Dennis Prager nails it — and misses it, at the same time

by Dan Phillips

I am neither a Dennis Prager fan, nor am I a hater. He's a sharp guy, but there are only so many uses of the first-person singular pronoun that can be borne in any 5-10 minutes span, and Prager easily exceeds that limit every time I happen across his show or writings.

Yet Prager isolates and nails something very important in his recent essay, Nothing Sacred. His focus is political, but the point he makes is far broader, as he himself alludes. Prager is diagnosing and describing the mental malady of liberalism. Prager begins by quoting prominent liberals who were alarmed at the reading of the US Constitution in the House of Representatives, and he asks what it was that was so troubling to them.

Prager's response:

The answer is that for leftism — though not necessarily for every individual who considers himself a leftist — there are no sacred texts. The two major examples are the Constitution and the Bible. One cannot understand the Left without understanding this. The demotion of the sacred in general and of sacred texts specifically is at the center of leftist thinking.

Prager brings in the Bible, and we're going to leave politics (except as illustrative) and focus on the mindset of liberalism in its stance towards God's verbal self-revelation.

Prager absolutely correctly observes that "elevating any standard, any religion, any text to the level of the sacred means that it is above any individual," and thus is authoritative to that individual. Whether a politician being told he must rein in his cravings for power under the authority of the Constitution, or a man or woman being told that he is under the external, objective judgment of God's Word, the issue is at root the same.

And so, Prager says that to a leftist, "what is right and wrong is determined by every individual’s feelings, not by anything above the individual." Then Prager says that

This is a major reason why the Left, since Karl Marx, has been so opposed to Judeo-Christian religion. For Judaism and Christianity, God and the Bible are above the self. Indeed, Western civilization was built on the idea that the individual and society are morally accountable to God and to the moral demands of that book. That was the view, incidentally, of every one of the Founders, including deists such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.

Moreover,

Morality is then no longer a God-given objective fact; it becomes a human-created subjective opinion. And one no longer needs to consult an external source to know right and wrong, only one’s heart. We are then no longer accountable to God for transgressions, only to ourselves.

We could go on; it actually is a very thoughtful and well-written article. Also, we're blessed with so many sharp readers that I doubt you much need me to make the application you're all already making (and the ironies you're noting) in your own mind.

But hey, if I'm going to put my byline on it, I'd better write something beyond "what he said!", hadn't I? So here it is.

Prager's analysis is delightfully sharp and on-target, yet it falls short in ways that literally make all the difference in the world. Prager is himself an apostate Jew, by which I mean that he — while often and sincerely expressing admiration and affection for Christianity — is still among those who have rejected the Prophet like Moses, who came and spoke Yahweh's words. Prager is still among those whose stance toward Messiah is "We do not want this man to reign over us" (Luke 19:14).

And as I developed at greater length elsewhere, this means that Prager has had to deal loosely with Scripture himself. He could in no way be said to be under the authority of the Torah, as God spoke it; but rather Prager  is in some fashion under the rules and traditions of men (cf. Mark 7:1-13). The objective text of the Torah, in all its edgy and offensive power, is not Prager's philosophical nor moral pou sto.

Here is what the Torah would add to Prager's analysis. All of this started in the Garden, and we as a race are still stuck in exactly the same place. God had presented His worldview. It was comprehensive, exhaustive, and utterly authoritative. Everything Adam and Eve needed to know was included.

Yet Eve found herself in the one place in all the universe where she had no business being, listening to the one entity in all the universe to whom she had no business listening (Genesis 3:1ff.). Satan's fundamental proposition to Eve was a simple one: God's word is not necessarily binding on you; you must decide for yourself what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong. Thus you shall be as gods — or, possible, as God.

And so "God's ape" perverted God's design in a literally hellacious manner. Of course God's design from the start was that mankind be "as God," in a spiritual and moral resemblance knowable only through the holy and whole submission of faith. This was a pervert's likeness, a likeness that attempts (insanely!) to wrestle God's Godhood from Him, and claim it as my own.

And so each of us is at heart a "liberal" or a "leftist," in Prager's sense, in that each of us is born with a hot hatred for any external authority that challenges our own. That is why

God looks down from heaven
on the children of man
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.

3 They have all fallen away;
together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one. (Psalm 53:2-3).

That is why the thoughts of man's heart are naturally only wicked all day (Genesis 6:5). That is why all of us naturally do what is right in our own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25). That is why we all suppress God's truth (Romans 1:18). That is why we have all gone aside, we do not seek God, we are bereft of that necessary foundation for all knowledge: the fear of God (Romans 3:9-18).

That all just scratches the surface. Sin has vitiated the way each of us looks at the universe. Prager's prescription doesn't go nearly far enough, because his diagnosis doesn't go nearly far enough — and because he leaves himself out. We don't need merely to be more respectful of the Constitution (though I think that would be good), or of the Bible.

What we need is a complete overhaul. We need a complete paradigm shift.

We need what the rejected "Prophet like Moses" tells Dennis Prager and you and me that we all need: we need

• to repent (Matthew 4:17); and
• to be born again (John 3:1ff.)

A teacher in Israel really should know this (John 3:9-10).

It appears Prager doesn't.

Do you?

---

Real Passion vs. Artificial Enthusiasm

by Phil Johnson



hen we consider Christ as the very incarnation of divine glory, it ought to put all our other passions in proper perspective. It ought to make us ashamed that our focus is so far off and we are not really passionate about the one thing that ought to excite us the most.

We imitate all the world's passions. We invent gimmicks to try to win worldly people by appealing to whatever mania has captured our culture's attention at the moment. We devote our energies and our emotions to things that are not even worthy of our attention. We do things to stir artificial passion—which is an especially sinister form of false worship.

Our passions should not need to be whipped up by spiritual cheerleaders and stadium chants. We shouldn't have to be worked into an emotional state by hype and melodrama and musical manipulation. If we can get pumped to a fever pitch by some rock-star pastor's antics rather than by the truth of the biblical message, then whatever we are feeling isn't even a legitimate passion in the first place.

How many youth leaders purposely provoke their students to a state of screaming enthusiasm with gross-out games? Remember the peanut-butter-in-the-armpit performance? (Sadly, I've been unable to forget it.) Note that pastor's rationale: he say he does stuff like that frequently to "shock and astound." (Those are his exact words.) He said he did the armpit schtick because he hoped to start "a buzz that would go viral, that teens would text and Twitter about." And here's how he justified his strategy: "The idea is to get students here to meet our Savior. They are getting all this crazy stuff out there in the world all the time. We are trying to show them that God is cooler."

Now, that's obviously an extreme example, but it illustrates rather vividly the foolishness of trying to stir artificial passions by making God seem "cool" rather than simply uplifting His glory and letting the grandeur and majesty of our God move people's hearts to more legitimate expressions of deep passion.

Ersatz enthusiasm and crass tomfoolery actually contradict the message we're supposed to be proclaiming. With so many churches merely trying to entertain people, or lull them into a state of self-satisfaction, or simply gross them out, it's no wonder the world is not being won to Christ but actually becoming steadily more hostile to Christianity.

By the way, the passions stirred by a clear vision of God's glory aren't necessarily warm and comforting. It's not always a good feeling. In fact, it is much more likely that the first time someone catches a glimpse of God's glory, the result will be intense fear. "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Psalm 111:10). Do a study on this in Scripture and take note of how people usually respond when they first see God for who He is. They fall on their faces in sheer terror. Almost every time.

God's glory also provokes profound amazement and wonder. Sometimes it's delight and rejoicing. (Peter fell on his face and confessed his sin when he first began to realize who Jesus was. But he sounded almost giddy when he saw Christ's glory unveiled on the Mount of Transfiguration.) All of those are legitimate emotions, and if they are real, they will make a lasting difference in us—something more than an impressive display of arm-raising and swaying with closed eyes during the song service; and something more credible than the pseudo-drunken behavior that has become such a plague in recent years.



Artificial religious enthusiasm is the bane of our age, and it's a powerful detriment to the church's testimony. There is perhaps no more reprehensible variey of raw hypocrisy.

On the other hand, if we really grasped and meditated on how the glory of God is revealed to us in Christ, we would never need any artificial gimmicks to stir our passions, and we certainly would never dream that we needed to try to make God seem "cooler" or more appealing than He actually is.

---

Open Letter to Pat Robertson

by Frank Turk

Dear Pat Robertson,

In 2007, Pat, you predicted that a massive attack ("not nuclear") would destroy a major US City. In 2008, you put on display what you said God told you to say and to predict -- and I have to admit that you came pretty close then, predicting a stock market crash and high oil prices. You weren't the only one predicting that, but one has to give credit where credit is due.

Then in 2009 you also made your predictions as communicated to you by God:



Somehow we averted hyperinflation, a collapse into socialism, and gold at $1900 an ounce that year, but you were not abashed. And of course, because this is an annual event, you provided your notes from your tea time with God for 2011 just last week (I could't find the 2010 footage):



Let me say frankly that these videos speak for themselves. You've been doing this for a long time, and it has made you a lot of money.

Now, what really bothers me about this isn't the money-making because a brother has to eat. If you and your conscience can spend your time doing this sort of thing, and people will pay you for it, it's a free country and people make money all kinds of ways.

But it does bother me that you leverage this aspect of your career to do other things as well. See: unlike Benny Hinn who just claims to be God's special Jedi, and we should get some of his anointing by sending him money, you encourage a horrible image of what faith in Christ looks like because your view of salvation is tied to how things look right now.

For example, in your book the people of Haiti were ravaged by disaster because they have made a "pact with the devil". Now, whether or not the folk religion of Haiti is idolatry (and it is), I think there's a problem with matching one-to-one their idolatry with their suffering.

On the one hand, it seems to say that other forms of idolatry aren't as bad. You know: the idolatry of celebrity which is evident on CBN doesn't seem to catch God's umbrage -- rather, next year will be another good year for CBN and its affiliated parachurch businesses. The idolatry of statism -- albeit conservative statism -- from preachers like yourself who put political victory over Gospel clarity and sincerity somehow slips under God's wrath's radar. And somehow the idolatry of speaking for God when God hath not said also seems to be outside the scope of natural disaster, as the videos above and the track record of those predictions plainly demonstrate.

And on the other hand, what about those actually suffering for the sake of Christ? This is the issue which I think cuts a little deeper -- because today there are Christians dying for their faith, but in your predictions only people in league with the Devil will suffer. I mean: we can expect as much from careless people who think the Devil is a sort of schtick we can use when we use religious language, but you're allegedly a godly man. You're allegedly someone with a deep faith. Is it your view that Christians who suffer are outside the will of God? It can't be that -- you wouldn't shame martyrs with that sort of nonchalant caricature of what it means to live in God's good graces. Would you?

So here are my suggestions for you in 2011, and you can take them for whatever they are worth to you:

1. Repent of your false prophecies.

This is an easy one as it wouldn't take 10 minutes to start and it would only require you to eliminate this 15-minute segment from your network each New Year. Just come out and say it: "For years I have claimed to be speaking for God, and I have not been speaking for God. I have been speaking from my own intentions and biases and thoughts, and I was wrong to assign those to God's will, and God's Word. I have sinned against God, and against my fellow believers, and I ask God's mercy and their forgiveness." You could do it -- and a giant swath of Christians would breathe a sigh of relief that you are not actually crazy or delusional but rather concerned that Jesus finally be glorified.

2. Reconsider the Gospel.

Here's what I'm thinking: rather than use your life's work network to promote every new fad and spiritual quack who will say the name "Jesus" or put a Bible verse on his product, schedule some prime time to the historical fact that Jesus lived a real life, and that his intention was to die for the sake of the sins of those who would believe in him. Jesus didn't die to make us sooth-sayers, or Congressmen, or influential entertainment executives: He died because we are all distracted from God by being sooth-sayers, and Congressmen, and influential executives, and so on. Reconsider that the Gospel did not make Paul rich but rather abjectly poor -- and he evangelized the Roman world without so much as a blog or a decent pair of shoes. Reconsider that the Gospel changes what prosperity looks like. And then repent of what you have made out of the Gospel.

3. Get serious about the actual Word of God.

I am sure you have read it -- the Bible. You have read the Bible. The problem is that you have not read it for what it says. You have spent most of your public life parsing prophecies so that you can make political points and cause your viewers to panic because the end is near. But it's funny that you are not in a panic that the end is near: you're storing up riches in storehouses, and still scaring others with prophecies of economic and political disaster. You know: the one time Jesus stood before someone of political power, he said, "My kingdom is not of this earth;" and when Paul stood before Festus and Agrippa, he didn't lecture them on the legitimacy of Roman policies -- he preached to him the Gospel in order that Agrippa would be changed, and saved. You are not like those founders of this faith, Pat. You would do better to be like them, and I call you to repent about your attitude toward the word of God.

I hope this note finds you in God's good graces so that you will be inclined by His conviction and Spirit to make your life right. It's not too late, and you will bless many by your change.

---

What did Jesus (not) say about... God's desire for us? (full post)

by Dan Phillips

"God wants you to have your best life right now."

The perspective I'm reading into the phrase is that of the old Schlitz commercial: "You only go around once in life so you've got to grab for all the gusto you can." On religious lips, the intent is not to deny an afterlife nor celestial blessings — just to sideline them by focusing everything on the here and now. "Best life now" means good health, good loving, good money, good house, good goodies, good success in my endeavors. It means success and prosperity on my terms, here and now.

Does Jesus say that's God's priority for us? It has to stand as a singular perversity that this meaning is extracted from John 10:10b — "I came that they may have life and have it abundantly." That someone could read this verse and immediately connect "life" with material prosperity, or success in pursuing my goals, is very revealing. And not in a good way.

Is that what God sees, when He looks down on mankind? "Ah Me; if only they had more things! If only they had their way more often! If only they were more free of all suffering and trial!" Is that what God thinks?

Now here comes The Thing about Christianity that too many don't seem to "get": we needn't and mustn't guess. God has already told us what He thinks when He looks at us.


      God looks down from heaven
      on the children of man
                  to see if there are any who understand,
      who seek after God.

            3      They have all fallen away;
      together they have become corrupt;
                  there is none who does good,
      not even one. (Psalm 53:2-3)

So God primarily sees and assesses the human condition in relationship to Himself. Are men primarily rightly related to Him? is the question He asks. No, is the answer.

This makes perfect sense with what Jesus says, in so many words, when asked to single out the most important thing in all life.  The form of the question as posed was "which is the great commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36). But as we know from Jesus' well-known and well-understood worldview, the commandments of the Law were revelations of the mind and will of God. Therefore, to single out the most important of these was to single out what was foremost to God and, therefore, what is foremost in the universe.

How did Jesus reply?

 "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 22:37-40)

Neither commandment had anything to do with getting my way for myself to make me happy. Neither sends me back plummeting into the trackless vortex of my passions and cravings and demands. No, the commands send me out of myself in outward-seeking love, first to God Himself, then to the image of God in my neighbor.

That, you might say, is our great, ultimate and consuming destination. Ah, but how do I get there from here? That's the problem; that's my problem. Here, I am chained to a heart that is a laboratory of sin, Jesus says (Matthew 15:19). I am flesh, born of flesh, and of myself I can never aspire to be more than flesh (John 3:6a). More, I am a natural-born citizen and denizen of a world that hates God and His truth, and I fit in just fine with it (John 7:7; 15:18-19).

What is the answer? Jesus gave it. I need Him to pay the ransom-price in my stead, to free me from the guilt and power of my sin (Matthew 20:28). I need to be born again by the Spirit of God, to change my nature from without (John 3:1-8). I need to pass from death to life through faith in Christ (John 5:24).

And then what is life to me?

Life is a life where I am on my way, on a trip, just passing through. This world is not my home — not now, anyway, and not this world. This world hated my Lord, and it will hate me (Matthew 10:24-25; John 15:18). In it, I should expect to suffer. I will be poor in spirit, will mourn, must be meek, will hunger and thirst for righteousness, will be persecuted for righteousness' sake, will be reviled and persecuted and accused of all kinds of evil against you falsely on Christ's account (Matthew 5:1-11). I will expect — not to climb into a Rolls Royce, but — to take up a cross as the means of my own execution, and learn to say "No" to my self, daily (Luke 9:23).

But in all this (and more!), I must rejoice and be glad — not expecting God to send me a diamond ring or a mansion in Bermuda, but assuredly expecting something far better.

I will expect to see God in His glory. I will expect to see His kingdom (Matthew 5:3). I will expect the rewards infinitely to outweigh the sorrows (Matthew 5:12; cf. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18). And that expectation constantly spills over into the present, and gives me reason for hope and joy and rejoicing and gladness (Matthew 5:12; Luke 6:23; cf. Romans 5:2).

This world is a gymnasium, a war theater, a testing-ground.

"Best life now"?

Hardly.

---

The Bizarre Passions of Worldly Culture, and Why They are Incompatible with a True Passion for God's Glory

by Phil Johnson



here's plenty of passion in the world today. Unfortunately, a lot of it is evil passion—lust, anger, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, self-love, and so on. Even whatever good feelings there are in this world are misspent—squandered on trivial things: sports, entertainment, recreation, and the pursuit of personal happiness. We're expected to be deliriously excited about things like that; and we're generally discouraged from taking serious things seriously.

In fact, it's one of the supreme ironies of our culture that raw passion per se (even if it's utterly irrational) is deemed perfectly acceptible, but devotion to God is generally seen as a sign of serious imbalance.

It's true. An earnest worshiper of God is likely to be regarded by our society as a deranged person—especially if he declares his faith. Meanwhile, young girls are practically expected to scream till they faint in the presence of boy-band celebrities. Men can be as fanatical as they like about their favorite sports team. Students can thoroughly immerse themselves in some mindless fantasy game. Anyone of any age can be wholly obsessed with some celebrity or pop star they have never even met. No one bats an eye at those things.



Celebrity worship is the real religion of our culture. In fact, certain dead celebrities have achieved the very same status in our culture as the mythological Greek gods who filled the pantheon of Rome in the first century.

So there's no shortage of passion in modern society. It's just the wrong kind of passion, and passion for all the wrong things.

If there's one thing we ought to be passionate about, it's the glory of God. There is no greater reality in all the universe. There is nothing more worthy of our deepest, most heartfelt emotion. God's glory is the very end for which we were created: to relish the glory of God, to reflect that glory, and to rejoice in the privilege of basking in and declaring that glory to the world. The very first answer in the Westminster Shorter Catechism says it like this: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever."

The glory of God, of course, is one of the central themes of Scripture. God's glory features prominently in all the major eras of Old Testament history. You have the visible Shekinah cloud that led the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years. You have the visible reflection of God's glory that made Moses' face shine when he came down from Sinai. You have the vivid descriptions of divine glory around the heavenly throne in Isaiah 6, and then again in Ezekiel 1 and 10.

All those passages in the Old Testament mention the visible, palpable splendor of God's glory. And of course, the beauty of divine glory is not conducive to verbal descriptions. It is indescribable, unimaginable, and mysterious. Ezekiel's account in particular (see Ezekiel 10:9-22) is a breathless narrative about bright lights, amazing angelic creatures, lightning flashes, intricate, interconnected wheels with countless eyes and sparkling facets like awesome crystal and colorful gemstones. It was a stunning vision, and (speaking of passion) it provoked terror, astonishment, unspeakable awe, great affection, and deep humility in Ezekiel.

As we read Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10 without actually seeing what Ezekiel saw, it's impossible to envision the spectacle. The most popular New-Age theory is that Ezekiel was describing a massive UFO, like a scene out of "Close Encounters" or something. And of course, that's nonsense. I don't think any amount of special effects wizardry could accurately portray the majesty of what Ezekiel saw. The verbal description gives us only the barest hint of it. All that really comes through clearly is a sense of indescribable grandeur, beauty far beyond the reach of any human explanation, unfathomable radiance, and infinite brilliance. It's a vision we cannot perceive from mere words, but between you and me if you can read Ezekiel's account of it and not have a passionate longing to see it with your own eyes, you must have a heart of stone.

It's clear from the Old Testament alone that passion for the glory of God is one of the key evidences of authentic faith. In fact, a yearning to see and perceive God's glory is perhaps the truest expression of saving faith and genuine love for God.



Personally, I can't wait to see the full display of God's glory with my own eyes. The thought of it frightens and intimidates me, but I want it more than anything in this world. That's the deepest hope of every true believer who thinks carefully about all that awaits us in heaven.

And that has always been the hope of true believers. Moses desperately wanted to see God's face. Even though he knew an unhindered look at the radiance of God would be fatal to him as a fallen creature, Moses did get to see some of the glory of God through a shielded view from behind. Only as that glory receded did Moses get a small glimpse, and the splendor of that little peek reflected with such a glow off Moses' face that the people of Israel were frightened for their lives when they saw how Moses' face shone. They begged him to cover it up with a veil.

David likewise longed to see God's glory face to face, and in Psalm 17:15, he said that was the one thing he knew would ultimately satisfy him. All his desires, all his longings, and the object of his every passion lay in that one goal: he wanted an unhindered vision of the glory of God.

Man was created to enjoy and to reflect God's glory. Our race was supposed to be the perfect vehicle for God's likeness. We were designed to be living lanterns through which God's own glory would shine. That's what Scripture means when it says in Genesis 1:27: "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him"

Sin marred the image of God in man and left us with a deep longing for what Adam lost. It's a longing that can only be satisfied by God's glory. That is another reason God's glory is the one thing in the universe that ought to enflame our deepest passions more than any other.

In other words, not only is God's glory inherently worthy of all our affections, it's the very thing our affections were created for in the first place—and it's also the only thing that can ultimately satisfy our most basic urges and longings.

A lot of this life's sins and frustrations would be eliminated if we could just bear that in mind.

---

Don't Fear the Militant Skeptics

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson





The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Dream of the Bakery Cake," a sermon preached Sunday morning, 22 November 1885 at the Met Tab in London.




ehold the host of doubters, and heretics, and revilers, who, at the present time, have come up into the inheritance of Israel, hungry from their deserts of rationalism and atheism! They are eating up all the corn of the land. They cast a doubt upon all the verities of our faith.

But we need not fear them; for if we heard their secret counsels, we should perceive that they are afraid of us. Their loud blusterings and their constant sneers are the index of real fear. Those who preach the cross of our Lord Jesus are the terror of modern thinkers. In their heart of hearts they dread the preaching of the old-fashioned gospel, and they hate what they dread. On their beds they dream of the coming of some evangelist into their neighborhood. What the name of Richard was to the Saracens, that is the name of Moody to these boastful intellects. They wish they could stop those Calvinistic fellows and those evangelical old fogies.

Brethren, so long as the plain gospel is preached in England there will always be hope that these brigands will yet be scattered, and the church be rid of their intrusion. Rationalism, Socinianism, Ritualism, and Universalism will soon take to their legs, if the clear, decided cry of "the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon" be once more heard.

---

That there cover: thanks, thoughts, and a survey version (si puedes)

by Dan Phillips

I'll enumerate, for the sake of brevity and concisitude:

1. My sincere and heartfelt thanks to all of you who took the time to share explain your opinions. What a great bunch you are, and how blessed I am to share you with my betters here as readers.
2. I am humbled and encouraged and amazed almost beyond my capacity to believe or feel it at how many of you express your plan, content-unseen, to buy the book. That's incredibly humbling. Just... thank you so much.
3. It's been fun learning more about you.
4. Isn't it interesting how a group of broadly like-minded people can come down so differently and so emphatically on something like this?
5. HSAT, beloved reader ThreeGirlDad has done what I wish I'd thought to do at the start, and created an online survey. If you feel like adding that, it would help us count up the specifics and break down the demographics. But I know you're busy, it's the weekend, so that's up to you.
6. Pick one of the two, please. If you hate them both, note that in the comments.
7. Thanks!

Find the survey here

---

Dear readers: time to play Pick That Cover

by Dan Phillips

Howdy, gang. Phil's welcoming a day off, so I get to ask you to help me on something. (Of course, I hope Phil and Frank pitch in, too.)

My manuscript has been edited and submitted to Kregel and... well, I'm not sure just where it is. But meanwhile, I've been working with Kregel's Cat Hoort on other aspects of publication. Cat is Kregel's marketing manager who is overseeing the new release campaign for my book, The World-Tilting Gospel.

It's been a fun process, exciting and scary by turns. Cat's been very helpful, and great to work with. We have formalized the title (as you'll see), have worked on audience, presenting the book, and various forms of my bio for differing uses.

Now we get to pick the cover, and Cat suggested that I invite your input.  Fun, eh? Ever do this before? Me either!

First, here are the two main candidates, presented in random order:

Cover A

Cover B

Second: your job is simply to say which you find more eye-catching and, if you don't mind, briefly explain why.

Now I realize that, at this point, you don't know a whole lot about what's inside the book. Actually, that's the point. Kregel wants to know: Which of those books look like anything you might pick up, flip over to read the back cover, and then maybe page through?

Two more things, both optional — well, the whole thing's optional, but I digress:

1. If you don't mind, would you either give your age, or age range (i.e. 20-25, 95-100, whatever)? Be truthful, now.
2. Do you have any position in a church — pastor, secretary, Sunday School teacher, Bible study leader, etc.? Share.

Thanks, I really do appreciate it, and hope it's some kind of fun for you, as this one was.

---

"Compassion"? A parable

by Dan Phillips

A Visitor's Center one day was manned by twin brothers Nick and Knack. A car pulled into the parking lot, disgorging a breathlessly eager visitor.

"May we help you?" offered Nick genially.

"Yes, thank you!" bubbled the newcomer. "All my life I've been longing to travel Route 49! Can you show me the most direct way?"

Nick paled.

"Oh, I'm very sorry, but you don't want to go Route 49."

"But I do!" insisted the visitor.

"Let me rephrase myself," amended Nick. "You may want to, but you really mustn't.  The road goes along nicely at first, but then you'll see a bunch of roadblocks and obstacles laid across it, slowing you down and warning you off. These impediments aren't really a problem; they're actually a good thing...."

"How can they be a good thing," the visitor cuts in angrily. "This is my dream! I want to zoom, not be slowed down."

"I was going to say," continued Nick, "they're a good thing because otherwise you'll shoot straight off the stub of a broken bridge and plummet 800 feet to your death on the rocky rapids below."

"Oh," said the visitor, turning a bit white himself.

"He says," observed Knack, leaning forward, putting down his latte and stroking his soul-patch.

"The map says," countered Nick.

"Map?" asked the visitor.

"Yep, right here," replied Nick, spreading out the item itself on the counter. "See that red X there? It means bridge out."

"You say it means that," snarked Knack. "I say it means 'X marks the spot.'"

"Oh, come on," retorted Nick. "There's a legend at the bottom of the map, for crying out loud! See? 'Bridge out!' It isn't rocket science."

"Scholars now realize that 'X' means many different things in different cultures. Besides, you're talking as if that's the only map," drawled Knack. "This one shows a clear, delightful road right where our visitor wants to go. See?"

"That's in crayon!" exploded Nick.

"You got something against crayon?" inquired Knack.

"No," Nick shot back. "I have something against people destroying themselves."

"Psh," Knack sneered. "You just want safety in rules. The visitor's a daring seeker. He should seek. The journey is what matters, not the destination."

"Seek death?" Nick replied. "I think he'll care plenty about the destination when his car shoots off into space."

There was an angry silence, broken by a sob. It was the visitor, who has tears running down his cheeks.

"All I know is I've yearned to go down Route 49 as long as I remember. Some kids mocked me, others ridiculed me and were mean to me, but the desire has always been there. I can't conceive of not wanting to go down Route 49. It's what my heart tells me to do, and I have to be true to my heart, don't I? I can't lie. It defines me. You can't separate this desire from me. I can't imagine not wanting to go that way. It fills my dreams. I even have a T-shirt. See?" He pulled open his blazer and displayed the garment.

"I understand," crooned Knack. "There is nothing wrong with you or with what you want. And there's nothing wrong with going that way. For you, it is the only way. And in fact, I want to help you. I will personally go ahead of you and remove all the blocks, chains, signs, speed bumps, and ropes that have been stretched across the road. I will mount a parade for you — a Route 49 Pride parade. I will lobby to prohibit people from speaking against traveling Route 49. I will side with you against all the harsh, rule-happy Route 49 nay-sayers. In fact, I will get my brother here fired, because he made you feel bad about wanting to go Route 49. He doesn't care about your feelings, as I do. He doesn't have any love or compassion for you, and I've got buckets of both. Nick's all about rules and maps and shutting you out and playing it safe; I'm all about love and compassion and justice and being bold and daring. Nick is shallow, reactionary and not helpful. I'm deep and thoughtful and helpful. So you just get in your car, and you go go go!"

As the visitor beamed, Nick sprang to block the door. "Whoa whoa whoa, not so fast! Look, friend — how you feel about Route 49 doesn't change the facts: the bridge is out! My feelings aren't the map, your feelings aren't the map. Go that way, and you will die! I don't want you to die. I don't think it's loving or compassionate to give you bad information that means your death. The people who put up those signs and those obstacles knew what they were doing, and they did it because they care about people like you. It shouldn't be easy an comfortable to go down that road. It wouldn't be compassionate of me to focus on giving you a smooth ride to your own destruction, and it isn't "bold" and "daring" to head off to certain doom. Enabling you isn't really helping you. And look, I can show you other ways to go, or I can try to find other ways to help — but don't go that way! It'd be the end of you."

Silence fell again for a moment, then:

"We could call a five-year moratorium on this," offered Knack.

"But I want to go that way now," countered the visitor.

"The map says what it says now, and it isn't unclear," said Nick. "It's said that for a long time, and nothing's changed. Nothing's going to change in five years."

The visitor looked back and forth between the brothers, confused. He knew which brother's advice he liked best, which brother told him what he wanted to hear, but... was that the wisest way to decide?

PREMISE: the bridge was indeed out, and the map was indeed accurate.

QUESTION: which brother actually showed love and compassion?

---

Open Letter to Donald Miller

by Frank Turk

Dear Donald Miller,

After the success of my last open letter, I've decided to write 52 open letters in 2011, one for each week of the year -- and your recent contribution to CNN's 11 faith-based predictions for 2011 seems like a fantastic conversation-starter.

I'm sure your remarks are edited for space at CNN, but here's what they printed:

As religious tensions grow[1] over the coming presidential election and domestic cultural issues involving perceived legislation of morality[2], the media will find more zealous Christians[3] reacting to the issues of the day whose extreme positions[4] will further divide the evangelical church[5] into radical positions[6], and turn away seekers[7] looking for a peaceful resolution[8] to the churning in their own souls[9]. In other words, the devil[10] will play a trick on the church[11], and the church will, like sheep, lose their focus on the grace and love of Christ[12] and wander astray. Those who seek peace, then, will turn to liberal ideologies[13].

To make sure I don't go too far afield, Don, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here, so I added numeric annotations to your comments for the sake of reference.

Here's how I would paraphrase your letter, by the annotation marks:

[1] Religious tensions are growing. That's a broad enough statement, but given the rest of your comment, I think you are headed in the right direction. What you mean by this given your other statements is bold and prophetic.

[2] One reason is presidential elections, the other is the perception that morality needs to be legislated. As a premise, this one deserves a minute of thought -- because it's odd that you bring this up. Yes, I get it: Prop 8 was a right-wing attempt to codify a premise of law, as are the consitutional amendments in various states to establish marriage as the state-regulated union of one man and one woman. But that premise is the one we operated under for centuries here in the West, and the reason that this is an issue now is that someone wanted to change it for what they perceived to be moral reasons. So this statement by you was the first inclination I had that you were onto something rather radical here -- the fact that you recognize that there's an attempt to re-write morality by re-writing the law. It's a great insight and I credit you for it.

[3] The media seeks out "zealous Christians" -- "zealous" meaning "ardently active, devoted and diligent", certainly not "conservative in religious creed and serious about reading the world through the Bible's lens". By "zealous Christians" I take you to mean "people who are living the love of Jesus, not judgment."

[4] By "extreme" here, I think you mean "radical", as in [6] -- they are seeking radical Christian solutions to the problems we see in our nation from a sociopolitical standpoint.

[5] As all radicals do, this activity will divide the church. For example, Brian McLaren and his radical activity has divided the church; Rob Bell has divided the church with his radical hispterism; Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones have been trying to divide the church.

[6] And the divisions are radical divisions -- ones which even go to the place of ignoring and overturning historical and traditional places where the differences between "Christian" and "non-Christian" are drawn.

[7] This activity actually turns away seekers -- and of your points so far, this is the one from you that has surprised me the most. This is David F. Wells' point, which he has been on about for the last decade, and it's about time someone from the post-confessional church actually caught on to it. I applaud your broad-mindedness in embracing an analysis which comes from outside your usual circle of friends and thinker/workmen.

[8] This is the first place you threw me for a loop -- because it's so unlike what we've all come to expect from you. I'm going to work through what I came up with there. You're saying there are "seekers who are looking for a peaceful solution to the churning in their souls" (7-8-9 together). What I have to take this to mean is that you think that someone who is in spiritual unrest wants to find the place where what troubles them is resolved. This is a radical view of the problem, and again I salute you for it. What's more common in popular circles today is to say that if we tell people that they have no reason to worry, that the turmoil in their souls is either self-inflicted (they have a bad attitude, cf. Joel Osteen) or inflicted by oppression (they are victims, cf. Joyce Meyer or Doug Pagitt [who knew they were so similar?]), they will finally get peace because they have received a therapeutic treatment for their ailment. What I perceive you to say here is that they are seeking true peace.

[9] And it is a true peace which is not merely superimposed on them or added. It is a soul-deep solution which is not merely a matter of environment or hard work. This is a truly-radical solution you're talking about, and it's about time someone said it.

[10] After the theological arc you drew in 7-8-9, the next most radical thing you said in this short piece is summed up in two words: "The Devil". Here you are assigning the work of a person called "The Devil" to the radicals who are dividing the church, and I wonder -- did you call them before you let CNN run with this? That's tough talk -- John MacArthur could not have said it better, but the tone police will come for you for saying such a thing. I'm sure you're fine with it, but that you'd say it without vetting privately so that your targets can nuance such a thing into something they can accept from you will get you some flack.

Telling the world that people like McLaren, Pagitt, Jones and Bell are doing the work of "The Devil" might also sound a little dated -- a little fundamentalistic or revivalist, which is something I never expected from you. But I like it -- it's retro spirituality. It goes all the way back to Jesus rebuking Peter for telling "the Christ" that dying and rising from the dead is a bad idea (cf. Mat 16:13-23). I applaud your insight here as it is bound to rankle the people you are saying it to. "The Devil" is doing something through these people. That will get media attention.

[11] So "The Devil" will play a trick on the church. While I'm enthusiastic about the retro feel of saying "The Devil" will do this or that, "The Devil will trick the church" reads a little like Dispensational fiction. Yes, I know Christ says this will happen, if it is possible, but here you're actually accusing people of following Satan and not just making a mistake but actually harming the church. It's bold language. I'm not sure I could have been that bold. If your next book is that bold, my friends at Gut Check Press want to have lunch with you the next time you're in the Lansing area to talk about a book deal.

[12] And the trick is this: the church will lose grace and love. Let me say it first: wow! That's a HUGE insight! When the church resorts to "love not judgment" (as you said so well in 3-4-5) but tries to legislate that morality (as in 1-2-3), the church loses grace and love. Here I blame CNN for cutting out the obvious fleshing out you would have had to do here to make this point, but since this is an open letter, I'm going to fill in for you, and I hope I capture everything you meant in that statement.

See: the church doesn't offer a truly-radical, soul-sustaining message (a-la 7-8-9) if it merely tells people "it's alright! it's alright! All right! She moves in Mysterious Ways!" That's not actually the Christian message. The Christian message, starting from its basis in the Old Testament, is that God's concern for mankind is that mankind does not want God, and does not think it needs God. So God offers a radical solution to wipe the slate clean of man's offenses in the death of Christ, and then give man the offer to repent and receive forgiveness so that he may truly and finally be at peace with God.

So without this message, the Church loses the exclusively-Christian offer of the Gospel, and it loses the ability to give people true peace. As you say, the church loses Grace and Love. It's a nightmare, and I'm glad you said it so well in a forum like CNN gave you.

[13] The best part is the last part of your prediction: those who then seek peace will not be able to find it in Christianity -- because they will not be able to find Christianity. Christianity will have lost Grace and Peace, and then people will look elsewhere for it -- and sadly, they won't find it anywhere else. They'll have to settle for the so-called "love of Jesus without judgment", or else they will go follow the Dalai Llama or Oprah's latest guru or fall into atheism so that they can just dispel the idea that there is anything better than what they have and can make themselves.

It was a brilliant comment, and I applaud you for it. As I said to Derek Webb last week, if more actual Christians spoke to CNN, they'd be improved for it. Thanks for your faithful witness, and for your renewed view of the Gospel. I was worried that, after your last 3-4 books, you had given up on the faith and were looking for something unreal and unfulfilling. I'm pleased to say I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness for doubting you.

Unless I have misunderstood ...

---

Assorted self-referential trivia: pizzas, publication, preaching

by Dan Phillips

I must admit: offering a post when one knows in advance that the most one can hope for is a distant second-place is a bit daunting. But, you know, I'm not a stranger to the concept of duty. And last Thursday (perhaps you missed it?) already gave me a reminder of life in the shadow of Frank. So, one offers one's widow's mite, as we all wait for the sonorous tones of the master's voice to roll forth tomorrow.

FIRST: some of you dear folks are interested in my annual Christmas pizza. This year, however, I was trying to get over a cold, wanting to be able to preach 2.20 times over Christmas week — more on that, later — and the schedule just got whacked. So, no Christmas Eve pizza.

However, I did make pizza last Saturday. In fact, I made two. Better two than one, and better late than never, eh?

The one on the left is the with-everything pizza, the one on the right is the meat-lovers', veggie-light, no-olives/no-'shrooms pizza. Both were yummy, but we're going to experiment a bit more with the dough.

For newbies, here's some pizza-background:

With making-of pictures, from 2006
Still more pictures, plus recipe, from 2008

SECOND: others of you dear souls show continuing interest in my books, and have asked questions I haven't been able to answer.

Now I can!

The World-Tilting Gospel should be available for pre-order from Amazon either in late April or early May. It may be available for pre-order from Christianbook.com slightly before that. As I always say, when I know more, I'll tell you more. But thank you for your interest. Of course, a healthy pre-order would be a great thing.

THIRD: earlier I mentioned preaching 2.20 times over the Christmas weekend. That included a sermon on the Sunday before Christmas, a Christmas Eve mini-sermon, and a sermon the day after Christmas. If you like, you can listen to (or download) the full sermons I preached on Sunday, December 19 and Sunday, December 26. (The Christmas Eve mini-sermon is not online.)

To wit, offered to the world by the generosity of Sun Oak Baptist Church and pastor John Kane:

Immanuel (12/19/10)
Rich Gifts, Unopened (12/26/10)

There y'go.

---

Joy

by Phil Johnson



"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice" (Philippians 4:4).
"Rejoice always" (1 Thessalonians 5:16).

uthentic joy is not about temperament. I hope you don't think of joy as a personality quirk that belongs to naturally upbeat people. True joy is a fruit of the Spirit. It's not a mood or a reaction that is triggered by external stimulus like slapstick or funny stories. True Christian joy is not a sensual emotion.

Don't make the mistake of equating the biblical concept of joy with laughter, merriment, or humor. Laughter and levity are sometimes fruits of joy, but they are not the essence of joy.

As a matter of fact, post-modern society is filled with laughter but almost totally devoid of real joy. Have you ever noticed that some of the angriest people in the world are our best-known comedians?



Laughter is often used to mask the utter absence of genuine gladness. The world uses humor and hilarity as substitutes for authentic joy. We in the church should not ape that mistake.

Nor should we take the approach of certain old-style Victorian high-church prigs who seemed to think every expression of jubilation or happiness was carnal and uncouth. The joy Scripture commends is a pure sense of well-being, delight, gladness. The joy the apostle Paul constantly wrote about is a vivid pleasure that arises from a sense of well-being and satisfaction—even in the midst of earthly hardships. It is a wholly positive thing. It does often produce smiles and even laughter.

Authentic joy—the kind of joy we have a duty to cultivate—is a deep gladness that springs from within. It is impervious to external circumstances. Its ultimate source and object is God. Scripture speaks of it as "the joy of the Lord." Nehemiah 8:10: "the joy of the Lord is your strength."

It is called "the joy of the Lord" because it comes from God. It is His gift to us. It is the birthright of every Christian and a natural result of our unshakable security in Christ. Again, it is not dependent on sensual delights or any external catalyst. Its source is God Himself. That is precisely what Scripture means when it calls joy a fruit of the Spirit. It is one of those inner qualities that comes to every true child of God when our heavenly Father "strengthens us with might by his Spirit in the inner man."

Also, the ultimate object of this joy is God. It is "the joy of the Lord"—joy in the Lord.

What is the chief end for which we were created? To glorify God and to enjoy Him forever. That enjoyment—a delight in God, a love for Him, and an attitude that finds gladness in every one of His attributes—that great delight and satisfaction is the source of true Christian joy.

So it's not merely a sense of humor or a love for laughter per se. But within the context of delighting in God—when He is the source of our joy—there is no limit to the happiness and rejoicing and pleasure we are entitled to enjoy.

Spurgeon said, "You cannot be too happy, brother. Nay, do not suspect yourself of being wrong because you are full of delight. You know that it is said of the divine wisdom, 'Her ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.' Provided that it is joy in the Lord, you cannot have too much of it."

Indeed, joy is our duty, and according to 1 Thessalonians 5:15-18, it is a moral duty on the same level as prayer and thankfulness and doing good to one another.

Baal worshipers can cry aloud and "cut themselves with knives and lancets, after their manner." But Jesus said you, even when you fast, "anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret." We are supposed to be cheerful, contented, always rejoicing in the Lord. That is part of our testimony, and if your countenance is barren of joy and gladness, you are not being a good testimony for Christ.


ht: Tim Challies

---

A Rebuke to Our Cold-Hearted Calvinism

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following is an excerpt from "Earnestness," an address Spurgeon gave at an Assembly of the London City Missionaries on New Year's Day, January 1861.

xcept we are in earnest, our souls can never be in sympathy with the soul of Christ.

I see him now standing on the hill. He looks down upon the city; he marks the gilded roof of the temple, and the streets, and he weeps. He foresees the total destruction of that city, "beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth." In vision he marks her streets crimsoned with gore, and her temple already in flames; and what does he say?

Does he harden his heart by some ideas of divine sovereignty? Does he stand there callous and dry-eyed, feeling that this is predestinated and must be, and that therefore he need not weep? No. We believe that Christ knew the destiny of Jerusalem, but he wept over it too. Down from his eyes the torrents ran; down his cheeks they scalded furrows for themselves: but at last he bursts out in passionate grief, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not?"

Now, if your heart does not feel like that, it is not in harmony with Christ's. There must be the same weepings, the same longings, the same yearnings, or else we have not had fellowship with Christ in the great end and aim of his incarnation—the salvation of the souls of men.

Tell me not of your communings in your closets; tell me not of your raptures and your ecstasies, when your soul has been like the chariots of Amminadib. These things are blessed if they are coupled with the other; but, unless you have fellowship with Christ in labour, fellowship with him in perseverance, fellowship in suffering, I care not for your ecstasies or your reveries; they are hollow and deceitful things. . . .

Oh, let the Crucified One stand before each one of us this morning! I think I see him, and he looks at me and says, "I gave my blood to save sinners; wilt thou not give thy life too?"

And if I feel faint and weary, methinks he puts his hand upon me and he says, "Son of man, I have set thee to speak unto this multitude, for I have much people in this city; be strong and fear not; by my wounds I charge thee, be thou faithful unto death."

By the wounds of Jesus, I charge you, brethren; "by his agony and bloody sweat, by his cross and passion, by his precious death and burial, by his glorious resurrection and ascension,"—in his name I charge you, be ye faithful unto death, and ye shall inherit the crown of life.

---