Hold Fast

Great Quote

2007-10-01T08:28:00.000-06:00

"Sometimes the charge is leveled, 'If you're a believer in election, you won't evangelize'..... My concern is the opposite: if you don't believe that the gospel is the good news of God's action--the Father electing, the Son dying, the Spirit drawing--that conversion is only our response to God's giving us the grace-gifts of repentance and faith, and that evangelism is our simple, faithful, prayerful telling of this good news, then you will actually damage the evangelistic mission of the church by making false converts. If you think that the gospel is all about what we can do, that the practice of it is optional, and that conversion is simply something that anyone can choose at any time, then I'm concerned that you'll think of evangelism as nothing more than a sales job where the prospect is to be won over to sign on the dotted line by praying a prayer, followed by an assurance that he is the proud owner of salvation." (Mark Dever, The Gospel and Personal Evangelism)

Christ's happiness is our hope!

2007-09-23T20:18:00.000-06:00

As I was working on my sermon for today, I finally came to realize something that I had read before, but had never let sink in.

I was struggling to express hope and grace in the fact that God, at times, plans for evil to happen to us. (If you want a bit more explanation, see the sermon manuscript on the church website). I began with a basic answer - as with Job, God sends trials and struggles to test us and to sharpen and refine our faith and character.

But what makes that a hope and a joy, as opposed to something to which we simply, grudgingly, resign ourselves? Why are trials, and the experience of being on the receiving end of evil and wickedness, something that we should be happy about?

Well, as I meditated on the problem, I framed the issue like this: God sends trials and suffering to glorify Himself. And how does He glorify and exalt Himself in the lives of believers? He conforms them to the image of Christ.

And then it hit me - again, and for the first time. (I probably owe a great debt to John Piper's writings on this one, as he has made this point in many different ways). If we are to be like Christ in every human way, what about the joy of Christ? What about His happiness?

Is Christ joyful? Is He happy? You'd better believe it. He's God - nothing can thwart Him or frustrate Him. He does everything He pleases. He lives to please and glorify His Father, and in His life, death, and resurrection, He did so perfectly. The Father is exalted in Christ, and that makes Christ supremely joyful.

And if we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, that includes - especially - the joy that is so central to His being. In other words, God wants us to be happy because Christ is happy, and He wants us to be like Christ.

That puts suffering in perspective!

Habakkuk Kicks Off

2007-09-18T16:20:00.000-06:00

As promised, I've posted my first sermon on Habakkuk (chapter 1, verses 1-4) to the church website. It can be found here.

The passage is Habakkuk's first petition or prayer to God. Why is he crying out to God? I cover a bit of background to the book, and explain Habakkuk's problem. The whole book is an answer to this problem, and so understanding the problem is crucial fro everything that follows.

And - we all have the same problem...

A Devotional: John 3:16a

2007-09-17T11:45:00.000-06:00

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son… (John 3:16a)

Probably the most well-known verse of the Bible, John 3:16 contains Christ’s precious promise of salvation to all who believe. And yet there is so much more that we can learn from this beautiful passage.

One such gem is the true meaning of the English word, “so” – as in, “God so loved the world, that…” This is how most English translations read. Because of this, Christians are tempted to read the verse in the following sense: “God loved the world so much, that…” While it is certainly true that God loves His creation greatly and seeks to demonstrate this affection, it’s not the actual meaning of Jesus’ words.

A more accurate sense would be, “For this is how God loved the world,” as a footnote in the English Standard Version points out. The Holman Christian Standard Bible renders the phrase this way: “For God loved the world in this way: He gave His One and Only Son…” In other words, John 3:16 is not trying to tell us how MUCH God loves the world, but in what WAY He loves the world.

Once we understand this difference, we realize that God’s actions are not simply the effects or results of His love. They are, in fact, that love itself. We are shown that God’s love for us, far from being a mere feeling or inclination, is an active love. God’s love is deeds, not just words or feelings. We see that God’s gift of Christ to the world was more than just a reflection or expression of love – this gift is love itself, love made real and concrete.

How Theology and Doctrine Matter in Daily Life

2007-09-16T21:59:00.000-06:00

A young boy wonders what is the right thing to do in response to teasing and bullying at school: argue back? Fight? Tell the teachers? Just take it?

An old man wonders what is left to live for after the death of his wife of 51 years.

A teenager struggles with his teacher’s assurance that evolution should not be a problem for a Christian to accept – after all, God could have used evolution as his tool to create, couldn’t he?

A young woman who has just miscarried wonders why God would allow such tragedy to come to such a young life.

A tired woman contemplating divorce from her distant and uncaring husband wonders what is the Christian thing to do.

A family offended by the careless words of another person in the church contemplates changing congregations to avoid further trouble.

An army officer wonders whether to obey his orders and abandon a fighting position that protects a village from genocide – or to disobey and risk his soldiers’ lives in an uncertain battle to protect them.

A second-year university student has no idea how to answer skeptical professors and classmates who deny the Creation of the universe in favour of a Big Bang.

An office worker struggles to witness to a coworker who, because of tragedy and trauma in her life, cannot accept the existence of God in such an evil world.

A shaken young couple is advised by their doctor to abort their unborn child, revealed by a test to be afflicted with a debilitating and likely terminal illness.

Christian voters at the polls wonder whether to support one party, which favours unrestricted abortion rights, or its main opponent, embroiled in a shocking corruption scandal.

An office manager wonders what to do with the employee caught stealing from the company – whose family lives in poverty and struggles to make ends meet.

These are hard questions. They are everyday dilemmas that many Christians have faced or can expect to face.

Furthermore, these are not merely academic or intellectual questions. Any response will relate to the duties of the believer to God. Any resolution will impact the Christian’s witness before others.

These are theological questions. They all relate to specific Christian doctrine. And when we fail to teach our people to think theologically, we leave them helpless to face some of the toughest questions of life.

Doctrine and theology matter. Do you feel ready to help a fellow believer in such situations?

Preaching Update

2007-09-16T21:44:00.000-06:00

I'm catching up on posting sermon manuscripts to the church website. I just put up a sermon on Psalm 15 from August 26, if anyone wants to check it out. I'm planning on having today's sermon (Habakkuk 1:1-4) up in the next couple days.

Why Calvinists Evangelize

2007-09-15T00:25:00.000-06:00

Several times I've run into the objection: "If you believe that God has already chosen those who will be saved, why bother evangelizing? Won't God just do it without us?" Here is my quick answer:

1. We evangelize because God tells us to.

The Great Commission is the reason the church has been left in the world. It is a command. It is not optional. So, first and foremost, evangelism is an act of obedience. It is more than that, for sure, but even if it wasn’t, the fact that God has commanded evangelism should be enough for anyone to obey – no matter how they understand the relationship of God’s sovereignty to human freedom. I’ve got no time for hyper-Calvinists for that reason.

2. Evangelism’s foundation is the total, absolute sovereignty of God.

Look at Matthew 28. The first words of the Great Commission are not, “Go and make disciples of all nations.” They are, “All authority (Greek exousia, “power” or “authority”) in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” Christ has the authority and power over us, to send us – that’s why we obey. He has all authority and power over the whole world – that’s why we’re authorized to go to them. And He has all authority over all people, all their hearts, including their wills – that’s why we go to them expecting any response to the Gospel at all. I see no limit on Christ’s authority or power in any sphere at all, and that is the foundation of evangelism.

3. Evangelism’s motivation is the glory of God.

We do all things to the glory of God. Preaching and proclaiming the Gospel is an end in itself, before we even consider the response to it. The very act of sharing the Gospel brings God glory, whether the person responds positively or not. The “success” of evangelism, therefore, should not be measured by numbers, but by faithfulness – faithfulness to the message, and faithfulness in diligently and persistently proclaiming the message. Hyper-Calvinists think you can somehow determine who is the elect before sharing the Gospel, and this is wrong – wrong because the evidence of election is faith in response to the Gospel, and wrong because it robs God of the glory he would receive in having His message proclaimed to every creature without discrimination. A rejected Gospel presentation is not a failure – it was an act of worship on our part, and a divine judgment on the sin of the unbeliever to the glory of God.

4. Evangelism is done for the sake of God’s elect.

However you define the “elect,” the Bible makes clear that Paul did all things for their sake (2 Tim 2:10, Tit 1:1). And when Paul was discouraged, facing stubborn Jewish opposition in his outreach efforts in Corinth, God reassured him by telling him, “Fear not – I have many people in this city” (Acts 18). Evangelism proceeds on the assurance that God’s elect, whoever they are, are out there and that they WILL respond (John 6:37-39). Election is a great encouragement to evangelize, because it is an assurance of success!

5. Human evangelism is God’s means to carry out His ends in election.

Much of the confusion over election and predestination is founded on a bad assumption. Why evangelize if the outcome is already decided? Why pray if the outcome is already decided? Because God has given us the privilege of participating in the outfolding of His plan. Or, to put it another way, God has ordained everything that comes to pass – not only the ends or results, but also the means by which they happen. God could have just “saved” His people without proclamation, by way of visions or dreams – but He didn’t. He has revealed in Scripture that the exclusive means by which people are brought to faith is through human evangelism (Romans 10:13-17). Our actions matter precisely BECAUSE God has ordained them as part of His plan, not in SPITE of election!

A Cry For A Clean Heart: Sermon on Psalm 51

2007-09-14T20:40:00.000-06:00

Below is a sermon I preached at Symons Valley Community Church on July 29. It was one of the congregation's favorites (by me, anyway).
_____________________________

I love the Psalms. They express the heart of God’s people. all the joy, all the sorrow, all the rage, all the love, all the anger, all the frustration, all the hope of a walk with God in a fallen world is on full display.
The Psalms are in a class by themselves as Scripture. While being God’s inspired and perfect words for us, they are also the words of men to God. Moved by the Holy Spirit, real believers facing real trials and struggles poured their hearts out to God in song and prayer. And this has given us a priceless treasure - an inspired hymnbook, full of inspiration and wisdom.
What makes them so edifying to us, I think, is the sheer variety we see in the Psalms. There are songs of praise. There are songs of thanksgiving. Cries for help and cries of joy. Words of anger and words of comfort.
Our text today is a song of confession and lament. Psalm 51. It is a well-known passage, and expresses better than perhaps any other writing the response of a believing heart to one’s own sin and wickedness.

CONTEXT
It must have been a hot day. It was in the spring, when, as 2 Samuel 11 puts it, “the kings go out to battle.” The beginning of the campaign season, when the rains have stopped and the roads can handle the heavy traffic that goes along with an army on the move. It was probably April or May, and in Jerusalem, that’s a warm time of year. Jerusalem is on a hilltop not far from the Mediterranean Sea, and not far from the desert, either. The climate would have been something like California.
And in an age without air conditioning, as Erin and I found out by experience last week, staying indoors is an ordeal to be avoided. I don’t blame David for going out on the roof, then. He was probably trying to get out of the stuffy halls of the palace and catch a nice breeze.
A twist of fate - well, in God’s world, there are no coincidences. Samuel tells us that Bathsheba was having a bath on the rooftop. And, as it happened, she was doing this at the same time David took his walk on the roof. By God’s plan, these two wound up on their rooftops at the same time. This was a test.
And think about who was being tested here. David was a man after God’s own heart. He was a firm believer in God, a faithful worshipper and servant. He was a prophet in his own right, who wrote dozens of Psalms we still read and sing today. Throughout the Bible, he is spoken of in glowing terms - a king held up as a model to be imitated, an example of living faith.
And yet David fails the test. He could have averted his eyes. He could have gone right back inside, found something else to busy himself. There was a war on, after all - maybe he could have gone over some of the messages from the front, or grabbed a horse and travelled up there himself.
The Bible reminds us that all sin is our own responsibility. God himself tempts no one, though he allows us to face temptation from others. And in every time of temptation, God ensures that we will face no more than we are able to bear. In fact, he gives us a way out. And like I said, David had a way out.
What a devastating fall. An astounding display of sin. We have lust. Covetousness. Adultery. Deception - trying to have Uriah think the child is his, remember? Betrayal. Murder. And so this psalm, even before we get into the text itself, has a vital lesson for us all in its historical context. David was one of the greatest heroes of the Bible, and he failed.Badly. His status as a prophet of God didn’t protect him. His character as a kind and generous man didn’t keep him safe. Within David’s heart was wickedness - the same evil nature that all of us still fight against in our daily walk. If David, of all people, could fall - despite his character, his knowledge, his wisdom, his grasp of the things of God - so could any of us. And not just into any sin - into adultery and murder. Some of the most shocking sins imaginable.
There’s our first lesson. If David could fall, so can we. If he were capable of such sin, so are we. Let us be warned.
Now, the psalm itself. As you read it, you can feel David’s anguish. He is a broken man. He has looked into his heart and examined his ways, and he is disgusted with himself.
There’s three things we can learn from Psalm 51 – three things that we need to hear and apply in our own lives. First, David has some important insights into his own sinfulness. Second, David cries out to God to change his heart. And third, the way David prays – how he approaches God and what he says – is a good example for us to follow.

WHY DAVID WAS PRAYING
First, David talks about his sin. His words about himself should not be taken as exaggeration or hyperbole. David has some valuable insights into sin that we need to recognize. Let’s start at verse 4:
“Against you, you only, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight.” That sounds a little odd, doesn’t it? Against God? God only?
Think for a moment. Just how many people did this sin affect? David was a married man, for starters. What about his wives? By this point, he had at least two - Michal, Saul’s daughter, Abigail, Nabal’s widow, and probably others. David surely sinned against them - breaking the covenant vows he had made to them to be their husband!
What about Uriah? Not only did David take his wife, he betrayed him, deceived him, and killed him.
How about Bathsheba? Whether she has some responsibility in this situation or not, the fact remains that David, like so many men today, looked on her and lusted after her. He treated her like a piece of meat, a means of pleasure. What about her?
What about David’s children? Their father - treating their mothers and his own family with such carelessness and disrespect?
The people of Israel? Their king has dishonoured himself and by extension the entire kingdom. How can David say that he had sinned against God alone?
Because all the people I just listed belong to God. A sin against them is fundamentally a sin against their Creator and Master.
Even more than that, though, is the nature of sin itself. Sin - what is it? It is a failure to meet the standard of God. It is missing the mark. Falling short of God’s expectations.
And so every sin is against God. He is the final Judge. The buck stops with Him. There is no court of appeal. Every single sin ever committed is ultimately and finally dealt with by God, and God alone. Every sin is ultimately and finally against God - and God will require an account for it. Don’t forget that.
That’s the first point about sin - it’s against God and God alone. We can’t blame God for it. There will be no room for excuses - even though God is sovereign, even though your actions are all a part of His plan, it is you who commits them. It is you who forms the desire in your heart - not God. It is you who gives in to temptation - not God pushing you into it. Like David said, “you are justified when you speak, and blameless when you judge.” Our sin is our own, and God will have nothing to do with it. His judgment is just.
Let’s read on: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”
Is this exaggeration? David elsewhere speaks very highly of his mother. He was the youngest in his family - his mother and father were married. There was no sin in the way he was concieved.
What David is saying, then, is this. He was sinful from birth. This isn’t poetic exaggeration. Human beings are sinful by their very nature. Erin and I saw a little girl of only two or three years old on Friday, ripping a toy out of Caden’s hands at the photographer’s, screaming “No! It’s mine!!” Caden will have fits of rage if you try to take a remote control or set of keys out of his hands.
Sin is not a learned behavior, like talking or potty training. It’s innate and natural, like eating and breathing. We are not sinful because we sin - rather, we sin because we are sinful. The reason every single human being sins and is guilty in God’s eyes, no matter what culture they live in or life situation or upbringing they come from, is because their sinfulness is part of their very nature. Yes, from birth - from conception. And while a very young child, especially in the womb, may not be physically able to commit acts of sin, and while their actions may not be willfully sinful, their basic inclinations are still sinful. Their nature is sinful.
This is an uncomfortable teaching, because it feels wrong. Babies are cute - I know! I know it well! They’re beautiful. But they are also corrupt - born into spiritual slavery. Stillborn with respect to spiritual things. Children don’t grow up naturally generous and giving - these things have to be modeled and taught and enforced. They have to overcome a naturally selfish nature.
And it’s important for us to realize this - vital that we get this. If you don’t get sin right, you can’t get the Gospel right. And if you don’t get the Gospel right, there can be no salvation.
Listen - Jesus didn’t come to maximize some kind of natural human potential, like so many today believe. That’s a false gospel - it’s a lie. The only natural potential in mankind is toward greater and greater evil. No, Jesus came to SAVE us. From what? From sin - from OURSELVES! From what we bring upon ourselves - the punishment and wrath of an outraged and offended God.
That’s the second point about sin - sin is natural to human beings.
And sin must be dealt with. David cries out for God to purge him with hyssop. To purify him with hyssop. What does this mean? In ancient Israel, the Law of Moses prescribed certain rituals be performed for certain problems. David is referring to one of these - the rite of purification for leprosy. He’s comparing sin to leprosy.
In our age, a simple medication can stop the disease (though reversing its effects is a lot harder). In ancient Israel, if a person had recovered from leprosy, the victim was to go to the priest, who would perform this ritual, which I am reading from Leviticus 14: 2-7.
So not only does David compare his sin to leprosy, but he compares the purification from sin to that from leprosy. There’s a lot in common. An animal is sacrificed - a bird is killed - just as Christ had to die as punishment for our sins. The bird’s blood is sprinkled on the leper, just as Christ’s blood washes us clean. The ritual takes place over running water, a Biblical symbol of the water of life that flows from Christ in the form of His Holy Spirit.
David is crying for God to purify Him, to remove the guilt and the stain of his sin. That’s the third point about sin - it must be removed and cleansed by blood. This is what the Father did for us, sending His Son to shed His blood for our sin.

WHAT DAVID WAS PRAYING FOR
But not only must salvation be purchased by Christ on the cross - it has to be applied to the individual believer in his own life. The ritual we just talked about didn’t end with the death of the bird – its blood had to be sprinkled on the leper, applied to the leper. The work of Christ is followed by the work of the Spirit. It’s not enough that sin be paid for - the whole purpose of salvation is not just to rescue sinners from hell, but to restore them to the service of God’s glory.
David realized this. He dredged the depths of his own heart and brought up filth and evil. He was shocked and appalled at what he turned out to be capable of. Horrified and guilt-stricken, he turned to God in prayer, and asked - asked for what?
For help in doing better? No.For better luck next time? No.
No, David recognized the root of the problem. He saw the source of the evil in his life in his lyin’, cheatin’ heart. He didn’t adopt the twenty-first century attitude - that given the right conditions, the right encouragement, and enough self-esteem, that the good in him would triumph. David knew that there was no good in the heart of man, except for God’s grace.
And so he prayed for the only thing that would help - he prayed for a clean heart.
What I want to draw your attention to is the parallel between his appeal for a clean heart in verses 10-12, and his description of the heart the God desires in verse 17. There, David rules out the idea that sacrifices and rituals can cover sin or cause God to accept a sinner. What kind of sacrifice will God accept? A broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, he says.
Is he talking about two different things? Is he saying that he is approaching God with a broken and contrite heart, so that God will give him a clean heart? Well, David is certainly broken. He’s contrite – that means repentant and ashamed. But I don’t think these are two different things. David is ashamed and disgusted by the state of his heart right now – otherwise, he wouldn’t be asking for a clean one!
No, David is confessing that what God requires – a broken and contrite heart – is something he does not have. How horrible he must have felt here! Not only has his own heart, his own nature, betrayed him and thrown him into the depths of sin – he’s also realized that, as guilty and broken as he feels about that sin, it’s still only the guilt and shame and sorrow of a sinful and wicked heart. It’s not enough! A broken and contrite heart God will not despise – but my heart isn’t that! My heart led me into sin! My shame and my guilt are not enough!
As Paul said, “Who will deliver me from this body of sin and death?”
That’s why he cries out for mercy at the very beginning – he can’t earn God’s favor. All he can do is plead for God’s grace, in hopes that God will Himself make David acceptable in His eyes. That’s the essence of Christian salvation – and it’s the essence of the Christian life after the point of salvation, too. David recognizes that a willing spirit, one that desires to follow God, one that would be acceptable to God, is something only God can give him – “uphold me with a willing spirit.”
And there is hope. Yes, David knows his heart is unacceptable. But he is broken nonetheless. Not broken enough, maybe, not nearly as remorseful as he knows he should be. But there is shame and remorse, brokenness and guilt. These are signs that God is already beginning the process of reconciliation. If it is true that it is not I that does these things, but God working in me, that applies to guilt and shame as well.
Every one of us has screwed up, time and again. And when we do, it has consequences. We begin to doubt our own salvation – David says here, “Cast me not away… Take not your Holy Spirit.” When we fall into sin, God often will pull back from us a little, cause us to doubt and to search for Him again. God wants us in a position where we realize constantly that we need His grace to go on – that we simply can’t do it on our own.
There are Christians who believe that a sinless life is possible on this side of death. There is much truth in what they are saying – we all have the Holy Spirit, and God always gives us a way out. Sin is something that as believers we have power over – we don’t have to sin. But the Bible is quite clear that even Christians will continue to struggle with sin until death. The Apostle John wrote that “if anyone says he has no sin, he is a liar and the truth is not in him.”
This is not an excuse for accepting sin as inevitable, though. Rather, we should look at that truth as a motivation to keep crying out to God, as David did, that He might give us clean hearts, that he might uphold us with a willing spirit. We must never grow complacent – we must always be stretching our arms out to God and pleading with Him for grace.
That’s the second message this passage has for us. We need God to create in us clean hearts. We need Him to uphold us with a willing spirit – to keep us on the straight and narrow by His strength. We can’t do it on our own!

HOW DAVID PRAYED FOR IT
Finally, we could all use a reminder of how God is to be approached after sin. Psalm 51 is possibly the best advice anyone could offer to a Christian grappling with his relationship with God after sin. Is anyone struggling with their walk with God? Does anyone lack joy and wish for God to restore it unto them? If anyone here has sinned and wishes to restore their fellowship with God, this passage is for you. How does a Christian who has drifted from God restore that relationship? What should we ask for? Let’s walk through the psalm and point out a few valuable lessons.
First, notice how David begins his prayer. “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to your lovingkindness.” This is the Biblical sinner’s prayer – a heartfelt cry for mercy. We think of Jesus’ parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee in the synagogue, where the tax collector prays by saying, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!”
David pleads for mercy because he knows he deserves punishment. It’s an act of humility. We would do well to remember that in our own prayers. Every breath we take is a gift from God’s hand, and when we sin, the only hope we have is God’s mercy. A humble reliance on that mercy is what we call faith. So that’s the first practical point – beg God for mercy. He is merciful and compassionate!
Next, he confesses his sinfulness. Not only does he confess the specific sin – he mentions bloodguiltiness in verse 14 – but he confesses and takes responsibility for his sinful condition. For his sinful nature. That nature belongs to all of us. It’s ours. And it is our responsibility to deal with it, in the power God provides. Confessing our sins and our sinfulness humbles us before God, because it reminds us that He is pure and perfect and that we do not meet that standard – that we need His help. That’s the second step – confess your sins!
Third, he asks to be purified – to be washed clean. For the Christian, forgiveness of sins is not enough. No – it’s not enough! Not only do we need forgiveness from sin, but we need freedom from it. Whenever the Bible talks about freedom, it means freedom from evil and sin. God has saved us for a purpose – to raise up a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works! Mere forgiveness would get us out of hell, but it won’t enable us to serve God or to live a life that glorifies him.
Forgiveness from sin is one thing – cleansing from it and the power to resist it are another. We need both, and we need to constantly ask God for both. We need to ask God to purify us from our sins.
Fourth, he does not complain about the consequences of his sin. David paid dearly for his sin. On top of losing a friend and a solid warrior in Uriah, he was publicly humiliated by the prophet Nathan. Worst of all, his infant son died after only seven days, just as God had promised.
David paid dearly for his sin. Did he object? Not in the least. He admitted that God was righteous in his judgment in verse 4. God was in the right, he said. Even more, in verse 8 he asked God that the bones that had been broken would rejoice – in other words, that David might be given strength and wisdom to rejoice in the discipline he had received! When God sends consequences our way, we drop to our knees, we confess that God is right in His judgment, and ask that we may come to accept and rejoice in the discipline that points us back to Him. We don’t complain – we rejoice in God’s discipline.
We’ve already looked at David’s request for a clean heart – one not only free from sin, but one that is as broken and contrite as God requires. Why does David ask this? For himself? Actually, no. The reason David gives for his prayers and requests is not self-centred. It’s God-centred. We would do well to pay attention here. Why does David ask for a clean heart, for a renewed spirit? Verse 13 – then I will teach sinners your ways, and they will be converted to you.” Verse 14 and 15 – that I might declare your righteousness and sing your praise. Why is David asking for a clean heart? That through him, God may be glorified! Do you want to teach sinners God’s ways? Do you want to see unbelievers come to faith?
Do you want your praise and worship to be meaningful and edifying? You need a clean heart and a right spirit. Cry out to God for it! Ask Him for it for His sake, not yours! Pray in His name – not yours! Even a prayer for restoration and forgiveness like this is done for God’s glory – like everything should be!
And finally, look to verse 18. David prays for Zion – that’s Jerusalem – that God might be good to them. David did not forget what we all to often fail to remember, and that’s this: Our sin has consequences not just for us, but for others as well. Our sin affects not just our own spiritual selves, but the spiritual walks of those around us. When our foolishness and selfishness brings calamity down, it often causes collateral damage. God warned His people that the punishment for sin would follow them down to the third and fourth generation. Don’t ever forget this, especially within the context of the church, and those who have wives and husbands and children. When we approach God to ask for forgiveness and restoration, we cannot forget those who have been affected by our sin.

CONCLUSION
We stumble and we fall. As long as we have sin in our hearts, as long as we live in this fallen world, we will struggle with temptation and sin, and sometimes we may lose the fight. And when that happens, our relationship with our Heavenly Father suffers. God grows more distant as the Holy Spirit is grieved. Psalm 51 teaches us that restoration and reconciliation are necessary – and that, for the one who cries for mercy out of faith in God, it is a sure hope.
Sitting here this morning, it might be you who has sinned and needs that restoration. Or you may be like the city of Zion, whose pain and suffering David also prayed for. Maybe you’re one of those harmed by the selfishness and thoughtlessness of another. And that sin committed by another has you struggling with your own relationship with God. You have the same hope! The same God who not only waits to hear your prayer, but moves to make your prayer possible in the first place! Who begins the process of healing and restoration before you even think to ask – for how could we ask at all, without the grace of God working through us? Perhaps you do not have because you do not ask. With God, all things are possible. Cry out to Him!
Don’t ever despair. David saw the worst of what man can do, and it came straight from the depths of his own heart. But God, who is faithful – remember, it depends on God – drew him out of the depths and restored him. If David could be restored after such a fall, then nothing you have done is beyond the healing power of God. Cry out to him! Cry for mercy!

Sorry It's Been So Long!

2007-09-14T20:26:00.000-06:00

I thought that I should pay more attention to my blog. I actually have another one, our church blog, where I post my sermon manuscripts. I plan on cross-posting a few of them here from time to time now.

Those of you who want to keep up with our life with our little boy (getting less and less little as the days go by!) can see some great work by my lovely wife here.

As for Hold Fast, I'm going to be better - I promise!

It's Been A While...

2007-02-22T22:31:00.000-07:00

I'm back!

There's more to come, I promise. But for now, instead of writing some long, drawn-out theological treatise, I thought I'd share a picture of my almost six-month-old boy:

The Lord Has Blessed Us!

2006-09-15T21:42:00.000-06:00

Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. (Psalm 127:3)

Thanks be to God! At 9:47 PM on September 8, 2006, Erin and I were blessed by the birth of our son, Caden Joshua Jones - 21 inches long and 8 pounds, 15 ounces.

It was a long labour - about 30 hours, actually. Erin began having contractions at about 4 PM on the 7th, and we went to the hospital at around 10 PM. They continued all night and all the next day until the doctors noticed, around 8 PM, that the baby was coming down the wrong way. That, and a minor fever that Erin had developed, caused them to opt for the caesarian section. I'm so, so proud of my wife, who's been through more than I could ever handle. She didn't really enjoy the whole experience, but there's no complaining about the result!

It was the first operation I had ever been present for (like my new look??) It was scary. I confess that I am a bit of a control freak, and I like having things under my own control. This was one of those times that I could not do anything but trust the Lord - and I think that's something God was teaching me through this. God was good; the doctors were very quick and efficient, and had the baby out in no time! I'm happy to report that Erin is recovering even better than expected, and that little Caden is healthy and strong.

It is such an indescribable joy to be a parent! Caden, to us, is the most beautiful creature God has ever made. Yes, he wakes us up throughout the night, and neither of us sleep much. Two nights ago he fussed from 1:30 to 5 AM, keeping us both awake... He is strong-willed, objecting strenuously whenever we change him or bathe him. But he's so adorable. It's just so cute watching him - he doesn't have full control of his hands yet, and when he wants to suck on a finger, he chases his hand with his mouth instead of pulling it to his lips. His eyes are so big and full of curiosity. And the expressions on his little face - well, just look at this picture!

Again - praise the Lord. He is so good.

Of Slander, Judgment, and Discernment

2006-09-04T12:34:00.000-06:00

On Sunday, I led the Bible study at my church. My text was James 4:11-12:

Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

The passage dealt with the sticky problem of slander and judging one another. The Bible has much to say about the use of human judgment with regard to others and their actions, and so our discussion was interesting. Where is the line between right judgment and slander?

1) First, I began by pointing out what slander is NOT:

Church Discipline - "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” Matthew 18:15-17

As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him. Titus 3:10

Testing Teaching By Scripture - Now these Jews [in Berea] were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. Acts 17:11

From these passages and many more, we as Christians have a mandate to watch over one another and to correct them when their teaching or behavior crosses the line into sin. James is not forbidding such discernment.

2) We then discussed what slander and evil talk IS:

Lying about one another – “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Leviticus 20:16

Gossip – “For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish--that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder.” 2 Corinthians 12:20

Talk Designed To Hurt Others, Not Build Them Up - Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. Romans 15:2

3). We studied another clue to answering the question - the beginning of verse 12: There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. So - why is God the only rightful judge?

1) He is our Creator. He owns us and may do as He pleases with us.
2) He is the only God. There is no other.
3) God is the only one who can see and know the thoughts and character of a man's heart. Thus, He is the only one who can judge accurately.
4) As God, He is the only one who has the power of eternal life or punishment. No one else, even if they did know a man's heart, could enforce their judgment.

So it comes to this. How may we, as Christians, exercise right judgment and discernment, especially in the areas of church discipline and discernment of new teaching, without crossing the line into slander?

I boiled it down to three basic differences between right discernment and sinful judgment. These can be framed as three questions every Christian should ask himself as he exercises judgment on something:

I. What is my motive?

A wrong motive would be selfish:

What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. (James 4:1-2)

And / or a wrong motive seeks to hurt another person:

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. (1 Thessalonians 5:15)

On the contrary, a pure and rightful motive seeks to build one another up:

... let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins (James 5:20)

If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. (Matthew 18:15)

II. By what standard am I judging?

Or, put another way, am I submitting to the same standard I would have the other submit to? Failure to do so is hypocrisy, the sin Jesus condemned:

For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. (Matthew 7:2-5)

This hypocrisy results when we arrogantly presume that we are above the law, and that it does not apply to us:

The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. (James 4:11b-12a)

Rather, we should humbly submit to an objective and higher authority: God --

Therefore it says, "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble." Submit yourselves therefore to God. (James 4:6-7)

-- as He has revealed in His Word:

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. (Acts 17:11)

III. Am I judging actions or the heart?

Man has no capacity to peer into one's heart:

For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart. (1 Samuel 16:7)

And we are prohibited from basing judgment on mere appearance or outward impressions:

My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, "You sit here in a good place," while you say to the poor man, "You stand over there," or, "Sit down at my feet," have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? (James 2:1-4)

Rather, Jesus tells us that one's actions and behaviour - deeds, NOT appearances or assumptions about motive - are proper evidence for judgment:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:15-20)

Christians are not prohibited from making any judgments at all. The famous phrase, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," is found in the same chapter - Matthew 7 - as His command to beware of false prophets and to know them by their fruits

Rather, we are commanded,

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. (John 7:24)

Sunday Devotional

2006-09-03T09:00:00.000-06:00

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever. (Isaiah 40:8)

Every fall, the green grass undergoes a change. It yellows and dries out as winter approaches. The flowers, too, wither and disappear as the air grows cold. Nature reminds us each day that we are prone to change – that what this world does and builds is only fleeting and temporary.

God’s Word, though, isn’t like that. As God’s revelation of His infinite and unchanging self, His Word reflects His nature, being itself forever unchanging. God didn’t have to reveal Himself to us. He owes us nothing. But God chose to stoop to a human level and use the gift of human language – a gift He himself gave to us! – in order to make His purpose and will known to us. We call this gift, His Word written, the Bible. And this written Word, by telling us of God’s purpose and will for us, points to and is fulfilled by the Word made flesh – God in human flesh, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

As God’s communication, received by a limited and ever-changing world, the Word may be misunderstood, or twisted, or ignored by sinful human beings. But it remains true – and we remain accountable to God for following it. God has made Himself clear, on our level, through human language and human flesh, and thus we have no excuse for ignoring it. God has protected and preserved His Bible throughout the centuries, by the blood of martyrs and the sweat of scribes. We may be assured that, similarly, His purpose in our salvation will never waver or be defeated. That is our hope.

God bless you all this Lord's Day!

Question Their Deepest Assumptions

2006-09-02T13:48:00.000-06:00

The unbeliever tells you, "I just can't believe there is a God. We don't need God to explain our existence. We can explain so much with science now anyway, and what we don't know it will eventually find out."

How do you respond to an objection like this?

Well, let's first examine what's not being said here. Everyone has a worldview - assumptions and presuppositions that we use to filter and interpret information from the world around us. As Christians, the fundamental assumptions of our worldview are that there is and must be a God, and that this God had a purpose in creation, and that He created us as rational beings for the purpose of communicating this purpose to us in such a way that it would be understood. We filter all our knowledge and information through these assumptions.

Our unbeliever does not share these assumptions. Rather, the highest authority in his universe is unaided human reason - that is the standard by which he judges things. In particular, he trusts that expression of human reason called "science" as his hope for explaining all things - including how we got here, where the universe comes from, etc.

Let's take a closer look at those assumptions, though. Are they consistent? Are they coherent with each other? Or is his worldview riddled with contradictions?

Science depends on two things to make it work.

1) Science assumes the fact that the universe is an orderly place, where things follow laws and behave in consistent and predictable ways. If a scientist wants to test a theory, he sets up a controlled set of circumstances and repeats an experiment several times. The assumption behind this method is that the universe is an orderly, consistent place so that if all things are equal, the same result should happen every time.

But - how do I know these laws of nature behave exactly the same way, every single time? I can't possibly drop every ball in the universe, under every possible circumstance, to verify that it will fall to the ground every time. But, if I assume that the universe is fundamentally an orderly place, then it is a safe and reasonable thing to say that the ball will drop every time.

The unbeliever, though, has a problem. Science itself depends on this assumption - that the universe is fundamentally, at its most basic level, an orderly, law-abiding thing. But why should it be? If there is no intelligence or mind behind the universe, if there is no supernatural factor in play, and it's just a bunch of particles and energy bumping into each other, what reason to we have to believe that laws and principles, like, say, the laws of physics, are even possible?

In short, the unbeliever's assumption that there is no God is at odds with his assumption that the universe is (for some random reason?) an orderly, consistent, law-of-physics abiding place. That is an inconsistent worldview - the unbeliever is, in fact, "borrowing" the belief in the universe's orderliness from our worldview, where this belief actually makes sense!

2) Scientific research depends on honesty and accountability for results that can be trusted by society. But our unbelieving friend thinks there is no God. Where, then, does morality come from? If we are only the product of natural selection, and natural selection chooses those individuals who behave in a manner that improves their chances of reproduction, how do such values as honesty and truthfulness, self-examination and objectivity develop?

What if another Galileo appeared and proposed a similar, earth-shaking scientific theory that the scientific establishment didn't like? Galileo could have lost his life for his theories. Wouldn't natural selection have suggested a route against the best interests of science - after all, giving in would have guaranteed his survival!

Our unbeliever's God-free, naturalistic assumptions leave him with no way to explain why scientists should be honest in their scientific research, if it is in their best interest to fudge their data. So how can he trust science in the first place - unless, as above, he's "borrowing" something from another worldview? A religious one, perhaps? But then he'd be inconsistent, wouldn't he?

Some Great Books You Should All Read

2006-09-01T21:22:00.000-06:00

Those who know me well know that I'm a bit of a bookworm. And so, with the demands of school behind me, I spent a considerable amount of time this summer reading.

Most of the books were edifying and useful. I thought that I should recommend a few in particular, though.

These four are popular-level books that I cannot endorse strongly enough. If you get a chance, get to the bookstore and find these - or, order them:

1) Knowing Scripture, by R.C. Sproul

This short book is an introduction to biblical interpretation. It lays out very basic and extremely useful rules and guidelines for reading and interpreting the Bible. There are many wrong ways to interpret Scripture, and the results are not pretty - every cult got its start with people who did not know how to handle Scripture. It is a Christian responsibility to "rightly handle the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15)," and this book will go a LONG way to helping you. Sproul is an engaging writer and provides plenty of examples. More than any of the other books I'm going to mention here, this is a book every Christian should have on their shelf. It's worth it - BUY THIS ONE. There's no excuse - it's not expensive and I even provided the link from Amazon!

2) Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?

This book by the late Presbyterian pastor James Montgomery Boice is a heart's cry for the evangelical movement to reconver the principles it once stood for. It covers the five "solas" that were the backbone of the Protestant Reformation - that one is saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone. All of these principles are being twisted or forgotten in one way or another by modern Christians, and Boice lays out the problem in his book and suggests solutions. While I can't endorse some of the historical figures he cites positively (John Paul II and Brother Lawrence, for instance) it does not detract seriously from the overall message. This will disturb and convict any serious-minded Christian who is concerned about the witness of the Church. Brothers and sisters, all is not well in contemporary Christianity, and this book will explain why.

3. Ready to Restore, by Jay Adams

Every one of us has been there: a Christian brother or sister has come to us with a problem or situation, and needs wise and godly counsel. No small problem, this fellow believer is grappling with a deep and persistent problem that makes you wonder, "How do I handle this?" Jay Adams, the author of this short book, makes a persuasive case that every Christian is called to be a counselor (read Galatians 6:1)- not a professional counselor, necessarily, but a "lay counselor" nonetheless. This book is a beginner's introduction to the biblical principles undergirding counseling. I read this immediately after I finished a seminary-level counseling course, and I wish I had read this first. Its chapters are very short and readable, and it is a very systematic treatment of the topic - perfect for church studies or small groups.

4. The Battle For The Bible, by Howard Lindsell

As far as I know, this book is out of print. And that's too bad. One of the biggest problems facing modern Christianity is the relentless assault on the truthfulness of the Bible from inside and outside the "evangelical" camp. This 1978 volume is still as relevant today as it was when it was first published. Lindsell explains why inerrancy - the doctrine that Scripture is absolutely true in everything it teaches, including where it mentions dates, names, and science - is critical for the church. He then looks at how the doctrine came under attack in the latter half of the 20th century. This book needs to be read again, as both liberal Christianity and the "Emergent" movement cast doubt on the authority and trustworthiness of the Bible in our day.

So how do we read it, if it's out of print? Easy - the whole thing's on the Internet. Click on the book title above. Absolutely no excuse here!

A Great Quote

2006-08-31T22:42:00.000-06:00

“Here, then, is the real problem of our negligence. We fail in our duty to study God’s Word not so much because it is difficult to understand, not so much because it is dull and boring, but because it is work. Our problem is not a lack of intelligence or a lack of passion. Our problem is that we are lazy.” (R.C. Sproul)

A Devotional - Jeremiah 29:11

2006-08-30T20:16:00.000-06:00

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11)

This is a well-known verse, often quoted to reassure someone that God has a purpose for their lives. In some translations, such as the NIV, “wholeness” is rendered “prosperity,” and some have used this verse to support the idea that God intends every Christian to have worldly wealth.

The problem with taking this verse as a personal promise from God, as many Christians do, is that it isn’t addressed to them. This is part of a letter from Jeremiah to the Hebrew exiles in Babylon (verse 1), which, among other things, instructs them to build homes, take families, and seek the prosperity of the Babylonian cities they live in (verses 5-7) and, in the verse immediately before, informs them that they will return to Israel after seventy years! (verse 10) Obviously, these are not instructions and promises for modern believers. In context, then, this verse is a promise for displaced and traumatized Jewish refugees, in a strange place far from home, that the Almighty God of their fathers has not forgotten them, and indeed, has a plan and a future for them.

Does this mean we can’t learn anything from this verse, if it’s not addressed to us? Absolutely not. The letter, in our Bibles, identifies God repeatedly as the LORD, an English word meaning Yahweh – God’s special, covenant name that He used with His chosen people. God was reminding his special people, the children of His unbreakable covenant, that He was still there for them. By using this name, he reassured them that His promises to Abraham, to make of him a great nation, were still in force. And that meant that He would protect and preserve His people, even in exile.

We, as Christians, are also in covenant with God: the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. God has one covenant people – those chosen by Him, who trust in Him by way of faith. As God’s covenant children, like the exiles Jeremiah comforted, we can be assured that God indeed does have plans for us, and a bright future. This is not because of a promise in a letter written to a specific group three thousand years ago, but something even deeper and better - God’s nature as a faithful, covenant God. He always cherishes those in covenant with Him.

My Summer In Review

2006-08-28T16:47:00.000-06:00

Well, I've been gone for a while, but I thought I should get back to the blog...

It's been quite the summer. I've had a fair bit of time to myself, as school has been out since the beginning of June. I've spent a fair amount of time helping out my church - we've run a basketball camp, a day camp, and a backyard Bible club - style Vacation Bible School this summer. The first two each took a week and ran almost all day, and took place in July. We had more than a hundred kids at the basketball camp and two dozen for the day camp - big numbers, considering our church has barely 25 members!

On top of the kids' stuff, the church entered a raft in the Legion's regatta on the Bow River in Cochrane. I watched, but didn't participate - the back's been bugging me this summer - and the team took first place overall. I've written a sermon under the supervision of the pastor, Jesse, and have led two services at the church already. We're doing a step-by-step, expository study of the book of James this summer; I'm preparing a study of James 4:11-12 for this Sunday, which I shall lead if I'm there (more on that in a minute). I might post some of my material on the blog.

We've had some family time this summer. Erin and I took a trip down to Vancouver to visit my mom; Erin fell in love with B.C. while we were there, and wants to move to the Okanagan or the Lower Mainland now! I don't blame her; having lived half my life in B.C., I'd say it's the most beautiful place on earth.

We also went camping with my brothers, sister, and dad at Writing-On-Stone Provincial Park, near Milk River, Alberta. There is a beautiful river there that flows through the hoodoos - I've put up a great picture taken by my sister Rebekah. It is blazing hot down there - I think it's technically desert, actually - but the water is so cold and so nice to float in. Erin loved it - even as pregnant as she was! We ate like kings, played lots of Kaiser (our family card game) and were very sad to leave.

Now, Erin is at nine months, and we're just waiting for baby to arrive. That's why I may not make church on Sunday. She's been doing a lot of reorganizing and cleaning - the "nesting" instinct. Fun for the hubby.... She looks so cute, waddling around with her big belly! She's all belly - hasn't really added weight anywhere else! The baby is an active little bugger, too. If Erin leans against my arm, I feel the baby kicking me - poor little thing's running out of room, and is a little protective of its space!

So please pray for Erin and for a safe delivery! It's all in God's hands, and I'd want it nowhere else.

Okay. This is really the last one on the women pastors thing....

2006-06-26T15:24:00.000-06:00

And, actually, they're not even mine. This is simply to direct attention to a couple really insightful articles I've seen recently.

First is by Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Read it here - he makes many of the same points I did, but better. His previous look at the newly elected female presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopalian church also provides ample evidence that the issues of female leadership in church and acceptance of homosexuality are highly correlated.

And, just in case someone still thinks I'm only some bent-out-of-shape misogynistic woman-beater for holding this particular take on Scripture, take a look at Libbie's opinions here. Like Betty and Nicole earlier, she puts it plainly:

But always, it has come down to the scripture. My passion for scripture, and for those entrusted with the responsibilities of preaching to be faithful to it, demands that I am faithful too. There are passages that explicitly say that women are not to teach or have authority over men. They are not fuzzy passages that require a koine greek concordance to understand the plain meaning of them.

And that should be the final word for all of us.

One Last Note On Women Pastors

2006-06-07T01:51:00.000-06:00

I was deeply encouraged to see some of the comments on my last post of the "To Address Some Concerns" series, especially this one:

I agree. And I'm a woman, and I don't think you hate me :P Thanks, Betty!

Interestingly, it was all women who responded, and two of the three that did were strongly supportive (the second of the three, I must confess, left me rather confused...)

Betty's insights cut right to the heart of the issue. As she pointed out, our purpose as Christians is not self-fulfillment - though Christ is the most fulfilling of all things! No, our ultimate purpose is much higher than selfish concerns:

And most of all, it isn't about us anyway; it is for the glory of God, so to get caught up in it otherwise, I would argue, is selfish and missing the point of serving God. It isn't for self-fulfillment. It IS servanthood as you mentioned, and ultimately it is for God.

Nicole, for her part, directed us to look toward the danger of such practice:

I think it's a shame how our Christian churches today feel the need to put aside scriptural truths to make Chritianity more appealing and acceptable to the world. The Bible could not be more clear on this subject!!!

No, it could not. And this is what I was getting at when I said, "To explain away Scripture's commands about the function of women in the church and household is to do tremendous damage to the authority of Scripture, and opens the door for practically any other doctrine to be similarly 'contextualized' and ignored."

Am I simply being alarmist by pointing this out? I'm not. Consider this: in a poll released in January 2004, the Barna Group, which specializes in church statistics, determined that of the 601 Protestant pastors they surveyed across North America, merely 51% of them have a Biblical worldview (defined as belief in several key Biblical teachings, such as absolute moral truth, the Biblical basis of such truth, sinlessness of Jesus, existence of Satan, etc.) This is shocking in itself, but when broken down by gender, it gets far worse:

The survey brought to light some unexpected differences based on pastoral background... The largest gap related to gender. Whereas 53% of male pastors have a biblical worldview, the same can be said for just 15% of female pastors. (emphasis added)

Barely one in seven women who hold a pastoral role believe in fundamental doctrines of the Christian church. Why is that? Well, first of all, I hate to point out the obvious, but there are always people out there who will take what you say out of the context it's offered - and so I will say this clearly:

It is NOT because women are in some way less capable of grasping Biblical truth - they certainly are able to do so! Personally, I know many, many women who possess a biblical worldview and a firm grasp of Christian teachings. I'm married to one, and count many others as good friends and among my family. The Bible, by assigning the responsibility to older women of teaching younger women the Christian faith (Titus 2:3-5), presupposes that women are fully capable of grasping Scripture. The picture in Acts of Priscilla, together with her husband, correcting and instructing Apollos in the true message of the faith (Acts 18:26) should dispel this idea.

So why is it? It's quite simple: in order to justify allowing women to hold positions of authority in preaching and teaching in the church, one must adopt a method of interpreting Scripture that allows you to ignore and reinterpret teachings that contradict one's beliefs. Or, in other words, one must appeal to culture, or to secular philosophy, or a worldly assumption about the roles of women, and then impose that on Scripture.

And once this has been done for one issue, and the tacit admission has been made that the Bible must be interpreted by some external (and higher / more relevant / more enlightened) authority, this hermeneutic (method for interpreting Scripture) opens the door for practically any other doctrinal deviation - be it abortion, homosexuality, rejection of the sinlessness or even deity of Christ, etc.

To sum up: a person (it's not just women, by any means!) who believes that women should be pastors does not derive this belief from Scripture - where all our faith and practice must come from - but from elsewhere. That person, therefore, is not in submission to God's Word - he or she submits that Word to human wisdom and understanding.

The comments left on my post are examples of women who seek to please God more than human beings - even themselves. And there are others out there - I think of bloggers like the Mahaney girls, Carla Rolfe, and Rebecca Stark, just to name a few. They're living proof that holding a Biblical view of manhood and womanhood is the foundation of freedom and fulfillment. May their tribe increase.

What The Catholic Church Teaches

2006-06-06T16:52:00.000-06:00

Those of you who frequent this blog may remember that on October 31 of last year, I wrote a post commemorating Reformation Day. I thought that it would be instructive for people to realize that it's not just Halloween - something far more important happened on that day of the year.

In my post, I mentioned what the Reformers stood for and against and what they accomplished. It was a call to remembrance and to thank God for His protection of the message of the Gospel.

Now, I don't usually keep an eye on previous posts and their comments. And so when a friend pointed me to a response to that post, I went back and read it. The responder's name is David, and he runs a joint blog with my friend Betty. Their blog focuses on Canadian politics, and is (I think) quite insightful. David's comments on contemporary social issues and the link between legalization of gay marriage and polygamy are worth reading.

David, in his response to my post, disputed my assessment of Catholic beliefs. Now, as a Protestant born and raised, I have to be careful that when I describe Catholic beliefs, I do so fairly and accurately - and this requires doing my homework! So to me, this was a chance to review my facts, check my sources, and ensure I was not bearing false witness.

Also, it's vital that we conduct such discussions in a spirit of grace and gentleness. The truth is worth the discussion and debate, but that debate must be done in keeping with the example of Him we are seeking to honour. David disagreed with me, but he did so graciously and with respect. I pray I did the same.

If anyone's interested in my response to David, it can be found here in the comments thread:

Happy Reformation Day!

And, if anyone's interested, here are some sources I used in formulating my response:

Catholic:

Canons of the Council of Trent

Catechism of the Catholic Church

Protestant:

Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

Calvin's Statements on Grace Alone: Conversion of the Will, and Justification by Grace Alone

To Address Some Concerns (Part IV)

2006-06-02T23:17:00.000-06:00

Women in Ministry

A final concern raised by some when I made known my intent to attend a Baptist seminary was the question of women in church leadership. The concern stated was that Southern Baptists do not permit women to serve as pastors. This is an issue that has, indeed, been very controversial in the last century; the picture to the left comes from the magazine of a liberal mainline denomination that has grappled with this issue and settled on the side of embracing female pastors.

In Fredericton, I knew many who felt the same way. These people felt I should not attend a Southern Baptist seminary because their attitude towards women was wrong. One person, in fact, told me when I mentioned my decision, "You must hate women."

Yes, that's the level that theological dialogue and debate has descended to in the modern church.

So, first, I'll state categorically, as a happily married husband and as a Christian man, that I do NOT hate women. I believe God created man and woman in his image, not just man:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27)

And in Christ, there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28). Christian women are equal in the eyes of God to Christian men - they are just as valuable.

Now, the issue of gender and church leadership must first be rooted in a Biblical construct of church leadership. The New Testament describes three offices of the church: apostle, elder/pastor/bishop, and deacon. Apostles passed away with the death of John at the end of the first century, as one of the qualifications of the apostolic office was to have seen Christ in the flesh (1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:7-9), and so there are no "apostles" in the New Testament sense today. (This does not mean that certain apostolic functions, such as of beginning new works and coordinating the efforts of different churches, no longer exists - only that the infallible authority of the original apostles does not reside in any church office today). The terms elders, pastors, and bishops are used interchangeably in the New Testament and early patristic writings, and refer to the same office. They are the spiritual leaders and shepherds of the church. Deacons are those who are appointed by the church to minister to physical needs - the term diakonos in Greek means, literally, "servant."

Now, can women serve in these roles? Let's look at Paul's instructions about elders first:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. (1 Timothy 3:1-3)

This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you-- if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God's steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:5-9)

Note that Paul presupposes in his comments that the elders are men - "husband of one wife." More importantly, they must be "able to teach" and "give instruction." This is integral to the role of an elder. Particularly important with regards to this issue is this statement Paul made just a few verses before the qualifications found in Timothy:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

If women are not permitted to teach men, and the ability to teach and rebuke is integral to the office of elder, it logically follows that women are precluded from such roles.

Notice furthermore that the teaching requirement is not repeated for deacons. The diaconate is not a teaching body:

Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. Their wives likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. (1 Timothy 3:8-12)

So, although Paul presupposes men as deacons here as well, the deacons do not hold a teaching or authority role. Furthermore, Paul demands that the deacons' wives must meet the same standards - a requirement not expressly stated for elders. It is as if he expected husband-and-wife teams to cooperate in such service. If so, we would expect the New Testament to refer to female deacons - and, actually, there is such a reference:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconness of the church at Cenchreae... (Romans 16:1, Revised Standard Version)

Most contemporary versions render Phoebe's description as "servant," but as stated above, the Greek for servant is the same as for deacon - hence my choice of the RSV.

So, in short, women may not serve churches in positions of teaching or other authority over men. This is stated repeatedly by Paul:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1 Timothy 2:11-12)

As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35)

This precludes women from being pastors, or elders, or bishops in the church. Also forbidden, then, is the curious role - increasingly seen in charismatic and non-denominational churches - of women as "co-pastor" alongside their husbands.

Womens' submission is not, as is argued by some, simply an effect of the Fall and thus voided by salvation in Christ. This argument is based on a reading of Galatians 3:28 that ignores its context - it speaks of equality in salvation, not equality of function or the end of physical distinctions. Rather, Paul stresses that the functional differences between men and women - and a woman's submissiveness - are, in fact, God's design and rooted in creation itself, prior to the Fall:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve... (1 Timothy 2:11-13)

Furthermore, the submission of women to their husbands and in church life is NOT simply a peculiar feature of the first-century context. I have heard many people argue that Paul's instructions addressed a particular situation in a particular historical and geographical context, and thus is not normative today. This view is wrong - not only does it sound eerily similar to liberal arguments against the Bible's prohibitions of homosexuality, but as observed above, the distinction and function of men and women is rooted in Creation itself. It has been applicable ever since. Finally, Paul repeated his commands about women in submission not to just one church, but to churches in Corinth, Ephesus, and Colossae, to Timothy and to Titus, and even Peter affirmed the doctrine in his letter! To explain away Scripture's commands about the function of women in the church and household is to do tremendous damage to the authority of Scripture, and opens the door for practically any other doctrine to be similarly "contextualized" and ignored.

Now, does this mean women cannot serve in ministry? Not at all!

First, as stated above, I see no Scriptural reason why women cannot serve as deaconesses. Now, many Baptist churches, for instance, use the deacons as a ruling body and invest them with authority and teaching responsibility. If this is the case, these "deacons" are closer to elders in their responsibilities, and such a church would be precluded from allowing women to serve as "deacons." But in churches that recognize the Scriptural qualifications for deacons and use them accordingly, without teaching or ruling authority, women can (and should!) be called as deacons.

Second, Paul tells Titus - and us - that one of the responsibilities of older women is to teach and shape the younger women of the church:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. (Titus 2:3-5)

Therefore, there is certainly a Scriptural mandate for women to serve in positions of authority over other women - as, say, women's ministers. Such a position would not be an elder's or pastor's position - for that would entail authority over the church in general and men in particular. Rather, it would be a particular service to the church, and could be described as a deaconness' role.

Third, there is no Scriptural prohibition of women serving as children's ministers - again, as a particular type of deaconness. Remember that the spiritual development of children is first and foremost a family matter, not a church responsibility - and so is ultimately something God will hold their parents, and particularly their fathers, accountable for. Any church activities like childrens' Sunday School or Vacation Bible School could certainly be organized and taught by women, though, as long as the priority of family is recognized.

Southern Baptists have historically recongnized these truths. I agree with them. This issue, for me, served to confirm my seminary choice - the Bible's views on women in leadership are hardly politically correct, and so standing against the culture on this issue shows a respect for God's Word - respect that I looked for in making my decision.

Additional Resources

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood - an organization that promotes Biblical teaching on gender and the church.

The Danvers Statement - a declaration summarizing the Biblical view on this issue.

To Address Some Concerns (Part III)

2006-05-30T00:00:00.000-06:00

I said previously that I would cover the whole question of tongues and SBC policy pertaining thereto in separate posts. However, if I don't just get on with the issue, it'll never get written, and so I've decided to just write one post about the question of charismatic gifts and my seminary choice. Next time I'll cover the women as pastors issue.

My attitude towards charismatic gifts today? In short, I haven't come to a settled theological opinion on the matter. I guess I'd be in the "open but cautious" camp described in Zondervan's "Are Miraculous Gifts For Today?" by Robert Saucy.

I have no desire to put God in a box. I do not see a clear Scriptural case for the outright cessation of miraculous gifts, and without one I must be open to the possibility of God's working in such manners. I've read both Reformed (e.g., Richard Gaffin's) and dispensationalist (e.g., John MacArthur's) cases for cessationism, and while they make many good points, I am not convinced. I have known personally people healed miraculously - but always in answer to prayer, and not through a human agent or "faith healer."

On the other hand, I am EXTREMELY skeptical of the alleged manifestations of the gifts I saw during my time in charismatic circles. I see no Scriptural reason to believe that tongues are anything other than interpretable human languages (how else could Paul have commanded an interpreter be present?) and, even more important, most of the charismatic churches I have personally experience utterly ignored Paul's instructions on their use in church (no more than three people, always with an interpreter, etc.).

And, I don't speak in tongues. I never have. I have never felt any desire to seek that gift - and I see Paul commanding us to seek higher gifts than tongues in the New Testament. In short, a Baptist education is not going to change my mind, or cause me any "cognitive dissonance."

With respect to prophecy, I am increasingly worried by the number of people I see - even in Baptist circles! - claiming "words from the Lord." To me, that is the claim of a prophet, and to speak in such a manner without being willing to stake one's life on it (that's the Deuteronomic test) is to treat the Lord's name far too casually. It risks breaking the commandment about taking God's name in vain.

And I do reject outright the idea common in charismatic circles - and championed by Wayne Grudem, among others - that New Testament prophecy is fallible. This would, first, render the whole New Testament questionable in terms of its accuracy (because the process of enscripturation is a form of prophecy, being inspired writing and speech); it would make any Scriptural test of a false prophet (such as that given in Deuteronomy) utterly useless; and it would remove the seriousness of false prophecy and allow untrue words to be casually dismissed as a natural consequence of the prophetic process. I find the arguments based on Agabus' alleged "wrong" prophecies untenable in much the same way as I am unconvinced about cessationist claims that 1 Corinthians 13 predicts the end of prophecy. In short, if there's prophecy today, it has to be perfectly accurate and its deliverer will be in absolutely no doubt about the message's origin - the same as it's always been.

(A short word, though, on the Southern Baptist International Mission Board's new policy for its missionaries. The IMB last year approved a policy forbidding any person who speaks in a "private prayer language" or who has been baptized in a church not holding to eternal security from being an IMB missionary. I find this policy reprehensible, because in my view the IMB is a servant to the churches, not their watchdog or master. It has no right to dictate to churches, who in Baptist ecclesiology have the right to nominate and recommend missionaries, what doctrinal standards must be met by their nominees beyond the statement of faith of the SBC, approved by those churches. And the Baptist Faith and Message is silent on the issue of tongues, and does not link the issues of eternal security and baptism - else it would require that Christians joining SBC churches from Pentecostal and other Arminian denominations be rebaptised. This it does not do, and so I share my friend's concern for the IMB's policy.

And, for that matter, so do many others in the SBC. I would not be surprised to see the policy eventually rescinded. After all, the present head of the IMB is on record as using a private prayer language. And though I disagree with him about that [see my comments on tongues as human language above] I support his right to hold that view in the SBC - because our statement of faith is silent on the issue.)

That's my short take on the charismata. Again, I'm not settled on the issue, and I think both sides are wrong in different areas, so I am open but very cautious. I believe that a pastor's primary preparation has to be in rightly handling Scripture, and not the charismatic gifts, and with that as my highest priority, I chose a Baptist seminary.

A Great Quote

2006-05-28T20:07:00.000-06:00

"While there is a great deal of mysticism among modern faith healers, they actually eliminate mystery from miracle, making healing predictable and, in fact, inevitable (naturalistic). No longer is a miracle the spontaneous and surprising work of God, but the right use of means, as predictable as any other scientific law. When God heals, it is not an interruption of natural laws. At its core, the faith healers proclaim a naturalistic faith. Salvation and healing are both human achievements." (Michael Horton)

Grieving a Friend

2006-05-22T07:08:00.000-06:00

When a person joins the military, we call the commitment made "signing on the dotted line." The phrase calls to mind the sacrifices made and risk assumed by the person signing. Anyone who joins should "count the cost," so to speak, and I thought I did. I knew being a soldier could be dangerous; I knew it could get me hurt or killed.

Sadly, though, most of us who joined don't count the emotional cost of being a soldier. Military life doesn't just carry the risk of being hurt physically. Over the course of a career, you meet people and form relationships with many of them. The high-pressure environment of military life forges friendships like few other circumstances can. And since the risk to those friends is as real is the risk to oneself, military life means the virtual certainty that you will lose people you care about.

And being out of the ranks and backin civilian life does nothing to insulate you from that risk. Last Wednesday, I casually checked the news, and saw that another Canadian soldier had been killed in Afghanistan. When I opened the story, it was like a punch in the stomach. I recognized the picture before I read the name.

Nichola Goddard was a classmate, and a fellow soldier and gunner. But more than that, she was my friend.

I met her in my first year at Royal Military College in the fall of 1998. She was an outgoing, gregarious person with a big smile. One of the things that stands out in my memories the most is that, in a place where the use of last names was the norm even between close friends, she would always say, "Hey, Jeff!" as we passed in the hallway between classes. And we sat (suffered!) through many a class together, being both in the Arts stream at the College.

It was the following summer, though, where we came to know each other well through mutual friends. Nic had been in the same basic training platoon as my best friend, Kevin Laffin, and was in the same cadet squadron as my fellow drummer Mitch Rivest. As a result, when most of my first-year class went off to Saint-Jean-sur-Richilieu, Quebec for French training in the summer of '99, we wound up spending a considerable amount of time together. I remember various things: waking up at 5 AM for fire drills, standing outside the barracks shivering and swatting mosquitos; sitting with a bunch of buddies at our hang-out, Beethoven's, over peanuts and drinks, and Nic and her boyfriend Jay joining us even though it was their first anniversary going out together; my first visit to Ottawa on Canada Day '99, along with Nic, Jay, Mitch, and my buddy Bill Prince. I still have a picture of "Princess" and I all painted up for the occasion, me carrying a big Canadian flag - and if I recall correctly, it was Nic who took the picture.

It's funny how you remember all the little things at a time like this. Nic fretting, at the airport, over whether the airline would give her trouble for her biathlon rifle; the two of us being nominated for some Artillery regimental prize while at the College, and agreeing to decline because we were not trained as gunners yet; her advice to me about what to expect on Artillery training because she got the course before I did. The last time I saw her, she was finishing her temporary position as a training officer at Gagetown's Artillery School, where I was the Assistant Adjutant, and we were discussing public affairs and administrative issues.

All those memories sharpen the loss by themselves. Even sadder for me personally, I was privileged to catch a glimpse of her family life. Through the years I knew them, she and her husband Jay were literally inseparable, so much so that my buddies and I rarely ever referred to them separately; they were "Nic n' Jay." They met on basic training and had been going out ever since. I saw a comment Jay made to the media a couple days ago, saying that he had lost his best friend. He literally did.

She and her family were close. I recall a fencing tournament in my fourth year of College where she showed up, all excited, to watch one of the women's matches. Turned out her sister Victoria ("Tori") was fencing against the RMC team - that was the first of her family I met. And just two and a half years ago, Nic and Jay were in Calgary visiting her parents, and Mitch and I were invited to spend New Year's Eve (if I recall correctly) with their family. It was a privilege to meet them all.

Yes, she took pride in her work. She was a solid leader and as professional as they come. Everyone I knew at the Artillery School - and I knew practically everyone - had the highest respect for her. She cared deeply about her troops and about the mission she was on in Afghanistan. I'm sure, though, that it would have saddened her greatly to leave her family behind. It's the risk any soldier takes, and she knew it as well as anyone, but dying in battle would not have been her first choice. It's a testament to her love for the Army and her concern for her soldiers that she assumed that risk anyway. I'm sure she would have been proud that, in that last battle, all her soldiers made it out alive and that the Canadians defeated the Taliban soundly. She loved her job, and she died doing what she loved.

I'll keep Jay and her family in my prayers, and I'll be at the funeral Friday, God willing. As for Nic, it was a blessing to have known her, and I sincerely and painfully regret not having taken the opportunity to know her better. It really does take a loss to understand what you once had. Through times like this, we're reminded that every day really is a gift from above, and that we cannot take anything for granted.

Nic, good shooting. Stand easy.