Haiti Update

by Phil Johnson

6:00pm (EST) Update from Ron Pierre: "I was told a few minutes ago by one of our board members who was able to make contact with our people in Haiti about an hour ago, that an Emergency Response Team from the State of Florida was attempting to bring in fuel to the compound via helicopter. Six doctors from Samaritan's Purse have landed at the airport and are currently making their way up the mountain to the mission. The bodies are piling up at the mission and our morgue is filled to capacity. We are out of gasoline and dangerously low on diesel fuel. Water is in short supply so pray that the pumps and filters arrive within 24 hours. The airplane with these supplies aboard was not able to land yesterday."

y friend Ron Pierre, board president for Baptist Haiti Mission, sent this update:

So many of you are inquiring regarding the situation in Haiti and particularly at the mission. I’ve just now been able to make telephone contact with one of our missionaries, Chris Lieb at Baptist Haiti Mission. Thankfully, the connection was clear and intact long enough for me to inquire as to the current situation. I honestly do not know where to start, the conditions in Haiti are desperate and deteriorating by the moment in spite of all that we hear relative to the aid that is "pouring in" from the US and other countries. I am simply going to list some of the things he was able to relate to me without regard to sequence. Those of you who have been there and/or are familiar with the compound in Fermathe will better understand the conditions, however, all of you will gain a sense of the severity of what our people face. Our hospital is filled with people 250-300 people lying in the halls, many, many with serious injuries that need immediate attention, more people outside and surrounding areas with a constant flow coming in. Our doctors are exhausted, most all of our staff are assigned to the hospital. Thousands of people sleeping in the park just below in Petion-Ville, afraid to return to their homes. At least 10 to 15 thousand people are sleeping in the park near the airport with roving gangs of hoodlums attempting to steal whatever "aid" arrives before it gets to the helpless people. People all along the roads with serious injuries, multiple fractures and puncture wounds; bleeding and unattended. Chris passed women grasping their dying children in their arms, after a while it becomes overwhelming because there is not a thing that you can do about it.. Countless small children wandering about without any parents or adult oversight. The initial stunned calm that was over the population is rapidly turning to despair and in many cases anger. There is a real danger of things turning very ugly, potentially for those who are beginning to arrive to help. For most of the "search and rescue" people that have arrived or will arrive, it will be far, far too late to save lives. The stench of death everywhere and is overwhelming. Many places have seen no help whatsoever. There are piles of bodies in many roads and some have become "roadblocks" in and of themselves. Many people are simply in shock, most have lost at least one or more family members. Vehicles are abandon, roads are blocked or down to one tight lane as large chucks of the mountain have fallen. Chris gave out about 100 very large heavy duty tarps today to be used as temporary shelters and it got very ugly as the last ones were dispersed. The actual process of giving out aid is going to be quite dangerous the longer it takes to reach the people. There appears to be no oversight of the "teams" arriving. They are equipped but do not know where to go or how to get there. It may improve but it is going to continue to be a big problem. Medical supplies are running low at our hospital; I asked for a list of the supplies that they need we can be a bit more specific in our requests when aid does arrive. We have a need for anesthesiologists and orthopedic surgeons. Any medical personnel would be a blessing. Chris commented that he has seen things over the past several days that he hoped he would never see and would chose never to see again. Many people are simply walking around in what is really clinical shock. Everything is closed down; no stores, no markets, water is in tight supply and is running out fast. People walk up and down the mountain just looking for their families; there is no transportation. The Samaritans Purse people were supposed to arrive today with Greta Van Susteren of FOXNews.com. The plane circled for about an hour but could not land. They returned to Miami. The same was true for several other planes caring supplies and aid for the mission. We desperately need a pump and water filters that are coming in. All in all, there are no words to describe what is taking place, the TV news gives inadequate for those of you who know Haiti, the conditions, the culture, the people. Two of our churches in PAP have been completely destroyed, we do not have reports on the many churches in outlying rural areas yet. Most every school in PAP is destroyed, personnel killed. It will be a long, long time before there will be any schools in PAP. Our chaplains have been ministering to every single person who comes to the hospital; scripture is read and they pray with each and every one. We do have some very dedicated people. Our mission families are all accounted for and remain uninjured; we need to uphold them in prayer during these times. God certainly gives the strength and grace when needed. They recognize that the tasks before them are humanly impossible; They also recognize that prayer is the greatest asset they have in this trial. We are trying to keep the website current with pictures, video, and various other feeds . . . . go to www.bhm.org. It may be a bit slow due to traffic but it does function. Our thanks to all of you who have inquired, emailed, called, and written and otherwise displayed your love and concern, this has been equally overwhelming! It is now almost 2:00 am Friday morning EST and time ready ourselves for a new day. Again, I close with Psalm 20, verses 1 and 2: "May the Lord answer you in the day of trouble! May the name of the God of Jacob protect you! May he send you help from the sanctuary and give you support from Zion!" --R.A.Pierre

The photos above are from AP and other news sources. The Washington Post has a large and growing collection of photos, all heartbreaking. Pray for Haiti, and do whatever you can to help.

Relief Agencies We Trust:

Baptist Haiti Mission
Children's Hunger Fund
Mission Aviation Fellowship

---

"And the second is" — not in competition with it, but rather... (Part Three)

by Dan Phillips

Thus far: we've established that our Lord singled out immeasurable love for God, and measured love for our neighbor, as the two most important commands — in that order. And we noted that the two loves are distinguishable, yet not detachable. The first leads to and controls the second; and the implementation of the second demands discernment and wisdom, often in copious measures.

Today: the only point I mean to belabor today is that we very seldom seem to get the balance right, individually or corporately.

The great sin of our day, of course, is elevation of our notions of the second, at the expense of the first. Countless dainty souls live in verbose fear that anyone might offend a false teacher, a heretic, a compromiser; a Judas, a Balaam, a bar-Jesus, a Demas, a Simon Magus; a Judaizer, a Colossian errorist, a Nicolaitan. Their greatest fear seems to be that some straying head should go un-patted, some compromise of the Word remain unflattered.

One easily pictures Paul, or Peter, or Jesus Himself scarcely able to finish the opening words of a thundering denunciation without some precious, self-appointed Tone Cop plucking anxiously at his (or His) sleeve, cautioning him (or Him) about tone, warning him (or Him) above all not to be a "jerk."

And so the commands to love are twisted into commands to protect the false pride of, to shelter the apostasy of, to gild the faithlessness of, our Scripture-twisting, God-defying neighbor — or to enable the straying and harmful dithering of our erring brother.

Dare to agree with Jesus that love for God rules above all, and silk hankies are twisted in bleating expressions of anxiety that anyone take this as a license to be — The Great And Cuddly Allfeelgood forbid! — rude to deliberate perverters of Gospel preaching or living. We mustn't rob unbelief and dithering over eternal matters of its dignity.

I honestly don't think that the great danger of our age is loving God too much. Really. Just not seeing that particular epidemic.

I don't even think our gravest failing is using love for God as an excuse for harsh behavior. I suspect that most who are quickest to pour a glass of that particular whine have more than a touch of cosmophiliitis — a disease against which Dr. John warns most gravely (1 John 2:15-17). No, nowadays, it's hard enough even to get evangelicals serious about defining and defending the edges of the Evangel, which must certainly be a core manifestation of love for God.

Man has effectively dethroned God — and when I say "man," I mean evangelical man, all too often. Not in theory, to be sure (hel-lo? — "evangelical"), but in practice. The de facto has trumped the de jure. Man and his feelings, his (God-challenging) questions, his doubts; worse, his right to his (God-challenging) questions and doubts...worse than worse, his right to yammer on and on about his precious and inalienable right to his doubts, at the expense of actually getting on with learning, believing, embracing, living and openly affirming what God has in fact said in His Word.

Yet still, even among those who really do try to agree with God as to His own express moral/spiritual hierarchy, the balance so often proves elusive. Why is that?

It seems to be a general rule that private individuals, or public figures (pastors, writers, speakers, debaters) who stand foursquare for the truth often are personally cool, restrained, distant — at best. They (we?) can come off as rude or indifferent; and I'm not just talking about the dodge that the convicted invariably shelter behind, I mean really. Talk about personal matters, confess personal failings, have needs, and their eyes glaze over. The skill of personal connection just isn't theirs.

In some, it's actual lovelessness. I can think of several examples of doctrinal and intellectual sharpness (good) coupled with personal sharpness (bad), of skill as to facts and concepts unhappily married to indifference as to persons. One fellow I knew pastored a church while he was in seminary. When I heard him speak of the sheep in his care, it was invariably with seething, sneering contempt. I felt so sorry for them. (He went on to have a very nice academic career. And he pastors.) But he's far from the only smart and graceless man I can think of.

It seems rare, doesn't it, that a man be known both for doctrinal depth and acuity — which is a necessary facet of loving God — and for personal warmth, compassion, graciousness, kindness, love. (Once again: I'm not talking about the lazy dodge that ditherers invariably invoke when their ox is gored, but actual failure to pursue 1 Peter 3:8 and 4:8 as diligently as they pursue 2 Timothy 4:2.

Equally I can think of individuals I've known who were wonderfully warm and caring, very friendly and "easy" in a good way — yet who were doctrinally lax, or significantly off. It's not for nothing that the charismatic movement has that reputation. Ditto some flirting with emergent error, or others who are wobbly on matters I think important.

What can be said of individuals applies also to churches. Few will argue with this observation: it seems as if a church is either known for its doctrinal, Biblical depth and accuracy, or for its practical expression of love, compassion, care, friendliness, and hospitality. A church that combines both graces is rarer than snow in the Sahara.

Here's a warm and friendly and loving church... and its pulpit features "lite" preaching, sermonettes for Christianettes, or stories, or the latest fads in entertainment and world-pleasing.

But not this other church. No, its pulpit features solid, passionate, in-depth expository preaching that is Biblically orthodox through and through. Yet the pastor is aloof, withdrawn, self-involved, and the people reflect a similar introversion. He can preach about people like a wonder. He just can't deal with them, can't show care and compassion for them — can't display love for them, in person. Only in theory.

As I say, I've seen it on both sides of the pulpit. Decades ago, a fellow began attending a church I pastored. A disciple of Col. Thieme, he came for "Bible doctrine," because I preached expositorily from the Greek and Hebrew text. He didn't stay very long, though. Why did he leave? Because I kept "talking about ooey-gooey love." (And that's just because I talked about it; it wasn't even that I actually did it very well.)

These things ought not to be. Yet they are. Why?

Oh dear, you're looking at me as if I can answer that question. I can't. Except to say, "Because we are screwups, every one of us, even on our best day." Except to say, "That's why we need a Savior." Except to say, "Only Christ perfectly embodied both."

So we really, really need to learn of Him, and from Him.

Let's give that a try in the next post, which should (should) be the last in this series.

Update: this way to the conclusion.

---

Erwin McManus's Casket

by Phil Johnson



"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions" (2 Timothy 4:3).

ack in August of '08, I wrote a post about the pretentiousness of Christians who try too hard to be artsy and manage to sully both art and the gospel in the process. (In retrospect, the tone of that post might sound a tad too cantankerous, even for me. But I completely stand by the point of it.)

One of the targets of my criticism in that post was Erwin Raphael McManus, self-styled "futurist, author, speaker, activist, filmmaker and innovator who specializes in the field of developing and unleashing personal and organizational creativity, uniqueness, innovation and diversity." Some say he is a "pastor" (though he seems to eschew that title and most other ecclesiastical terms). He's the lead speaker at Mosaic, "a Community of faith, love, and hope" in Pasadena. It's a Southern Baptist congregation, but you'd be hard-pressed to discover that from the church's own publicity. I spent many hours a few years ago watching videos and listening to sound files of McManus's teaching, and I have read two or three of his books, plus practically everything he has posted on line. I have never seen him explain, much less affirm, the gospel.

In that 2008 post I said: "Clear gospel truth is almost impossible to find in the material he publishes and posts for public consumption. And in that regard, I don't see a whole lot of difference between Erwin McManus and Joel Osteen. He's Osteen with blue jeans and an occasional soul patch rather than a shiny suit and a perpetual grin."

That unleashed a nearly 200-comment discussion in our combox. Most commenters who were already familiar with McManus voiced agreement with my assessment, but a few drive-by commenters criticized me for criticizing McManus. Then I had a lengthy discussion via e-mail with a key person on McManus's staff. No one could document a single source where McManus actually did preach the gospel.

A month later, Justin Taylor picked up the thread and asked for comments at his blog. I joined that conversation late, but here's the salient portion of the comment I posted at JT's blog:

I wasn't raising this question with regard to a single sermon or video. I'm pointing out that I can't find anywhere where McManus has dealt with sin qua sin—an offense against God as opposed to a personal hurt or emotional/psychological dysfunction. And I have never seen him even hint at the idea of repentance. I wouldn't be automatically critical of a preacher for a single gospel message that didn't include every aspect of systematic theology. In other words, I agree with your point: while it's true that the resurrection is essential to the gospel itself, that doesn't invalidate every tract or sermon or witnessing encounter where the resurrection isn't expressly mentioned. (I defended that very point a couple of years ago in the infamous controversy about Francis Chan's evangelistic video.) But if someone who preaches all the time never mentioned the resurrection—indeed, seemed to be deliberately avoiding it—I'd think it completely fair to raise the question of whether he really believed it. I have exchanged several e-mails about this with a senior staff member at Mosaic, and I received one message from Erwin McManus himself. Neither of them supplied references to any message or online resource where McManus has ever mentioned the necessity of repentance. I had a hard time getting the senior staff member to understand that I wasn't challenging McManus over an issue of technical theological terminology. His main reply to me was that just because McManus doesn't use words like repentance, justification, and penal substitution, it's unfair to assume he doesn't teach those doctrines. But after exchanging several e-mails with him, he still couldn't (or wouldn't) point me to any online resources where McManus has dealt with the ideas of repentance, justification, or propitiation using different terminology. So if we count that, plus all the replies to my initial post about McManus, plus all the comments in this thread, it brings the grand total of documented examples where McManus deals with the issues of sin, repentance, and justification to exactly zero. I'm not trying merely to be harsh here. But I honestly don't see why anyone would think McManus's approach to avoiding the gospel is any better than Joel Osteen's approach to avoiding it. I understand that they appeal to different demographics, so there are real stylistic differences between the two of them. But my concern is with the missing substance. I'd like to know why some who feel perfectly free to label Osteen a heretic think it's unnecessarily "vitriolic" to put McManus in the same category. A few of you have suggested that it's uncharitable even to raise this question. No one yet has offered a reasonable explanation why.

McManus's current project is further removed from the proclamation of the gospel than anything you'll ever see from Osteen—and that's saying something. McManus is shilling for an entry in Doritos® "Crash the Superbowl" contest.

It's an utterly tasteless commercial called "Casket." ("A guy stages his own funeral just to munch Doritos and watch football undisturbed—in a casket.") McManus himself produced the commercial for the Doritos® contest and Mosaic is "sponsoring" it. They won a spot among the six finalists (out of 4,000 entries)—and tickets to the Super Bowl. The top prizewinner will be chosen by popular vote. So McManus has removed every vestige of his own website and replaced it with an appeal for votes. He's Twittering pleas for votes on a fairly regular basis, too.

He is convinced this is the work of God: "It's a miracle and a divine comedy that we've made it this far," he told USA Today. "I think it's God's sense of humor."

Rick Warren is ecstatic about the prestige and potential $$$ a win would bring McManus. He Tweeted: "My guy Erwin McManus (Mosiac Church) created a Doritos Superbowl Ad! Church could win $! VOTE 4 him!"

Our friend Paul Edwards's Twitter feed, as usual, was more on target: "Majority of Christians will laugh rather than weep at @erwinmcmanus 's commercial because the gospel is no longer central in our thinking."

Mid-Morning Addendum: Someone privately asked my opinion about why Erwin McManus would devote the full resources of his church and energies to promote an entry in an advertising contest. Might he have motives that are good and pure? Could it be that he sees this as a kind of pre-evangelism that gets people's attention so that they will listen to his message? Are you perhaps being too hard on him for doing what most pastors do (but having more success at it)? The "pre-evangelism" ploy might have some appearance of merit if McManus's message ever actually got around to the evangel. But since that's not the case, it's an unwarranted stretch to imagine that he intends this as a kind of preliminary to something he clearly has no intention whatsoever to engage in. And let me be clear about something: I don't have actual statistics, but sadly, I think it might actually be true to say that Erwin McManus is just "doing what most pastors do." The mentality behind McManus's bravado and high jinks is by no means unique to him. It's the very philosophy behind the "market-driven Church" assumption: Any kind of publicity stunt is just as good as—and probably better than—gospel preaching for reaching the unchurched. That is the unspoken assumption behind most of the currently-popular evangelical carcinogens, such as the infamous "Church Marketing Sucks" blog, which I have critiqued in the past for precisely the same thing. Publicity is not the same thing as evangelism. Fad-chasing isn't "missional." You're not "reaching" people in any meaningful sense at all if the gospel is not the center and the main substance of your message to the world. That, you might say, is the salient point of every argument we have ever made on this blog.

---

Doing something to the text

by Frank Turk

Dan is off today, and I'm loaded for broke at work, but I had an old post from my blog worth sharing today; I hope you find it useful as you were hoping for the poly-glotinal brilliance of DJP but youinstead have to settle for my poor sister of a post.

Here's what I'm thinking about: the degree most reputable universities and colleges give out to English majors is "B.A. (or M.A.) for Literature in English" – because one doesn’t really study grammar or the alphabet for 4 or 6 years in college: one reads way too many books. One reads poems until one either "gets" it or throws up. One reads plays, which is its own special punishment for majoring in literature.

And there's something interesting that happens there which is applicable to the art of preaching: not once in 6 years of studying literature did we do a "word study" for an hour to plunge the depths of meaning in one word over the larger portrait of meaning the author was communicating in his book or play or poem or whatever.

Now, the disjunction between what one does in reading Literature in English and what one does when reading literature in translation (cf. the Bible) is that in the latter case, the reader has to grasp what the translator was doing while at the same time to seek out what the original author was doing when the text in question was written. That is: was the translator seeking to be as transparent as possible, or was the translator seeking to do something independent of the original work as well as remain faithful to the work?

For those of you who are really into this geekish analysis, think about Samuel Butler's translation of Homer's Odyssey, which is a prose translation of a poem. Butler's intent was to translate the words as best he could, but in doing that he sacrificed the matters of diction, form, and genre – so we get the story from classical literature well enough, but it's not hardly poetry: it's prose; it lacks the magic of poetic form even if all the words of the original are in tact. On the other hand, about 50 years earlier, Chapman translated Homer as a poem, and as such he took liberty with the words of the original poem in order to convey, in one poetic form/style in order to convey the art and power of the original in a second language. No real story changes were made by Chapman, but you can't line up his poem to Homer's and go line by line and learn the Greek – it would be impossible.

The translator does something to the text when he brings it from the source language to the receiving language, and understanding what he did is important for those who are only reading the receiving language. In that, word studies have a place in preaching. But my contention is that it is a subordinate place to preaching, as they say, "the whole counsel of God".

John MacArthur's excellent book on Bible study, Unleashing God's Word in you Life, makes this point clearly, as does any really good book on Bible study: you have to get the big picture before you try to sort out the details. For example, the book of Jonah is not about a big fish. There is a big fish in Jonah (or, well, Jonah does wind up in a big fish, right?), but this book is about the hardness of Jonah vs. the love of God toward the unrighteous. And if we read Jonah to try to justify the presence of the big fish, or to make the big fish into an allegory of this or that, we miss the actual point that God is willing and able to do things even for the enemies of Israel which we, as men, are not.

You have to read Jonah the first time to see how it comes together; then, you have to read Jonah to see what the parts are in order to better understand how they come together. And it's the same for any book of the Bible.

Listen: preach the word, in season and out of season – but don’t just preach on one word from the word. Preach the Word: preach Christ. Get the whole thing out there. Don't get so engrossed in one word that you miss all the others: that's called missing the forest for the trees.

Now back to your day.

---

Village Idiots

by Phil Johnson

"With the meltdown of the visible movement, Emergent thinking is being dispersed like so many dandelion seeds into the broad evangelical movement, which was overrun with religious weeds in the first place. The demise of Emergent Village is by no means the end of Emergent thinking." —Phil Johnson, 11 January 2010

mergent Village is collapsing on itself. The EV Weblog, once a busy and heavily-trafficked stream of Emergent semi-consciousness (replete with a near-manic discussion forum) is barely functioning these days. The current average wait-time between posts over there is at least two weeks. In fact, the eight posts currently residing on the EV blog's front page constitute everything that has been posted on that blog since September 9. One of the posts is a desperate-sounding "Call for Voices," and another begs readers to "Save the House of Mercy Podcast," which, evidently, has been gasping for life over the past year.

It's already too late, I gather, to save the official Emergent Village Podcast. Their last release was in mid-August.

Meanwhile, Emergent Village's best-known celebrity voices have likewise fallen silent—mostly. Andrew Jones and Tony Jones, both living icons of "emergence," had a little back-and-forth exchange last week, which culminated in Andrew's public, formal separation from the organization. I'll give a link to that exchange in a moment.

First, take a look at this. It's a document that was drafted in 2005 (shortly after I began blogging) to defend "the work of emergent" from critics who were raising serious questions and sounding alarms about the dangerous trajectory the movement was following. The document was co-signed by seven de facto leaders in the movement: Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Spencer Burke, Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, Andrew Jones, and Chris Seay. Five years after that document's publication, portions of it are almost humorous and its blithe tone of dismissal is more infuriating than ever. After re-reading it yesterday, I had a brief daydream about making copies with a big We told you so! xeroxed diagonally across the front. It would be nice to distribute them like tracts to the still-Emergent remnant at their next convention—if there are actually enough Emergents left to convene such a gathering. Are there any early, vocal critics of "emergence" who feel no such temptation? If so, they are to be commended for their restraint. I'm not that sanctified yet.

Anyway, the sink-hole that was once Emergent Village will continue to fade into irrelevance. The remnant who are still there will experiment with more and more heretical ideas. They will also be even more drawn to the spiritual idiocy that has plagued the place from day one. After all, virtually everyone associated with EV who ever had any inclination to whisper an occasional word of spiritual sanity has already left the building. It's been more than a year since Dan Kimball began to keep his distance. He said he was going to link up with Scot McKnight (and others) and start a network using the Lausanne Covenant as their common ground. So far that new network has been even more silent than the new Emergent Village, but the point is that Kimball, McKnight, and others have been backing away from their early alliance with Emergent. They aren't even speaking the language of emergence these days. (Hopefully, they are still discussing fresh ways to imagine and explore postmodern spiritualities in a Lausanne context. If so, I can hardly wait till they break silence about it.)

So here's that link to Andrew Jones's announcement: "Goodbyes to Emergent Village." I'll throw in this other link that will get you started tracing the brief exchange between the Joneses that culminated in Andrew's withdrawal.

You wonder why I've hardly posted anything about Emergent/ing Christianity for the past year? The movement has been self-destructing nicely without any help from me.

Does this mean we can all relax and drop our guard against the postmodern mentality, neo-liberal doctrines, and quasi-Socinian tendencies that originally provoked our concerns about the Emergent/ing Church Movement more than five years ago? Not on your life. With the meltdown of the visible movement, Emergent thinking is being dispersed like so many dandelion seeds into the broad evangelical movement, which was overrun with religious weeds in the first place.

The demise of Emergent Village is by no means the end of Emergent thinking. If you doubt that, read the comments under the "Tall Skinny Kiwi" posts linked above. And pay close attention to what Andrew himself says—and doesn't say—about the reasons for his departure.

As a matter of fact, the comments at Andrew's blog last week were both informative and troubling on several levels. It's clear that the real catalyst hastening Emergent Village's meltdown is something more than a few key leaders' sudden doctrinal scruples. It seems a moral scandal of televangelist proportions is about to "emerge." Serious accusations from credible sources have been floating around for months and popped up last week in a couple of comment-threads. (They were subsequently deleted by blog administrators.) I'm not going to describe those accusations here or host a discussion about the brewing scandal. (I'm fairly confident the facts will eventually come to light.) My point here is merely that we shouldn't assume that the collapse of the Emergent/ing movement ends the threat of Emergent/ing ideology.

What it more likely means is that the fight for clarity, conviction, and the authority of Scripture is going to become more difficult than ever in the mainstream of the evangelical movement. Buckle up. This is probably not going to be an easy ride.

---

Let's not lose in truthfulness what we gain in charity

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon

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 an article titled "Ministers Sailing under False Colours," originally published the February 1870 Sword and Trowel:



ur forefathers were far less tolerant than we are, and it is to be feared that they were also more honest. It will be a sad discount upon our gain in the matter of charity if it turn out that we have been losers in the department of truthfulness.

There is no necessary connection between the two facts of growth in tolerance and decline in sincerity, but we are suspicious that they have occurred and are occurring at the same moment.

We freely accord to theological teachers a freedom of thought and utterance which in other ages could only be obtained by the more daring at serious risks, but we also allow an amount of untruthfulness in ministers, which former ages would have utterly abhorred. . . .

Our love to the most unlimited religious liberty incites us to all the sterner abhorrence of the license which like a parasite feeds thereon.

the plea of spiritual liberty, of late years certain teachers who have abjured the faith of the churches which employ them, have nevertheless endeavored, with more or less success, to retain their offices and their emoluments. . . .

Our complaint is . . . not that the men changed their views, and threw up their former creeds, but that having done so they did not at once quit the office of minister to the community whose faith they could no longer uphold; their fault is not that they differed, but that, differing, they sought an office of which the prime necessity is agreement.

All the elements of the lowest kind of knavery meet in the evil which we now denounce. Treachery is never more treacherous than when it leads a man to stab at a doctrine which he has solemnly engaged to uphold, and for the maintenance of which he receives a livelihood. . . .

It is frequently bewailed as a mournful circumstance that creeds were ever written; it is said, "Let the Bible alone be the creed of every church, and let preachers explain the Scriptures as they conscientiously think best." Here again we enter into no debate, but simply beg the objector to remember that there are creeds, that the churches have not given them up, that persons are not forced to be ministers of these churches, and therefore if they object to creeds they should not offer to become teachers of them; above all, they should not agree to teach what they do not believe.

---

"And the second is" — not in competition with it, but rather... (Part Two)

by Dan Phillips

Were this a post detailing everything I've mastered as to embodying love for God and neighbor, it would already be shorter than it is.

This, however, is not that, but is a continuation of the thinking begun in the first post. (Turns out there's going to have to be at least a third, as well.) In that post we laid the premise that Jesus identified the two premiere commandments as to love God without measure ("all...all...all"), and to love our neighbor after the surety of our self-love ("as"). We saw the fitness of those commandments, and noted their interwoven, non-detachable nature.

Non-detachable, yet distinguishable. When we get into a Biblical approach to the actual doing of love — as opposed to a sloppy, unreflecting, sentimental approach — one thing we soon learn is that there is a hierarchy to love. Sometimes I must choose among the objects of my love, or at least must alter the expression of my love accordingly.

Let's say you have a dear Christian friend. You serve and walk together for years. But your friend falls into serious apostasy. Do you stop loving him? In no way. But you may very well stop pleasing him. The command to love is not necessarily a command to please, or seek approval.

Things have changed now. Before, you could serve and encourage him by speaking the Word to him, and in other ways. Now, he might accept those other ways, but he does not want to hear the Word from you. Do you stop speaking the Word, stop bearing witness to — and unambiguously aligning yourself with — the truth of God, because your friend doesn't want to hear it?

This is where the hierarchy comes to play. Your pre-eminent love for God won't let you pretend as if God is the friend-you're-ashamed-of, or as if He were a minor player in your life, or as if your life were explicable apart from Him.

But it is also and still your love for your friend that moves you to insist on continuing to "hold the line," as it were; continuing to speak the word, to bear witness to God's truth. I think this is what Paul means when he prays that the Philippians' "love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment" (Philippians 1:9). Love must have a hierarchy, and it must be Biblically wise and discerning.

So your straying friend needs God's truth more than he needs to see a movie with you, or chat about the Dodgers, or about nothing at all — in other words, to pretend that nothing of consequence has happened. Not that every other word has to be a Bible verse, but you won't let the central issue be swept aside. Because you love God, and because you love him.

Now, in those cases, clearly your love for God informs and shapes your love for your friend. Were the order of the commandments reversed, you'd have to tuck God under a basket, so as to please your friend.

And, I would suggest, if anyone does just such a thing, he has practically reversed the commands, even if he has not formally done so.

Here's one place where the rubber meets the road, then: if one love challenges the other, Jesus' priority provides the answer. If I must lose the approval and closeness of a friend in order to please God, I do it.

Ditto a whole bunch of friends. Ditto an organization, a society, a denomination — in fact, if it comes to it, [Your name here] contra mundum is an option.

Yet it isn't always clear; and even when it is, I'd argue we tend to be really wretched about keeping the balance where it should be.

Which I intend as the focus of the next (and, I hope, last) post.

Update: this way to part three.

---

Somebody save me

by Frank Turk

Well, Phil filled in on Wednesday for me at the last minute as I didn’t have an hour to draft a post – even though I had a great idea for a post. Thank God, but I am gainfully employed and busy as the new year begins; that means I’ll prolly not be blogging as much as I would like.

Whether that’s good news for you or not is another post entirely.

Anyway, Santa was exceptionally generous this year as he and his elves all pitched in an bought me Seasons 1-7 of Smallville. For those of you who aren’t familiar with this show, it’s a soap opera, OK? 24 is also a soap opera, so I don’t want to hear it from the complainers about my taste: you enjoy the blowing up and the weird relational psychology your way, and I’ll enjoy it in my own comic book enhanced and informed way.

Smallville, for the uninformed, is the reimagining of the life of Clark Kent (Tom Welling) as a teen who has not yet adopted the blue-and-red tights and the big red “S” – a sort of new backstory for the Man of Steel. In the old days, of course, Superman was Superboy before he was a mild-manner reporter for the Daily Planet, but it’s also important to remember that comic books are neither literature not scripture, so their revision to a current cultural idiom is inevitable – and you folks are bright enough to make the application there.

Anyway, my splendiferous wife and I have been watching Smallville every night for the last 10 days and have gotten through Season 2 with the exception of episode 16 due to a DVD player issue (long story; sorry I brought it up), and frankly we’re lovin’ it. It has spawned many an interesting discussion about honesty, relationship, and what it means to be a hero.

You know: the conventional wisdom when you watch Superman is that (not to mix mythologies here, but it totally works) with great power comes great responsibility. That comes out a lot in Smallville as Clark is a teen who can stop a runaway bus without getting a scratch and set fire to, well, anything at 100 paces with his heat vision – being raised by a farmer and his wife to be honest, serious, grateful, hardworking, and kind. The big red flag of course is that they are also teaching him to lie about who he really is – in their own mind, for his protection.

Clark isn’t really Joe Farmboy. He’s the last son of Krypton, and our yellow sun makes him, well, not much less than an angel.

The conventional wisdom is that Clark has to constantly struggle with his choices – does he choose to be a hero and save everyone he sees who is in danger, or does Clark (as we might say from this blog) Make it his ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind his own business and to work with his hands, so that his daily life may win the respect of others and so that he will not be dependent on anybody? Can Clark lead a normal life? What would “normal” look like there?

It seems like a classic dilemma, and it gets manifest all over the place in Smallville in Clark’s relationships (in the first 3 seasons) with Lana and Chloe (Don’t spoil the rest for me) not just because he has to lie to them about “who he is”, but because he’s always running away to do this or that, or he’s getting victimized by Red Kryptonite, or whatever. And I’ll be honest: I get it. I totally get that struggle here because Clark is trying to figure out if he should save the world or something much more, um, human. It seems like a very straightforward comic book dilemma

Except my wife didn’t grow up reading comic books.

So we’re talking about Clark & his teen angst, and I explain all this to my wife. And she says to me, “well, you don’t have that problem.”

Well, duh: I don’t have super speed or invulnerable skin, either. If I did it would be a whole different story – literally.

“That’s not what I mean. You don’t struggle with the problem of whether to save the whole world or save your family. You choose your family – because that’s what you’re supposed to do.”

Yeah, uh. I hate it when she does this. But she’s completely right.

You know: Eph 5 is the guiding principle in our house. Because of Christ, be subject to one another; wives love your husbands and be subject to them; husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.

When Christ loved the church, he didn’t have to decide whether he was going to use his literal Godhood to cure every sick person and tear down every false temple and idol: he used his Godhood to save us. And that’s the model of the husband to the wife: save her.

You husband: you save her.

The alleged moral dilemma in Superman is no dilemma at all – it’s a ruse. As much as we might enjoy watching Clark do all that stuff, and wonder why he doesn’t just tell Lana and Chloe since he told Pete Ross (you know: seriously), the truth is that we know what the right thing to do is. And we don’t need a big red “S” to do it: we just need to love.

Which, btw, is not subject to Kryptonite of any color.

---

Peanut-butter Passion

by Phil Johnson

'm a passionate person. People who know me will affirm that. I think Christians ought to be passionate about truth, passionate in our love for God and for one another, and (above all) passionate about the glory of God.

But raw passion is not the point. Passion is valid and edifies only when it's the right kind of passion, based on legitimate affections for the right things. I'm concerned about the unbridled passions frequently turned loose by people whose only religious affections were cultivated in evangelical youth groups. (And if I can speak freely: that includes a lot of of our so-called young, restless, and Reformed frends.) Everything seems to unleash stadium-style passions. I've even seen people scream, whistle, stomp, and cheer at baptisms, as if they were celebrating a touchdown. Many Christians glorify passion for passion's sake—as if raw passion per se were something praiseworthy and deeply spiritual. It's not. And this has become a serious problem in today's post-pentecostal, post-evangelical, anything-goes era.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that so many Christians imitate all the world's passions. Christian leaders invent gimmicks to try to win worldly people by appealing to their worldly passions. All of us devote energy and emotion to things that are not even worthy of our attention. And then we bring our addiction to raw passion into our corporate gatherings. We do things to stir artificial passions—which is a form of false worship, no better than idolatry, really.

Our passions should not need to be artificially stirred up by spiritual cheerleaders and team chants. We shouldn't have to be worked into an emotional state by melodrama and musical manipulation. If we can get pumped to a fever pitch by some preacher'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.

And sometimes it gets even worse than that.

Someone a few months ago sent me this article about a youth leader who likes to provoke his students to a state of screaming enthusiasm with gross-out games. (Warning: the article itself and the other links in the following paragraph are extremely gross. Home-school moms might want to look away.) The article describes how this youth leader had a teenager with hairy armpits smear gobs of peanut butter on his underarms; then the youth pastor asked for volunteers to lick it clean and swallow the peanut butter. The youth leader uses skits like that to "shock and astound." (Those are his exact words.) He told that secular reporter that he does things like that all the time to get the students excited, so that they will talk about the church. He says he wants to start "a buzz that [will] go viral, [so] that teens [will] text and Twitter about [it]." And notice what the youth leader said about 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."

You may think that's an extreme, one-of-a-kind example, but that type of thing is far more common than you think. 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.



That sort of artificial enthusiasm actually hinders (and in some cases totally nullifies) 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.

---

"And the second is" — not in competition with it, but rather... (Part One)

by Dan Phillips

We begin with my off-the-cuff translation* of Matthew 22:34-40 —

Now the Pharisees — when they heard that He had muzzled the Sadducees — gathered together; and one of them (an expert on the Law) questioned Him as a test: "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"

And He told him, "'You are to love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your intellect.' This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: 'You are to love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments all the Law depends, and the Prophets."

A wiser and godlier man could quite literally spend the rest of the year in this blog, twice a week, on just these seven verses. After about two posts, my clip will be spent.

What our Lord singles out as the premiere and central commandment is chosen with the inerrancy of divine wisdom. Literally any other choice would have turned God's universe on its head.

Of course the most important command must be a love for God that rages like a fire through the whole forest of our beings, equally igniting our thoughts, our beliefs, our values, our passions. Of course the majestic One who is of all the universe both center and goal, both source and destiny (Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:10-11; Colossians 1:16-18) — of course that One must be all those things to us as well.

The second commandment may not be as immediately transparent. Not to us, anyway. To God, it is immediately transparent.

But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? (1 John 3:17)

If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. (1 John 4:20)

With [the tongue] we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. (James 3:9)

And so, while I'm still commenting and haven't yet commenced meddling, I observe that our Lord does not set these commands up as competitors, nor as polarities.  He does not say, "Love the Lord your God... yet love your neighbor," nor "but also love your neighbor," nor "nevertheless...."  It is not "A, but B"; it is "A, and B."

To the divine mind of Christ, the two imperatives are in harmony. They are inseparables. I cannot really love God if I am not loving my neighbor. But if I do not love God, by the same token, I cannot truly love my neighbor.

If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.  21 And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.  (1Jo 4:20—5:2)

How is the second commandment "like" the first? The most obvious similarity is formal similarity: both commands begin with ἀγαπήσεις, "You [singular] are to love," "You shall love," with the future indicative used in the sense of a command. Both have a personal object. And both those objects are similar, in that the second is modeled after the first (see the logic of John 4:20, compared with James 3:9).

The second command grows from the first and neither may nor can be isolated. With the first command, Jesus sends us to the God of Scripture. It is that very God who then sends us to our neighbor. If we love Him, we shall keep His commands (1 John 5:3). If we love Him, then, we shall love our neighbor, for "this is His commandment, that we ...love one another" (1 John 3:23).

We can try to surround this idea by various phrasings, all of which are textually warranted:

• We do not truly love God if we do then not love our neighbor
• We do not truly love our neighbor, if we do not first love God
• If we love God, we must consequentially love our neighbor
• If we are to love our neighbor, we must first love God
• A God-hating people-lover is under God's condemnation
• A people-hating God-lover is under God's condemnation
• True love for God will necessarily blossom in love for our neighbor
• To be healthy, love for our neighbor must be an outgrowth of love for God
  

So. There we go. Clear, no? As crystal!

Theoretically.

Okay, then. Let's close in prayer. "Heavenly Father...."

See, this is where too many Bible teachers would leave off, and many churchgoers would let them. In fact, I can't listen to some Bible-talkers without mentally prefacing or appending that very word: "Theoretically." It may very well be a sad, revealing commentary on me, but such teaching strikes me as if it came straight from the drawing-board to me, without the teacher ever actually done the difficult duty of field-work.

Which is my intended focus in the next post.(Update: this way to part two.)

*That means nobody should quote it as authoritative, or teach on the basis of it. It's ad hoc — for the purpose of this discussion only.

---

A Primer on Postmodernism

by Phil Johnson



ver the years I've had quite a lot to say about postmodernism on this blog—mostly critical. Yet I'm constantly reminded via e-mails that we have lots of readers who aren't even certain what that term refers to. Several years ago, I gave a message on the subject. I've never excerpted that message or tried to summarize it on the blog because the subject doesn't lend itself to that.

But this weekend I was nosing around over at Monergism.Com and stumbled across the following recording, originally posted by my friend Will Moneymaker at SwordandTrowel.org. If I remember correctly, this message is from a conference at Grace Bible Church of Bakersfield (Ray Hammond, pastor). It's a single-message overview of the subject in layman's terms. It might be helpful to PyroManiacs readers who are struggling to get a handle on why these postmodern times are so confusing. Here you go:

A Beginner's Guide to Postmodernism

---

The Presence of God Is the Best Privilege of His Church

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 "Jehovah-Shammah: A Glorious Name for the New Year," published 4 January 1891—about a year before Spurgeon's death.


f the Lord be among us, the consequences will be, first, the conservation of true doctrine. The true God is not with a lie: he will not give his countenance to falsehood. Those who preach other than according to his word, abide not under his blessing; but are in great danger of his curse. If any man speak another gospel (which is not another, but there be some that trouble us), God is not with him, and any transient prosperity which he may enjoy, will be blown away as the chaff. God is with those who speak the truth faithfully, hold it devoutly, believe it firmly, and live upon it as their daily bread. May it always, be said of this church, the Lord is there," and therefore they are sound in the faith, reverent towards Holy Scripture, and zealous for the honor of Christ! Trust-deeds and confessions of faith are useful in their way, even as laws are useful to society; but as laws cannot secure obedience to themselves, so articles of belief cannot create faith, or secure honesty; and to men without conscience, they are not worth the paper they are written upon. No subscription to articles can keep out the unscrupulous. Wolves leap into the fold however carefully you watch the door. The fact is, the most of people say, "Yes, that doctrine is in the creed, and is not to be denied; but you need not preach it. Put it on the shelf as an ornament, and let us hear no more about it." Truth must be written on the heart as well as in the book. If the Lord be among his people, they will cling to the eternal verities, and love the doctrine of the cross, not by force of law, but because divine truth is the life of their souls.

Where God is present, the preservation of purity will be found. The church is nothing if it is not holy. It is worse—it is a den of thieves. Setting the seal of its pestilent example upon evil living, it becomes the servant of Satan, and the destroyer of souls. Who is to keep the church pure? None but God himself. If the Lord is there, holiness will abound, and fruits of the Spirit will be seen on all sides; but if the Lord be once withdrawn, then flesh and blood will rule, and gender towards corruption, after its own manner; and the church will become a synagogue of formalists. Pray, my brethren, continually, that the Lord may dwell in our Zion, to maintain us in all holy obedience and purity of life.

Where God is, there is the constant renewal of vitality. A dead church is a reeking Golgotha, a breeding-place of evils, a home of devils. The tombs may be newly whitewashed, but they are none the less open sepulchres, haunts of unclean spirits. A church all alive is a little heaven, the resort of angels, the temple of the Holy Ghost. In some of our churches everybody seems to be a little colder than everybody else. The members are holy icicles. A general frost has paralyzed everybody; and though some are colder than others, yet all are below zero. There are no flowing rills of refreshment, but everything is bound hard and fast with the frost of indifference. Oh, that the Lord would send forth his wind, and melt the glaciers! Oh, that the Spirit of God would chase winter out of every heart and every church! No human power can keep a church from the frostbite which numbs and kills. Except the Lord be there, growth, life, warmth—are all impossible. Ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence, and give him no rest, but cry day and night to him, O Lord, abide with us. Go forth with our armies. Make us to be the living children of the living God"!

When the Lord is there, next, there is continuing power. With God there is power in the ministry, power in prayer, power in all holy work. We may do a vast deal of work, and yet nothing may come of it; and, on the other hand, we may only be able to do comparatively little, and yet great results may flow therefrom: for results depend not on the quantity of the machinery, but on the presence of the Lord.

Do you not all know persons who are not peculiarly gifted, and yet are eminently useful? You do not remark anything about them that is specially noticeable, and yet their whole career enlists attention by its power. Their words tell, for there is character behind them. A consistent life gives force to a plain testimony. It is not so much what is said as who says it? But that is not all: God himself is at the back of the man who is living for him. He causes him to speak in his name, so that none of his words fall to the ground. Is it not said of the godly, "His leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper"? This is so with every church where the Lord abides. His presence makes it a power with its children and adherents, a power with the neighborhood, and a power with the age. Its example, its testimony, its effort tells. God uses it, and therefore it answers its end. The power is with God; but the church is the instrument by which that power exercises itself. He uses a living people for the display of living power, and he gives to them both life and power, more and more abundantly. As we desire power with which to labor for God, we must pray that the God of power will remain in our midst.

Furthermore, whenever it can be said of an assembly, "the Lord is there," unity will be created and fostered. Show me a church that quarrels, a church that is split up into cliques, a church that is divided with personal ambitions, contrary doctrines and opposing schemes, and I am sure that the Lord is not there. Where there are envyings, jealousies, suspicions, backbitings, and dislikes, I know that the Holy Dove, who hates confusion, has taken his flight. God is love, and he will only dwell where love reigns. He is the God of peace, and will not endure strife. The children of God should be knit together. It would indeed be a shameful sight should children of his family fall out, and chide, and fight Saints who dwell with God love each other "with a pure heart, fervently." Some professors act as if they hated each other: I may not say, "with a pure heart," but I will say, "fervently." Where God is present the church is edified in love, and grows up, like a building fitly framed together, to be a holy temple in the Lord. Oh, for more of this unity!

Where the Lord is there is sure to be happiness. What meetings we have when the Lord is here! It is a prayer-meeting; but when you have said that, you have not fully described it, for it is far more. It was an unusual meeting for prayer, for, God being there, every prayer was spoken into his ear, and all the desires and petitions of the saints were prompted by his Holy Spirit. Why, the very room was lit up with the glory of the Lord; and whether we were in heaven or not we could hardly tell. What happy times we have in preaching the word of the Lord, when God's own presence is realized! His paths drop fatness. What joyous seasons we have frequently enjoyed at the communion table! The provision is but bread and wine; but when, by faith, we perceive the real and spiritual presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, in the breaking of the bread we eat his flesh, and in the fruit of the vine we drink his blood. When we have gathered in the Lord's presence we have sung—

"No beams of cedar or of fir
Can with thy courts on earth compare;
And here we wait, until thy love
Raise us to nobler seats above."

At the Master's table I have often been so blest that I would not have exchanged places with Gabriel. The Lord was there: what more could I desire? Joy, delight, rapture, ecstasy—what word shall I use?—all these have waited around the table of fellowship, as musicians at a king's banquet. If God be there, our heaven is there.

---

Proverbial perspectives at the year's turn

by Dan Phillips

The stroke of midnight, as 12/31 turns to 1/1, is an artificial divider, but it is as good as any. Our birthdays cast the eye backwards, in retrospection. The grim realities of math and statistics may tap some of us on the shoulder with the reminder that the number of such dates before us is likely greater than that of those remaining.

But the prospect of New Year's day naturally casts the eye ahead. We make resolutions, we make plans. Some pious souls, however, shrink back from the whole notion of planning. Is it Biblical to plan and set goals?

It certainly is... if approached rightly.

In fact, God quite emphatically insists that it is our proper duty to plan. Hear Solomon:

Man's are the heart's arrangements,
but from Yahweh is the tongue's answer
(Proverbs 16:1, literally)

It is actually a verbless verse; we must supply "are" and "is" to get anything like understandable English. Both actors are thrust up front syntactically: man in line A, God in line B. It is, emphatically, the God-ordained part of man to apply his heart, his mind, to making arrangements, to setting plans in order. But with equal emphasis, B reminds us that God has the final answer. The old saying is quite apposite: "Man proposes, but God disposes."

Consider one more of many proverbs along these lines:

The heart of man plans his way,
but the LORD establishes his steps
(Proverbs 16:9 ESV)

Again, God intends that man use his mind to make plans, to do calculations and risk-assessments and cast up scenarios. There is no hint, here nor elsewhere, that God imposes Blackabbean slavery to mystic mumbles in non-moral areas. Adam could have eaten any fruit but one; to refuse to eat until God selected one for him would have been as sinful as eating from the prohibited tree. It is man's designed, God-ordained responsibility to make intelligent plans.

But it is God's to determine both the course and the outcome — and He discharges His responsibility quite adequately (Proverbs 16:33; 20:24; Romans 11:36; Ephesians 1:11). None need concern himself that a man doing what a man should do will prevent God from what God infallibly does. In fact, it is quite literally impossible for a man to frustrate God's eternal purpose (Proverbs 19:21; 21:30; Daniel 4:35).

So: it is right and proper for me to look to the future and make plans. Plan! Plan to do something. To fail to plan to do something is to plan to do nothing. Just do something!

However, at the same time, all our plans must be made in pencil, for we are warned:

Do not boast about tomorrow,
for you do not know what a day may bring.
(Proverbs 27:1)

While it is true that our plans cannot frustrate God's counsel, it is equally true that His counsel can frustrate our plans. It is lazy, insolent unbelief to refuse to plan; but it is just as foolish to plan and assume, to plan without allowing for the ever-imperative "D.V." — Deo volente, "God willing" (cf. James 3:13-17).

So feel free to make plans and resolutions. Find a way that suits you, if not today, then some day soon.

Seek God's Biblical wisdom to plan and do, to the greater glory of Him who saved us.

---

5 Ideas for 2010

by Frank Turk

I'm not a big fan of New Years resolutions, but many people get unusually-introspective at this time of year -- who knows why. Maybe they feel guilty for all the money the spent on stuff that they will garage sale in May.

Anyway, if you're looking for some advice for 2010, here's my short list. You can probably figure out what I'm about to say because I say it all the time, but I'll say it again here.

1. Get over your denominational biases

You know: some people will read this as a call for mass ecumenism and a throwing out of the baby of discernment with the bathwater of divisiveness, but that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that John MacArthur doesn't have the only legitimate church in America, and the Shepherd's Conference doesn't have a monopoly on orthodoxy.

No: it would not be swell if every church was a reformed baptist church. It might be good for you to live a little for the sake of your own discipleship to get involved in a local church in such a way that you believe about those people what Christ knows about them -- which is that you are just as much in need of His salvation as they are, and that you are called to be a saint together with all those in every place who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There are no perfect churches -- but there is a perfect savior. Follow Him, and stop pretending that there's only one way to do that, even if it means you don't have Sunday free anymore.

2. Go back to church

That's really the objective of #1: go back to being in fellowship with other actual humans for whom Christ died.

You can do it -- you just don't want to, mostly because it is hard work. It is much easier to read blogs and books and listen to podcasts and pine for an idealized church than it is to stand next to a real person someplace and shake his hand and say, "peace be with you," and then live like Christ made that true.

You know: God hates the sin of the lousy pastor and the sin of the nosey or neglectful brother or sister just as much as God hates your sin -- yet you know God forgives you of your sin, right? It turns out God forgives their sins, too, so maybe you should use that as a basis for fellowship: this is how we know what love is -- that at the right time, Christ died for us. God sent his sons that the believers might not perish but have eternal life.

You can go back, and tell everyone you're sorry for being too good for them. You don't have to tear open your shirt and produce your scarlet letter, but you could just say, "you know what: I never realized how much God loves us. I want to treat you the way I think God treats you because Christ has made all the difference, and I'm sorry for all the times in the past I didn't do that."

3. Put yourself under the spiritual authority of elders

I know: this is starting to get under the skin a little now, right? It's one thing to say, "Put secondary issues aside." It's another to say, "find a church you can stand in." But now to say, "And get under the authority of other human beings," always sounds like the deal-breaker -- because let's face it: these are flawed men. They have flaws. Some of those flaws are theological; some of them are professional; some of them are emotional or personal.

It's funny, but that sounds a lot like the problems you personally have -- and you don't have any problem being under the authority of you. But when someone says, "well, Paul does tell Titus to establish elders in every place for the sake of setting things in order, and Paul does instruct all the churches to be subject to one another, and especially to their elders and leaders," suddenly your flaws don't look that bad.

Here's what I think: until you start your own church and are qualified to lead others, you need to get under the eldership of someone who does have his own church and has been somehow appointed or chosen as qualified to lead others. Because you are not.

You can "yeah but" that until 2011 if you want. There are no perfect churches, but that doesn't give you the liberty to be in no churches with no one looking after you spiritually in any way.

4. Pray for your elders

Aha.

You see: what if all those lousy elders out there had an army of people like you praying for them daily, crying out to heaven, "God: you have him/them this church full of your people, and now you have to either give him the gifts to lead them and the love to lead them and the power in your Spirit to lead them, or you need to convict him to move on. Please God: teach this man to be a shepherd and a brother to those whom you have given under his position. They are your people, and for their sake, and the sake of Christ who bought them, make him worthy."

Or maybe like this: "Lord, give this man/these men the burden of knowing you are real! If they knew you were real the same way the building is real and their podcast is real and the Upward program is real, they might want to spend more time in your word looking at what your Real son did on a Real cross for the Real sins of His real people. Help me, God, to see this pastor/these elders as men who are your men, and whose ways will not be like the world's ways. And let them live as if this world is not their home."

You know: what if. It might shut the blogosphere down for a year or two as people would expend all that energy on prayer (God's command for action toward one's elders) rather than on whatever it is all the ruckus is about -- but the world was doing just fine without the blogopshere a few years ago. It won't be missed.

You put yourself under them because of faith in God and now it behooves you to let God do the work -- and it doesn't hurt you to ask him to do the work. It looks like you actually have faith when you ask him to do the work.

5. Love one another

I said it above, but this is the thing about church, y'all: Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor (a much-neglected verse of Romans amongst the avid readers of Romans). Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God.

Don't wait for somebody to love you to see if they are "worth it": love somebody -- with the kind of love Christ showed us. By this all people will know that you are Jesus' disciples, if you have love for one another.

If you do that, it'll be a new kind of New Year for you. You will probably get hurt, and some people will hate you for it.

You might have other suggestions. I'm sure those will be good ideas, too.

---