J I Packer
       The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination   Lorraine Boettner
       The Christian Life                                   Sinclair Ferguson
       Putting Amazing Back into Grace              Michael Horton
3. List three preachers and/or teachers who were most influential in your journey.  John MacArthur    [used by God to introduce me to Salvation by Grace Alone: teaching God’s election, and that regeneration precedes faith!]
       J I Packer            [MacArthur suggested Knowing God, I read it, and realized I’ve been missing out] this led to some guys named Sproul, Boice and Horton
       Michael Horton    [His Putting Amazing Back into Grace, Where in the World is the Church, were very instrumental for me]
    
       Sinclair Ferguson, Tim Keller: haven’t read a whole lot by these guys, but each one has helped me see grace / Christ as my merit.
4. If you could give one book to someone interested in Reformed theology, what book would you give them?  Man, that is tough:
       a. to one who is in the Word, needs a pastoral, softer touch; I’d offer The Christian Life by Sinclair Ferguson
       b. to one who wants to argue or needs a polemical approach: I’d give Chosen by God -Sproul or Putting Amazing Back into Grace-Horton
5. What doctrine would you say distinguishes Reformed Theology?  A particular doctrine?  How do I answer this one?
       At the time I entered RTS I would have answered “God is Sovereign”, then while at RTS I would have answered “Justification”
       Toward the end of my RTS days, I would have answered “Grace” because I had just read “When Being Good isn’t Good Enough”
       Man, I don’t know, I think for about the last five years I might have answered up until about a year ago “Adoption”
       Now days, I honestly view this much more as a perspectival approach to “In Christ”:
       The gospel is much more than “being Reformed”, believing “God is Sovereign” more than “Justification”, or “Adoption”
       Also included are: “Election, Substitution, Propitiation, Redemption, Regeneration, Reconciliation,  Sanctification, Glorification” and whatever else I am forgetting at this time..
    
   If you must have one particular doctrine, I have sat on this for ten minutes now and I’ve narrowed it to three: Gospel, Substitution, Jesus is Savior of sinners”
    
   How About if I say Grace Alone [because all those others are -I think- perspectives that flow from the whole gospel of Grace.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Gospel and Its Forms

Leadership Journal has a new article by Tim Keller called The Gospel in All Its Forms.  In it he is addressing the tension between generations and theological movments about the content of the gospel.

BTW: in a previous post about The Reason for God I mentioned him using a Van Tillian approach.  He does not mention Van Til in The Reason for God.  He does that in his message at the Desiring God Conference in 2006, The Supremacy of Christ and the Gospel in a Post-modern World.  Keller uses an eclectic approach- some Van Til, some Lewis etc.  This fits with his notion that you must read widely to become wise.  I think there is some wisdom in that- for no one man-made apologetic style captures all the depth and substance of how the Bible does apologetics.  The Bible uses both general revelation and special revelation.  This is sure to annoy purists from any particular stream of thought.  Oh, well.

Keller has been thinking of a way to pull together both the individual and corporate, human and rest of creation aspects of the gospel.  Each generation will tend to focus on one or 2 aspects at the risk of moving into heretical territory by denying the others.  He pulls together a good quick definition of the gospel, to my thinking anyway.

If I had to put this outline in a single statement, I might do it like this: Through the person and work of Jesus Christ, God fully accomplishes salvation for us, rescuing us from judgment for sin into fellowship with him, and then restores the creation in which we can enjoy our new life together with him forever.

Tim Keller than moves ahead to argue that the one gospel is given in different audience appropriate forms.  This is found in Galatians.  There is one gospel, and yet the gospel to the circumcised and the gospel to the uncircumcised.  How you present the gospel will/should matter depending on the person to whom you are offering Christ as He is presented in the gospel.

Since he serves a very diverse group (both religious and non-religious) he finds he has to preach it in various ways so people will overhear him preaching it to others as well as hear him preaching it to them.  In this way, the people to whom he preaches gain a fuller understanding of the gospel as they listen in.  He does not pit these groups against one another, but unites them in a biblical gospel big enough to address both individuals and all of creation, both the kingdom of God and eternal life.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Knowledge of God

In Book I, chapter III of The Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin begins to discuss the knowledge of God.  In this chapter he says that knowledge of God was naturally implanted in the minds of people.  This would be a result of our being made in the image of God.  Since we are made to reflect Him, we know He exists and something of His glory.  God put it there when He made us.

On an interesting note, Calvin uses many ancient philosphers to make some of his points- both positively and negatively.  He uses the philosophers, like Cicero, to show how people think.  This is no different from what Tim Keller does in The Reason for God.  No group of people is documented to be a society of atheists.  Is this because all cultures got a memo to socially construct a ‘god’, or because God has made us religious by nature and we must worship something?  Though some seek to flee from the notion of a God, they still show signs of His existence like guilt, shame, ethics etc.

In chapter IV Calvin asserts that this knowledge is smothered or corrupted.  This is essentially Romans 1, people choose the lie over the truth just as Adam and Eve did.  We suppress the true knowledge of God through our own unrighteousness whether we are trying to do that or not.

Some people consciously turn away from God.  Others inadvertintly do this because they fashion a god according to their own imagination.  They create idols according to their own whimsy instead of submitting their minds and hearts to God’s revelation of Himself in Jesus and Scripture.

Scripture does point us someplace beside itself to gain knowledge of God.  In chapter V Calvin discusses how knowledge of God is found in creation and providence.  Psalm 19 is one of the places pointing us to the heavens, which declare the glories of God.  Romans 1 tells us that creation reveals His invisible qualities.  The process, Calvin is in favor of scientific inquiry to understand God’s creation.  Christians should not be afraid of science or not engage in science.  Rather we should engage in science, though with different presuppositions than non-Christian scientists.  As we gain true knowledge of creation, we gain true knowledge of the Creator.

Read Full Post »

The Prodigal God and the Christian Life

Tim Keller is coming out with another book, this one with the provocative title of The Prodigal God: Christianity Redefined Through the Parable of the Prodigal Sons.  I’m not sure how that makes God the prodigal, but I’d love to find out.  Keller’s work on the parable of the prodigal sons has been very helpful for me.  This will be a more exhaustive work on the subject.  From the WTS Books website.

This short book is meant to do no less than lay out the essentials of the Christian message, the gospel. It can therefore serve as an introduction to the Christian faith for those whoa re unfamiliar with it or who may have been away from it for some time.

This volume is not just for seekers, however. Many lifelong Christian believers feel they understand the basics of the Christian faith quite well and certainly don’t think they need a primer. Nevertheless, one of the signs that you don’t grasp the unique, radical nature of the gospel is that you think you do. Sometimes long-time church members find themselves so struck and turned around by a fresh apprehension of the Christian message of grace that they feel themselves to have been essentially “reconverted.” This book, then, is written to both curious outsiders and established insiders of the faith, to both the people jesus calls “younger” and “elder” brothers in his famous Parable of the Prodigal Son.

This is due out in October, so save your change!  (Update: the subtitle was changed to the Heart of the Christian Faith.) 

Due out much sooner, June, is John Frame’s The Doctrine of the Christian Life, part of his Theology of Lordship series.  I really like this series, and this would appear to be his course on ethics.  From the WTS Books website:

The third volume of Frame’s Theology of Lordship series, this book focuses on biblical ethics, presenting a method for ethical decision-making, an analysis of biblical ethical teaching focusing on the Ten Commandments, and a discussion of the relation of Christ to human culture.

“John Frame’s magnificent work on the Christian life fully endorses the authority of Scripture and practically addresses the need to consider the situations and people involved in ethical decisions.”
-Richard L. Pratt Jr., President of Third Millenium Ministries

Can’t get better than that!

Read Full Post »

Considering Worship By the Book

I was doing some work on a liturgy today.  Among the tools I used was D.A. Carson’s book Worship by the Book.  He is the editor and contributed the first chapter to the book.  From there it explores different worship traditions in chapters written by advocates/participants in those traditions.  Mark Ashton and C.J. Davis explain the liturgical tradition as expressed by Thomas Cranmer and the Episcopal church.  R. Kent Hughes contributes on the worship of the free church.  And last is Tim Keller explaining the Reformed heritage and how it can be expressed in the global city.  Each chapter also includes some sample liturgical patterns so you get a feel for how they might be expressed.

I went back over Tim Keller’s chapter and found many helpful things there.  He begins with the unfortunate reality of the worship wars.  Keller is not an advocate of a purely contemporary or purely historical form of worship.  On the one hand, we don’t want to

“… break our solidarity with Christians of the past.  Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people.  An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community.  Nor is it a thoughtful response to the postmodern rootlessness that now leads many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.”

On the other hand, Historic Worship people have to grapple with some tough problems.  Whose history?  Often these people put a very strong emphasis on 16th-19th century Europe.  How much education?  Often higher forms of art need time for appreciation to be nurtured.  Simple people won’t naturally worship in such complex forms.  And …

“Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember that sin and fallenness taints every tradition and society.  Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the ‘noetic’ effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture’s way of doing worship. … While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.”

So, Tim Keller encourages us to consult “the Bible, the cultural context of our community, and the historic tradition of our church.”  This means no 2 churches will worship the same, though there may be many similarities.  He continues to give a very short history of the variances in Reformed Worship.  He, like R.J. Gore, prefers Calvin’s continental view over the Puritans’ more rigid view.  He had far more singing than the Puritans would.  Calvin also thought exaltation, evangelism and edification were not mutually exclusive concepts.

Keller summarizes Reformed worship as simple (substance over style), emphasizing God’s transcendence, and an order that re-enacts the Gospel to create a grace-orientation.  It is a sort of middle road between the fixed liturgy of Rome or England and the free worship.

He has a helpful section on leading corporate worship.  He talks about demeanor: aware of God’s holiness we will not be overly familiar; aware of God’s grace we will not be nervous or self-conscious.  We should be authentic and humble.  He talks about emotion, neither hiding it nor given free rein so as to manipulate.  Language should not be too archaic or artificial.  It should not be overly mundane or technical either.

All in all, this is a good chapter to prompt worship leaders and pastors to think more profoundly about worship.  He tries to get beneath the rhetoric to the heart of things.  As a result, I find it helpful (but then I usually do find Tim Keller helpful).

Read Full Post »

Considering Guitar and Second Fiddle

I have not played much guitar since the adoption.  Foolishly, I have kept it at home since I sometimes play at our Family Small Group.  But there just doesn’t seem to be much opportunity to play.  Can’t play when the kids are awake, and if they are asleep….

Well, last night I needed to play.  I needed some truth in my head, and that is a great time for me to ponder lyrics and try to draw near to God.  It’s been a long week, and I needed some of that time.  So I played after the kids went to bed, but before they usually drift off to sleep.  And I played this morning after they all went to Bible Study Fellowship.  Ah, if only my callouses weren’t so thin.  Then I would have played longer.  Here’s part of my “song list”:

Blessed Be Your Name, I Need Thee Every Hour (Jars of Clay version), O Worship the King (Passion verison), Here is Love, Beautiful, Scandalous Night, Amazing Grace (My Chains are Gone) [still learning this one], A Shield About Me, Guide Me, O Great Jehovah, Be Thou My Vision, From Depths of Woe I Raise to Thee.

Good for the soul.

In the quiet home this morning I read some more of In Christ Alone by Sinclair Ferguson.  Actually, I read some last night too.  I try to read 2 chapters a day and am moderately successful.  I finally finished Part V- A Life of Wisdom.  Great stuff in there about discernment and character.  The material I read this morning intersected with my sermon.  We focus on circumstances, but God focuses on character.  My choices flow out of my character so my choices have to be focused on how God transform my character (truth and trial).  The chapter in question was on contentment.  Character traits like this must be learned through experience, as we bring truth to bear on them.

“Christians must discover contentment the old-fashioned way: we must learn it. … It is commanded of us, but, paradoxically, it is created in us, not done by us.  It is not the product of a series of actions, but of a renewed and transformed character. … This seems a difficult principle  for Christians today to grasp.  Clear directives for Christian living are essential for us.  But, sadly, much of the heavily programmatic teaching in evangelicalism places such a premium on external doing and acheiving that character development is set at a discount.  We live in the most pragmatic society on earth (if anyone can ‘do it,’ we can).  It is painful to pride to discover that the Christian life is not rooted in what we can do, but in what we need done to us.” 

Read Full Post »

Considering Religion and the Gospel

Sunday afternoon I sat on the back porch to continue reading The Reason for God while enjoying a rainstorm.  The chapter, Religion and the Gospel, that I read first is probably one of the best chapters of a book I have read in some time.  No, he didn’t say anything new, but the way he expressed it was fresh.  It didn’t hurt that he illustrated all this with The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (which I’ve been wanting to read for some time) and Les Miserables (one of my favorite stories, the musical excepted).

The Christian gospel is that I am so flawed that Jesus had to die for me, yet I am so loved and valued that Jesus was glad to die for me.  This leads to deep humility and deep confidence at the same time.  It undermines both swattering and sniveling.  I cannot feel superior to anyone, and yet I have nothing to prove to anyone.

This is the existential reality that should be produced as we more fully grasp the objective reality of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.  I am humbled because it has nothing to do with any merit on my part, quite the opposite actually.  But it also frees me from the game of “one up-manship” that frequently gets played out.  We no longer have to validate our existence and prove ourselves.  We become free from the clamoring of our flesh (sinful nature) which wants to be validated and glorifed, to prove its worth and superiority over other people.

His grace both humbles me more deeply than religion can (since I am too flawed to every save myself through my own effort), yet is also affirms me more powerfully than religion can (since I can be absolutely certain of God’s unconditional acceptance).

It is only grace that frees us from the slavery of self that lurks even in the middle of morality and religion.  Grace is only a threat to that illusion that we are free, autonomous selves, living life as we choose.

The Christian message is that we are saved not by our record, but by Christ’s record.

Keller explained biblical and theological concepts in everyday language.  He did not use the language of theology.  He never said “justification” and yet he proclaimed and explained it.  He never said “substitution” or “imputation” and yet proclaimed and explained them.  He is not speaking to “us”, the church so much as those who are not in the church, or who are trapped in religion without realizing it.

These are the things we need to preach to ourselves everyday that we might be both humbled and lifted up.  We are humbled because we continue to wander from God and cannot save ourselves from the slightest sin.  We are lifted up because Christ is more than able to save us and restore us.  We need not fall into despair but look to a Great Savior of big sinners.

Read Full Post »

Considering Miracles

I began reading Martyn Lloyd-Jones on John 2 this afternoon.  He begins by discussing who Jesus is, and the function of miracles.  Since there can often be lots of misunderstanding, I thought I’d put down some of what the Doctor said, while I listen to the Doctor on-line.

First, the word John uses is “sign”.  “Our Lord changes the water into wine as a sign of his glory.”  Later, Lloyd-Jones reasserts that “miracles are attestations of his person and of his Godhead.”  This indicates the purpose of the sign, to reveal who Jesus is and showing that He speaks as God’s spokesman.  This is why the Apostles were able to perform miracles.  Jesus continued His ministry (Acts 1:1) from His seat at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1:2) through the Apostles empowered by the Spirit (Acts 1:8).

Second, he defines a miracle as “a supernatural action.  It is an action which is above nature.  It does not break the laws of nature but acts in a realm above.”  It is common to think of miracles as “violating the laws of nature.”  Here Lloyd-Jones disagrees.  God is not breaking laws, even laws He created.  It is an act above (super) nature.

What does Lloyd-Jones mean by this?  He gives what I think are 2 slightly different answers.  1. “What is a miracle?  Well, it is when everything happens more quickly; it is the whole process speeded up.”   He immediately continues that thought what something that sounds different to my feeble mind.  2. “God, who has normally been acting through the laws of which he has put into nature, suddenly acts independently of them and works directly instead of indirectly.”  Furthermore, “He normally chooses to act in an ordinary, orderly manner, but when it pleases him, he may give some manifestation of his glory and power in an unusual and exceptional manner.”

The first seems more to do with an acceleration of the normal processes.  The second has to do with God working immediately, or directly, rather than through the normal means he has established.  A miracle is God working apart from ordinary means to manifest his glory and for the good of his people.  “Wait a minute!” you say.  “Where did you get that last bit?”  Oh, the context of this miracle of turning water into wine and every other miracle we find in Scripture.  God is revealing some of his glory and bestowing good to his people.

Yesterday I was reading The Reason for God by Keller (who often refers to the Doctor) and came across something I’d heard him say in a sermon and wanted to go back to.

“Miracles are hard to believe in, and they should be.”  Miracles defy us precisely because they are supernatural and our sinful hearts are so resistent to faith.  Keller points to their purpose: “They lead not simply to cognitive belief, but to worship, to awe and wonder.  Jesus’ miracles in particular were never magic tricks, designed only to impress and coerce.”  He brings the aspect of glory back into the picture, in order that we might fall to our knees in worship.  The goal is that we would receive the messenger, and the message which would cause us to worship.

Back to Keller: “You never see him say something like: ‘See that tree over there?  Watch me make it burst into flames!’  Instead, he used miraculous power to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead.  Why?  We modern people think of miralces as the suspension of the natural order, but Jesus meant them to be the restoration of the natural order.  … Jesus has come to redeem what is wrong and heal the world where it is broken.  His miracles are not just proofs that he has power but also wonderful foretastes of what he is going to do with that power.  Jesus’ miracles are not just a challenge to our minds, but a promise to our hearts, that the world we all want is coming.”

Keller puts miracles into a redemptive-historical context.  They are foretastes of the restored creation that benefit us NOW.  They are an intrusion of the eschaton into the present.  Jesus produces worship in people through these appetizers of glory and restoration.  An over-realized eschatology expects miracles at every moment, forgetting that the fulness of the restoration is Not Yet- to be received and experienced at the end of time.  The prosperity gospel is part over-realized eschatology and part enculturation to consumerism & materialism (being seduced by the harlot of Babylon).  An under-realized eschatology would say that God does not give any such glimpses of the ultimate restoration of creation.  Most Christians live somewhere in between these positions.  Some of us are fairly skeptical, and some of us demand that God intervene directly in our affairs as we wish.

But as Lloyd-Jones continued in John 2, he reminds us that Jesus gently rebuked Mary.  He was not at her beck & call to perform tricks.  Rather, Jesus was sent by God the Father to do his will.  Jesus will perform miracles when it is appropriate to reveal his glory and do good to his people.  We are to trust him to do what is good and right, rather than trying to manipulate him into accomplishing our will.

Read Full Post »