21 June 2011

Valerie: the part I didn't tell

by Dan Phillips

When I started blogging some seven years ago, though I was a semi-invisible presence at that point, I had made a decision to allow myself to become some kind of public person. But that was me. That wasn't a decision made for the rest of my family.

My dear Valerie for instance is a very private person, and I understood (without needing to be told) from early days that whatever I chose to disclose of my personal life and thoughts was a me-decision, it wasn't a decision for my wife and kids directly.

So I didn't tell you all right away of Valerie's pain, or even of her hospitalization and surgery, until I was sure it was all right with her. Then I gave one report, and one update a couple of days afterward. Valerie and I were both touched with the show of sympathy and prayer from my readers. It was like getting a nice little pile of "Get Well" cards.

Now here's the part I did not share, which I do now have permission to share so as to ask for your prayers, and to pass along a message from Valerie. We've had some time to tell family, and begin to get our minds around it.

Go back with me to Saturday the 11th.

The surgeon had told us that the radiologist reported some complication about the appendix, beyond simple signs for appendicitis. He wasn't sure what to make of it, but would begin in the pursuit of a simple appendectomy. He also was bothered by her anemia, something Valerie had never had before.

However, when the surgeon called me into the recovery room mid-surgery, what he told me was that it was more complicated than initially thought. He suspected a tumor. Therefore, he would have to remove not only the appendix, but a small part of her colon and more. The pathologist's report would not come until Monday.

As you may imagine, this began one of the darkest moments of my life. A tumor. Unable to help or save Valerie (a husband's first and dominant impulse), badly frightened for Valerie, alone, unable to think of much beyond my innumerable failures as a husband and a man, and of the horrors that suddenly loomed so large, I wept and cried out to God and clung to Him for dear life, alone, pacing and pacing for miles and miles in that tiny waiting room. I clung to the character of God, reminded myself that He loved Valerie even more than I, looked to Philippians 4:6-7 and 1 Peter 5:7 for comfort and strength.

How could I tell her? What would I tell her? If only I could simply take it all from her and for her.

Then the surgeon came and his wonderful first words were "Good news." He'd found a pathologist, they'd looked at what was removed, and they both concluded: it isn't cancer. Relief. Gladness. Gratitude. And more relief.

Then passed the difficult days which follow a major surgery, with a fantastic support staff at the hospital and our dear family, our good and faithful pastor, and the concern of our church family. Valerie made good progress up that steep road. Wednesday came, finally time to come home. The surgeon dropped in for a final visit to the hospital room.

Our surgeon is, by all accounts, a superb surgeon, the man other doctors go to when they're stuck, the man the nurses would pick for their own surgeries. But he's not a sugar-coater. Now his first, mouth-drying words were, "It was cancer."

This had been a niggling unspoken worry at the back of my mind. Could he and the pathologist have made that quick a determination? Might other tests turn up something they missed? Turns out, yes.

What neither the surgeon nor the pathologist could see with the naked eye, the microscope disclosed. I can't give you all the technical terms he used or we read in the pathologist's report, but it was cancer. That's the horrible news.

The good news, such as it is, is that it was caught early. The surgeon thinks he got it all. A number of lymph nodes were removed, and they were all clear.

And here's the remarkable providence at this point: if we're understanding the surgeon correctly, it was the appendix that warned of the cancer. The cancer set off the appendicitis, which drove the very doctor-averse Valerie in for treatment, which led to the diagnosis, which led to the surgery, which led to the discovery of this otherwise asymptomatic cancer. Were it not for all that, the cancer would still be quietly growing in the darkness, perhaps spreading, giving no clue beyond an undetected and symptom-free anemia.

So now our next procedural step is a colonoscopy after two months of recovery from the surgery, to make sure all else is well.

Valerie wants me to tell everyone: thank you so much for your emails, comments, and expressions of prayer and support.

And Valerie wants me to tell you: get your colonoscopies when it's time. That was my birthday present from my doc when I turned fifty. It was unwanted but painless. Valerie had joked that when "50" came, she had figured she had 9 years before "50"(-something) passed. Since this cancer can be caught and dealt with, but does not announce its early presence, the test seems a wise measure to take.

What's more, Valerie's family does not have a history of cancer. Mine does. This should be me hearing this news about myself, not Valerie. Yet here it is, the ultimate unwelcome visitor, stopping at her door. So: don't assume. Valerie wanted me to tell you all.

So now we are in the same position every last one of us Christians is in every moment, though we're not so conscious of it as we are at times like this: utterly dependent on the wisdom, power, goodness, mercy and kindness of God. And often before His throne in urgent prayer.

Personal pain is one thing; seeing my most-beloved suffer takes my needle right up to "unbearable," but for the comfort of 1 Corinthians 10:13, the challenge of Luke 8:25, and the call of James 1:2ff.

Thanks for your time. And please, please, please, from me to you: pray for my dear, amazing, one and only, inexpressibly and absolutely precious wife Valerie.

Dan Phillips's signature

17 June 2011

Unbelief: Parent of Every Gross Evil

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 Sin of Unbelief," Sermon #3 in the vast New Park Street/ Metropolitan Tabernacle collection. It was preached on Sunday Morning, 14 January 1855, at the New Park Street Chapel in Southwark, during Spurgeon's first year as pastor of that congregation.


he sin of unbelief will appear to be extremely heinous when we remember that it is the parent of every other iniquity. There is no crime which unbelief will not beget.

I think that the fall of man is very much owing to it. It was in this point that the devil tempted Eve. He said to her, "Yea, hath God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" He whispered and insinuated a doubt, "Yea, hath God said so?" as much as to say, "Are you quite sure he said so?"

It was by means of unbelief—that this part of the wedge—that the other sin entered; curiosity and the rest followed; she touched the fruit, and destruction came into this world. Since that time, unbelief has been the prolific parent of all guilt.

An unbeliever is capable of the vilest crime that ever was committed. Unbelief, sirs! why it hardened the heart of Pharoh—it gave license to the tongue of blaspheming Rabshakeh—yea, it became a deicide, and murdered Jesus. Unbelief!—it has sharpened the knife of the suicide! it has mixed many a cup of poison; thousands it has brought to the halter; and many to a shameful grave who have murdered themselves and rushed with bloody hands before their Creator's tribunal, because of unbelief!

Give me an unbeliever—let me know that he doubts God's word—let me know that he distrusts his promise and his threatening; and with that for a premise, I will conclude that the man shall, by-and-bye unless there is amazing restraining power exerted upon him, be guilty of the foulest and blackest crimes.

Ah! this is a Beelzebub sin; like Beelzebub, it is the leader of all evil spirits. It is said of Jeroboam that he sinned and made Israel to sin; and it may be said of unbelief that it not only sins itself; but makes others sin, it is the egg of all crime, the seed of every offense; in fact everything that is evil and vile lies couched in that one word—unbelief.

And let me say here, that unbelief in the Christian is of the self-same nature as unbelief in the sinner. It is not the same in its final issue, for it will be pardoned in the Christian; yea it is pardoned: it was laid upon the scape-goat's head of old: it was blotted out and atoned for; but it is of the same sinful nature.

In fact, if there can be one sin more heinous than the unbelief of a sinner, it is the unbelief of a saint. For a saint to doubt God's word—for a saint to distrust God after innumerable instances of his love, after ten thousand proofs of his mercy—exceeds everything.

In a saint, moreover, unbelief is the root of other sins. When I am perfect in faith I shall be perfect in everything else: I should always fulfill the precept if I always believed the promise. But it is because my faith is weak, that I sin. Put me in trouble, and if I can fold my arms and say, "Jehovah-Jireh the Lord will provide," you will not find me using wrong means to escape from it. But let me be in temporal distress and difficulty, if I distrust God, what then? Perhaps I shall steal, or do a dishonest act to get out of the hands of my creditors; or if kept from such a transgression, I may plunge into excess to drown my anxieties.

Once take away faith, the reins are broken; and who can ride an unbroken steed without rein or bridle? Like the chariot of the sun with Phaeton for its driver, such should we be without faith. Unbelief is the mother of vice; it is the parent of sin; and, therefore, I say it is a pestilent evil—a master sin.

C. H. Spurgeon


16 June 2011

Placeholder, plus "middle knowledge"

by Dan Phillips

I don't like not to post at all on "my" days here, this platform being such a happy opportunity to me, and a regular stop for so many good folks. I have a number of good (to me) ideas and posts started and in mind... but for reasons I explained a couple of days ago, and just updated, I'm finding I just really can't put my mind on it right now. I think you understand.

So, if all you smart cookies (with less otherwise-occupied minds) would like to discuss something, how about middle knowledge? My understanding is that it refers to God's sure and certain knowledge not only of realities but of potentialities. Classic examples include 1 Samuel 23:11-12 and Matthew 11:21-23.

As someone convinced of the Bible's doctrine of God's sovereignty, I have no problem with the concept if viewed within that context. But I'm reading through McCune's theology, and find that he objects to it at length as the refuge of sub-Biblical, man-exalting theologies.

Your thoughts, if you care to share?

Dan Phillips's signature

15 June 2011

Open Letter to Frank Turk

by Frank Turk

Dear Frank:

Some people are offended when you do this, but Phil loves it. That's the actual yard stick for this blog anyway, so here goes.

No more throw-away open letters. You have plenty of time during the week to prep, research, draft and finalize a decent open letter for Wednesday, and if you played less City of Heroes, you'd get it done right.

I mean: think of the open letters you could have written this week! The SBC is in full swing in Phoenix! You got some astounding solicitations in the e-mail this week -- think of what one of those could have rendered, given the sources. The Presbyterians are meeting as well, and Doug Wilson wrote a piece on peadocommunion. What jovial repartee could have come from that!

So listen: get yourself together. It only takes about 3 hours to write the better letters, and you have that kind of time. This is your only blog post all week, for pete's sake. You're not too busy to do it right.

Thanks, and God bless you.






14 June 2011

Tersely put: if God has spoken...

by Dan Phillips

Note: My blog-presence and ability to interact in the meta will probably be limited to nil this week. I explain why over at my blog. Meanwhile, here is this designedly terse post. Like the last one, I think there are enough ramifications, if we think it through, for a few hundred comments. Read the other post, and you'll understand that my ability to interact will be little to none. Be good, now.

If God has spoken, and if we have those words, that reality changes everything for us.

Dan Phillips's signature

13 June 2011

The Indignity of Doubt

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 "Fear Not!"—a sermon preached Sunday Morning 4 October 1857 at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens.




oubt not the Lord, O Christian; for in so doing thou dost lower thyself. The more thou believest, the greater thou art; but the more thou doubtest, the less thou becomest.

It was said of the world's conqueror, that when he was sick, he puled [whined weakly] like a child. "Give me some drink," cried one, like a sick girl, it was said to his dishonor. And is it not to the dishonor of a Christian, who lives in secret on his God, and professes to trust alone in him, that he cannot trust him; that a little child will overcome his faith?

Oh, poor cockle-shell boat, that is upset by a rain-drop! O poor puny Christian that is overcome by every straw, that stumbles at every stone!

Then, Christian men, behave like men! It is childish to doubt; it is manhood's glory to trust. Plant your foot upon the immoveable Rock of Ages; lift your eye to heaven; scorn the world; never play craven; bend your fist in the world's face, and bid defiance to it and hell, and you are a man, and noble. But crouch and cringe, and dread, and doubt, and you have lost your Christian dignity, and are no longer what you should be. You do not honor God.

"Fear not, thou worm Jacob; I will help thee, saith the LORD." Then why shouldst thou fear?

C. H. Spurgeon


09 June 2011

So: what should I see in England and Scotland? (Tapping Pyro Brain Trust)

by Dan Phillips

You may recall that I have a gracious invitation to speak at the Ashford Bible Conference in England this September. So I've a question I'd normally put to the BibChr Brain Trust. However, Pyro may have a broader international audience than my personal home-turf.

So: what are some must-sees in London and the south of England, and in the Edinburgh area of Scotland? This would include all of south England, and anything within a day-trip of Edinburgh. I'm figuring Metropolitan Tabernacle. Tower of London and Edinburgh Castle are also already probables. What else? What things that a tour guidebook might miss?


Thanks!

Dan Phillips's signature

08 June 2011

Open Letter to Our Readers

by Frank Turk

Dear Readers,

Briefly today as my week is surfeit, I have a backlog of open letters to write. I owe Greg Damhorst & Cameron Nations a response to their open reply to me; I have an open letter to William and Katherine about their future as the Royal Family of England; I have some notes for President Obama; I have a retrospective to the man who baptized me and discipled me before I was even able to understand what exactly he was doing for me; and I am sure other items will come up.



Today I only have about 30 minutes to get something worth reading up, so I'll interject this for your edification: has anything happened in the last 6 months which has made you reconsider your own self-perception as a Christian? That is to say, do you live in such a way that there are moments when what you thought was the right-minded routine of your life, heading you in God's grace toward sanctification, turned out to be an idol -- something actually standing in the way of your sanctification?

My opinion is this: if we are living with a real appreciation of the Gospel, this will happen often. And the reason it will happen often is that we are sinful people. We don't want to die to the things we really want: we want to believe rather that what we really want is what God wants for us. So if we really want to be bloggers, for example, that must be what God wants for us. If we really want to be rich, God must want us to be rich. What if the Gospel is supposed to be breaking us down instead?

Now, that sounds rather cliched, and like one of those posts after which someone has a theological melt-down. I get that. You can follow Scotty Ward Smith on Twitter and get that sort of Biblical wisdom in 144 characters or less (without the meltdown) -- you don't need 3 pages from me to have a healthy dose of self-deflating Gospel to get that. But here's my point to you today: coming here to read my open letters each week ought to inspire you to (at least) a weekly gut check. Am I reading Frank's letters so that I can see Frank give yet another famous person the what-for? Am I reading them so I can yet again see what a sniveling ingrate Frank is, and thank God I am not a sinner like him? Or am I reading these letters, and seeing myself in them -- the bits and pieces of my own human flaws, my own human errors, my own mistakes, misgivings, misdemeanors for which I ought to be repentant -- and thereby find a little bit of grace and mercy toward my fellow human beings who are just like me, and need a savior just like me?

So my open letter today is to you. Check yourself. I'm checking myself today, and I'm writing an open letter to my own soul. You can do the same, and then take the rest up with our good and great savior.









07 June 2011

Tersely put: omniscience and certainty

by Dan Phillips

To profess certainty, non-Christians must feign omniscience.

Christians begin with the confession that they (1) do not possess omniscience, but (2) are by grace confidants of the only one who does possess it.

Thus Christians alone not only can be, but are obliged to be, humbly certain.

Proverbs 1:7; 9:10; 30:1-5


Dan Phillips's signature

05 June 2011

On the Folly of Preaching too Long

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 "Advice Gratis," published in the 1872 issue of The Sword and the Trowel.




ength is the enemy of strength. The delivery of a discourse is like the boiling of an egg; it is remarkably easy to overdo it, and so to spoil it. You may physic a man till you make him ill, and preach to him till you make him wicked. From satisfaction to satiety there is but a single step; a wise preacher never wishes his hearer to pass it. Enough is as good as a feast, and better than too much.

Having learned by long experience that we exactly fill the 12 pages which our publishers allow for a penny sermon, when we speak for 40 or 45 minutes, we have come to adopt that period as our stint, and we usually find it neither too short nor too long. In occasional services, when we address persons who have no other opportunity of hearing us, we take more latitude, but our regulation allowance is three quarters of an hour. A man who speaks well for that length of time has told his people quite enough, and from him who preaches badly they have in that time heard too much. Most divines can deliver all their best thoughts upon a text in forty minutes, and as it is a pity to bring forth "afterwards that which is worse," they had better bring the feast to an end. To men of prodigious jaw it may seem a hardship to be confined to time, but a broad charity will judge it to be better that one man should suffer than that a whole congregation should be tormented.

The speaker's time should be measured out by wisdom. If he is destitute of discretion, and forgets the circumstances of his auditors, he will annoy them more than a little. In one house the pudding is burning, in another the child is needing its mother, in a third a servant is due in the family; the extra quarter of an hour's prosiness puts all out of order.

A country hearer once said to his pastor, "when you go on beyond half-past four, in the afternoon service, do you know what I always think about?"

"No," said the orator.

"Well, then, I tell you plainly, it is not about what you are preaching, but about my cows. They want milking, and you ought to have consideration for them, and not keep them waiting. How would you like it if you were a cow?"

This last remarkable enquiry suggested a good deal of reflection in the mind of the divine to whom it was proposed, and perhaps it may have a similar beneficial effect upon others who ought to confess their long preachings as among the chief of their shortcomings.

C. H. Spurgeon


Piper/Warren post-script #1: That Poll

by Frank Turk

When I shut the poll down this morning, here are what the results looked like:

click to enlarge

Johnny D's complaint that the answers were unscientifically formulated notwithstanding, there's an interesting couple of items to think about from the results:

[item #1] It's simply unquestionable that the least-likely meaning the readers of this blog got from the interview was "Edwards had no influence on PDL." At 17% of the respondents, this interpretation seems to have occurred to the least nubbier of people. I'd be interested to hear from either Dr. Piper or Pastor Warren on this matter -- do they find interpretation #2 plausible at all? It's interesting also because I got an e-mail from someone who was trying to make the case that Warren was actually saying he was influenced by Piper, ad therefore indirectly influenced by Edwards. This person has since stopped e-mailing me, but I look forward to his exegesis of the text or his commentary on the video in order to see where that comes from.

[item #2] 48% of the respondents thought that Pastor Warren was saying that Edwards had some kind of influence of himself and PDL. That's pretty good. It leaves the question open: how believable is that claim? That's actually my question in the open letter, and I think it's a wholly-valid question.

[item #3] The stunner for me is that fully a third of respondents chose the last option: that somehow Pastor Warren was saying, "Edwards did not influence me or PDL." I threw that answer in there just to make sure that nobody would say I was baiting the readers, but to think that 35% would actually choose this answer puzzles me. And it worries me.

Go back and re-read the first 4-5 pages of the transcript, or listen to the first 10-ish minutes of the video/audio. Can we really say that Warren -meant- with those words that Edwards had no influence? Really? With which words? How can a man say the exact phrase "Edwards was an influence" and mean "Edwards was not an influence"?



My interpretation of this result is three-fold:

[1] Some people have plainly interpreted this question to ask, "What did Warren mean to say?" That's not what was asked but fair enough: I agree with you that he probably meant to say, or should have said, "OK, you got me: Edwards was not an influence." But he did not say that at all.

[2] Some people read this question to mean, "do you believe him for what he said?" And fair enough: I don't believe him either. That is why I find it hard to believe that Dr. Piper believes him.

[3] But I also have a terrible suspicion: I think that the result here points to a bias against Warren which really amounts to a knee-jerk reaction against the man. "What did he mean to say? Bah! I don't care what he meant to say - Edwards wasn't an influence. End of story."

Do with it what you will. Comments are closed.

Phil & Chris Rosebrough went through the whole interview blow by blow; you can find part 1 of that commentary here.


03 June 2011

Thriving at College

by Frank Turk

I had a great post lined up for today.

On Wednesday evening, I had dinner with Alex Chediak, who was in Little Rock to record a couple of episodes with Dennis Rainey and Bob Lepine at Family Life Today. And over dinner we talked for about an hour about his book, Thriving at College -- and I used by fantastic, expensive portable digital recorder that records in surround sound and everything to record the conversation. It was going to be Awesome. Alex was a great interview, and he's obviously passionate about the college experience and how that journey could be maximized by someone who was intentional about his or her time in the ivory tower …

… AND MY VERY EXPENSIVE PORTABLE DIGITAL RECORDER THAT RECORDS IN SURROUND SOUND AND EVERYTHING DIDN'T RECORD A LICK!

ARGH! I'm hoping to Skype Alex for a make-up interview. We'll see how well that turns out. Sheesh.

So here's the thing: Alex has like 50 endorsements for this book, and there is already a way-more-than-adequate book review here. And if you want a taste of the book, you can find it here, preview it, and order it.

Here's my 2-cents (as I wade through my angst over why a record button DOES NOT ACTUALLY RECORD ANYTHING): Imagine you're a college student, and you had a big brother who was watching you (not stalking you, just paying attention) who had been through college and turned out pretty good. And imaging that, because he loved you, he gave you a relatively short list of "to do's" for your 4 years at college.

If he wrote down all the advice he would give you, it would be this book. Alex's approach to how a young person should approach college is serious without being overbearing, and intentional without being wooden. He gives very simple and practical advice which, in the end, is intended to make the college experience not an extension of Senior Week, but the right starting place for a sound and satisfying adult life.

If you know someone who's going to spend $100,000 on a college education (or more), drop the extra $15 (or less -- the Kindle version is only $2 thru the end of next week!) to help them spend it wisely.







02 June 2011

Words, words and words

by Dan Phillips

I once taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word. Itaught an eight-week series on incarnation without ever using the word. — Rick Warren

...preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. — Paul
There are words, then there are words, and then there are words, aren't there?

Biblical faith is a faith of words. "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ," we read (Romans 10:17). "Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth," we read (John 17:17).

Well, now, look there: "sanctify," Jesus says. What does that mean? It isn't a word used in common conversation, at least not in the way Jesus used it. Takes some explaining, doesn't it? And whose job is it to explain it?

"Preach the word," Paul tells young pastor Timothy. He tells him to do it above all things (v. 1). In fact, Paul says that God values that labor of preaching and doctrinal teaching more than He values any other pastoral activity (1 Timothy 5:17). So it is the pastor's job to explain what all those words mean. Words like "sanctify."

Because Jesus uses those words, and He moves His apostles to use them. Words like sanctify and justify and impute and propitiate and redeem. We don't commonly use any of those words as Jesus and the apostles used them. We need someone to help us understand them. That "someone," God says, is the pastor.

Yet here is pastor Rick Warren saying, with an unmistakable tone of pride, that he "taught a 12-week series on sanctification without ever using the word." Twelve weeks on a topic, yet not one of his hearers would have been able to connect what he had said with the word that Jesus or His apostles had used. Why? How? Well, if Pastor Warren is to be taken at his word, he had to avoid reading any of the twenty-one verses in the ESV NT that use some form of "sanctify." So what did Warren use for source material? We are left to wonder, and to surmise that his hearers came away understanding Pastor Warren's thoughts on the subject, but not God's words on it.

I can only speak for myself: I would think that, if I had taught for three months on a Biblical topic without my hearers being able to connect it with Biblical words, I would feel I'd been a miserable failure.

Because you see sanctify is a big Bible word, as are holy and holiness. If I am not teaching people about those Bible words, I am not teaching them about the Bible.

For the Christian, those words are vital words indeed.

And then there are words that are not directly-Biblical, but they are pretty hard to avoid if you're trying to teach the Bible. Wouldn't incarnation be one of those words? What is John 1:14 about, if not incarnation? That isn't even really that uncommon of a word. I think a great many secular people understand the concept just fine. Why ever would a Bible teacher (i.e. pastor) want to avoid such a word, let alone pride himself on avoiding such a word?

Other similar words which express Biblical truth might include Trinity, and inerrancy, and canonicity. How could one teach very broadly in the Bible without engaging and eventually using such concepts?

Yet now I will leap past a possible third category of words (i.e. more advanced theological terms like aseity and infralapsarian) to a fourth: idiomatic, non-essential words raised to an unwarranted level of importance.

Here I am thinking of teachers like the late Col. Robert Thieme Jr., who invented an extremely technical catalog of terms used by no one else in church history, anywhere, ever. Even leaving aside the question of the Biblical accuracy of his teaching, the upshot I observed was that his disciples would be locked into Thieme-related churches. Everything else would seem shallow and watery, because they weren't getting the "deep truths" of alpha and bravo grace and rebound and so on. They find themselves isolated, divided from Christians of all ages and lands.

Or, to go to the Reformed tradition, there's Steve Brown. I shared concerns (here and here) about Brown's winsome way of grounding his teaching in personal stories, illustrations, and "Brownisms," rather than directly and consciously in Scripture and Scriptural words. The fruit often is disciples who can quote Brown fluently, but bristle at aspects of words from the Bible.

This is, I think, the inevitable fruit of substituting anything for teaching the words of Scripture.

God's intent seems to be unity. Certainly, Christ prays for unity in John 17. But God did a great deal to provide a basis for unity: there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father, one body (Ephesians 4) — and one Bible. We believe that this Bible contains absolutely all the words of God we need on any subject (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

And what is that Bible filled with? Words. Not one drawing, not one diagram: just words. Words like sanctification.

If a pastor doesn't consider it his very God-given job to explain and apply those words, then one must ask: what does he think his job is?

And if a pastor wouldn't count it a miserable failure if he did not succeed in explaining and applying those words, then one must ask: what would failure be?

Dan Phillips's signature

01 June 2011

[another] Open Letter to John Piper

by Frank Turk

UPDATED: I have received a couple of e-mails about this letter, and they are making the case that Rick Warren did not mean "Edwards influenced PDL" when he answered the question posed to him on page 4 of the transcript. This is an interesting position. I have opened a poll at the top of the page here to canvass the readers of this blog. Please take the pol only after you have either read the transcript or watched the first 15 minutes of the video. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.

Dear Dr. Piper --

First of all, I am personally still grateful that you are back in public ministry. I am personally still edified by you, and am grateful for your spirit and your mission to make Christ known. I would in no way retract my original open letter to you as I believe that you have been mightily used by God for his work to make Christ known in the English-speaking world, and I credit you for it.

I am also on-record to say that you were right, back when Rick Warren spoke by video at the DG conference, to point out that we allegedly-reformed people have something to learn from Warren when it comes to being intentional about people and not just about doctrine. I wouldn't retract one word of that post either.


While I can't speak for my fellow bloggers here at PyroManiacs, I can say that I am probably the least-unimpressed with Pastor Warren. Without naming names or trying to line out who would say what about whom, it's enough to say that the consensus here is that Rick Warren harms the church in general. His books have done more of a dis-service for local churches than they have served to improve them, and his own methods and writings are frankly a bad example for others.

[Note to readers: after Phil returns to the US from his trip to Europe, he's going to do a full review of the interview with Chris Rosebrough on Fighting for the Faith]

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rick Warren. I can't get excited about his approach to Scripture and Ministry because I see all his writing and sermons as glib, simplistic, mediocre, and often muddled in his broad endorsements of people in interfaith settings -- something I know you disagree with. This was the major stunner from last year's conference: you see Pastor Warren as a great communicator -- which I think is startling because you are yourself a great communicator, and I would think you personally would know better than this. From my perspective, Pastor Warren has done what so many Southern Baptist pastors have done: he has created a local civic institution which has come into national prominence because so many people have come to it. And on that platform his shortcomings are simply magnified, so that the kinds of criticisms he receives are at least warranted because they have such a wide-reaching effect.

But at the same time, I also cannot bring myself to brand Rick Warren, as Chris Rosebrough would say, a rank heretic of a pelagian stripe [a view Phil has a lot of sympathy for]. I can't do it because I know where he comes from denominationally and ecclesiastically, and I simply can't write off the standard vocabulary of the average SBC pastor as inherently-pelagian. It may be populist in intention, and anti-intellectual in spirit, and simply and finally guided by the view that the number of people who agree with you and will follow you defines the success of your work, but I honestly don't see Rick Warren as anti-Christian. He's just mediocre, and popular, and most of his critics cannot evaluate him from that perspective because, frankly, they cannot muster a generous or balanced approach to discernment in general.

That, I think, is what guided your interview of Pastor Warren: a reaction against his most-unfair critics. As you see him as your friend, I credit you for wanting to defend a friend against injustice. But here's the thing: it seems to me that you thereby missed the point of all the fair criticism of Rick Warren and the PDC/PDL approach to local church life. In seeking to overcome the unfair criticism, you brushed over the concerns legitimate people have about your friend.

There were great opportunities to address those problems during this interview. For example, when pastor Warren boasted that he'd put any 500 members of Saddleback up against any 500 members of any other church with regard to doctrinal knowledge (cf. pg 36 of the transcript), this was a great opportunity to consider his consistency. If the members of his church are deeply educated in systematic doctrine, why does he preach without using the language of the Bible for the doctrines of the Bible -- let alone the common language of systematic theology (cf. pg 37)? Isn't this kind of latently anti-intellectual approach to doctrine and the Bible the most serious cause for concern about what Pastor Warren has advocated for 25 years?

To that charge, it's also interesting that he offered the claim that he has read the "complete sets of Jonathan Edwards ... 22 volumes, 800 pages each" (pg 4), and it had a significant influence on PDL. PDL was published in Nov 2002, and written presumably in the previous year -- and through that time, only volume 18 of the Yale "Works" series had been published. Perhaps he forgot how much he had read prior to writing that book; we are all getting older and are not the Grad students we once were.  But more to the point, if Edwards was such a profound influence on PDL, why is his name so conspicuously-absent from it? Others are plainly mentioned in the book: Brother Lawrence is mentioned 5 times; Dr. Hugh Moorehead is quoted 3 times; Mother Teresa is cited twice; Hudson Taylor is mentioned once; Billy Graham is mentioned once; George Bernard Shaw was mentioned; Lane Adams [an author with fewer readers than this blog can claim] is quoted; there are others. [Thx, Kindle Edition search, since the book lacks a subject index] Plainly, these influenced Pastor Warren's writing of this book. Why not mention Jonathan Edwards if he had, as Warren said in the video, greatly influenced PDL?

To point this out and to ask Pastor Warren how he can substantiate this statement when factually it seems, at best, unsupported by the text, would not have been a hard item to come up with. I had not read PDL in almost 10 years, and this bit of emendation to the text seemed obvious -- an interesting and challenging point to investigate; it's unfortunate you missed the opportunity.

The enduring legacy of PDL, though, is Warren's use of any and every translation of a passage to allegedly make a point. For example, in Chpt 8 of PDL, Pastor Warren cites Ps 147:11 as "The LORD is pleased only with those who worship him and trust his love." This theological point is certainly true enough, but this is the CEV translation of a passage which reads "the LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love," (ESV) or "The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy," (KJV) -- a phrase which, in the context of the Psalm in question, as you know, is a contrast of God's will to do good over and against the normal hope of man that one's own strength or accomplishments will carry the day. This example is a rather-mild incident in PDL, but it is by no means the only one. For your reference, Tim Challies shares this concern, as does Mike Oppenheimer of "Let Us Reason" Ministries. Monergism.com points out that PDL is not the only source of data regarding Pastor Warren's misuse of Scripture.


This practice of cherry-picking the loosest and most-imprecise translations of passages to make a point in PDL is probably the most-pervasive criticism of the text, and you never arrive there. Of all the things you are from the pulpit and in your ministry, you are a man of God's word, and the misuse of Scripture is not something you usually lay hands on lightly. From my desk, it seems to me you can't possibly have missed this. Let's admit this: you didn't ignore the issue of hermeneutics. You opened up the question of how one uses Scripture  (pp. 5, 14, 34). You simply didn't pursue it. You allowed Pastor Warren to simply say that he doesn't believe in contradictions in the word of God, and let that be enough. It's a casual approach to the man and his philosophy, not a deep consideration.

And in the end, this is why I have written to you. I am your fan, and deeply indebted to you for your lifetime of faithful ministry. I'm not a quack blogger who is now emptying my library of anything you may have written or edited because you are endorsing a dubious partner in ministry. I'm a guy who has grown because of your engagement with the glory of God, and have felt the weight of the divine act of the incarnation and crucifixion because of your meditation on and exhortation of God's Grace. I am a better man, and a better father, and a better husband, because you have put the Gospel to me in serious and sober and joyful terms. I believe completely that the greatest cause in the world is joyfully rescuing people from hell, meeting their earthly needs, making them glad in God, and doing that with a kind and serious pleasure that makes CHRIST look like the treasure He is.

I believe in your faith, and in your good judgment. While I cannot and will not question the former, I ask you to reconsider the latter as you are now campaigning for a broader and deeper acceptance of Rick Warren among those in broader "reformed", "T4G", and "Gospel Coalition" circles. He is, after all, a pastor and not merely a blogger. He's a shepherd and not merely a popular author. He's sending missionaries and not merely encouraging middle-class values. And as you seek to leverage the good name and good faith relationships you have among your partners in the groups listed above, remember that part of fellowship among brothers is honoring the concerns and objections your fellow workmen have expressed throughout the years about Rick Warren.  He only has something to gain from their acceptance -- while they clearly would tell you there is something to lose by uncritically allowing him in as a teacher and leader.

In closing, I have a great empathy for your efforts to seek to be inclusive for the sake of Christ toward those who are in Christ but not in our basic theological camp. As I close in on a decade of internet punditry as a blogger and advocate for the Christian faith, I am deeply sensitive to the dark and unrestrained excesses of those who count themselves as defenders of the faith but are unaccountable for their strident pronouncements. As someone who is often lumped in with those sort, I think it's important to say plainly that I don't think it's an easy or uncomplicated thing to write you, a seasoned pastor, a critical open letter.  I think you are right that some have treated Rick Warren with injustice -- but he is not hardly the man your interview with him paints him to be. He's not hardly someone deeply concerned with a robust declaration of the Gospel and its consequences. His weekly preaching does not reflect this, and his books do not reflect this. After 40 years of demonstrating pastoral care for real people and careful, weekly expository preaching, you must be able to see the deficiencies in what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do if accepted without asking the serious questions his writing and actions create.

Please: for the sake of your own continued credibility, and for the sake of the partnerships in the Gospel which you have forged with other men of good faith, reconsider the broad and uncritical endorsement you are giving to Rick Warren. Underscore your differences with him clearly and cogently, and ask him to respond seriously for the sake of his commitment to your integrity and his own.

For that reason, I leave you with a blessing. As the apostle charged, it is always our purpose to give a reason for the hope that is in us -- to put to shame those who would revile us for Christ's sake -- with gentleness and reverence. As you have spent your adult life doing this, I ask God our Father, through the Holy Spirit, and in Christ's name, to bless you for it now with these things: love for your friend beyond mere bonhomie; courage to speak prophetically and evangelistically; and humility to see the limits of your own approach to what you believe is addressing injustice.

My thanks for your time.








31 May 2011

Grr

by Dan Phillips

My dear wife and I had an absolutely terrific (if blindingly fast) weekend, and I probably have some great pictures to show you... but not now. Grr.

Valerie and I hit the road around 4:30 Thursday afternoon. I'd been up since 0-dark-30, but was powered by some characteristically wonderful Peet's coffee (best coffee on Earth — seriously). We headed down south to  have our first Pyro board meeting since T4G08.

Fast-forwarding, Valerie and I had a wonderful time with the Turks and the Johnsons, and with all their delightful assorted kids and spouses and grandkids; we also saw my sister, as well as longtime friend and best-man Tom Lusby, took a lot of pictures... and I've nothing to show for it.

Well, not yet anyway. Since I'm not a Mac user, I'm not accustomed to horrendous hardware problems requiring special trips to special stores, so this is a little new to me. My camera suddenly won't turn on, and I can't get my Gateway to read the card. Shyam's initial attempts at helping me were also unsuccessful, and then I was out of time.

So I'm stuck, with nothing to show but memories (which don't post as graphics). Not yet, anyway.

Other people took pictures. Frank's dear wife did, the friendly folks at Grace to You did. I did too... but, me? I've got nothing.

Grr.

Well, okay, that's not entirely true. I have a few from my iPhone. But you can't possibly care about them. Still... since I've got nothing....

Here's the sundae I had at Rocky Cola cafe with our friends the Lusbys:


Yes, it was also a temporary vacation from Dr. Atkins. Back on the wagon now. Also, we were reportedly sitting at the very booth that the guy who was president before George W. Bush sat at when he came through. Brr-r-r.

And here's me with a cola Fred Butler recommended from Galco's, a really amazing soda shop featured in the video that was the sixth item on the Hither and Thither of 6/4/10. I am really grateful to Fred for reminding me of this store — I'd have forgotten, and kicked myself for it. They have a dizzying variety of sodas. We got the rose petal soda (delicious), several root beers for our kids as well as treats for in-town relatives, and I got a dandelion and ginger soda (also delicious).



Sorry. It's lame. I know it. But that's all I've got right now.

Grr!

Dan Phillips's signature

27 May 2011

On Eloquence in Preaching

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, nearly a week late, is from the lecture "Sermons—Their Matter," in Spurgeon's famous book Lectures to My Students.



ake care that your deliverances are always weighty, and full of really important teaching. Build not with wood, hay, and stubble, but with gold, silver, and precious stones.

It is scarcely needful to warn you against the grosser degradations of pulpit eloquence, or the example of the notorious orator Henley might be instanced. That loquacious adventurer, whom Pope has immortalized in his "Dunciad," was wont to make the passing events of the week the themes of his buffoonery on week days, and theological topics suffered the same fate on Sundays. His forte lay in his low wit and in tuning his voice and balancing his hands. The satirist says of him, "How fluent nonsense trickles from his tongue."

Gentlemen, it were better never to have been born, than to have the like truthfully said of us; we are on peril of our souls bound to deal with the solemnities of eternity and with no earth-born topics.

There are, however, other and more inviting methods of wood and hay-building, and it behoves you not to be duped by them. This remark is necessary, especially to those gentlemen who mistake highflying sentences for eloquence, and latinized utterances for great depth of thought. Certain homiletical instructors, by their example, if not by their precepts, encourage rhodomontade and great swelling words, and, therefore, are most perilous to young preachers.

Think of a discourse commencing with such an amazing and stupendous assertion as the following, which by its native grandeur will strike you at once with a sense of the sublime and beautiful: "MAN IS MORAL." This genius might have added, "A cat has four feet." There would have been as much novelty in the one information as the other.

I remember a sermon by a would-be profound writer which quite stunned the reader with grenadier words of six-feet length, but which, when properly boiled down, came to as much essence of meat as this—Man has a soul, his soul will live in another world, and therefore he should take care that it occupies a happy place. No one can object to the teaching, but it is not so novel as to need a blast of trumpets and a procession of bedizened phrases to introduce it to public attention.

The art of saying commonplace things elegantly, pompously, grandiloquently, bombastically, is not lost among us, although its utter extinction were "a consummation devoutly to be wished." Sermons of this sort have been held up as models, and yet they are mere bits of bladder which would lie on your finger-nail, blown out until they remind you of those coloured balloons which itinerant dealers carry about the streets to sell at a halfpenny a-piece for the delectation of the extremely juvenile; the parallel, I am sorry to say, holding good a little further, for in some cases these discourses contain just a tinge of poison by way of colouring, which some of the weaker sort have found out to their cost.

It is infamous to ascend your pulpit and pour over your people rivers of language, cataracts of words, in which mere platitudes are held in solution like infinitesimal grains of homœopathic medicine in an Atlantic of utterance.

Better far give the people masses of unprepared truth in the rough, like pieces of meat from a butcher's block, chopped off anyhow, bone and all, and even dropped down in the sawdust, than ostentatiously and delicately hand them out upon a china dish a delicious slice of nothing at all, decorated with the parsley of poetry, and flavoured with the sauce of affectation.

C. H. Spurgeon


26 May 2011

Hermeneutics: it's not life or death... right? (Classic re-post)

by Dan Phillips
This post from 2006, very slightly edited, seems particularly timely in the light of recent events, and in the light of stories like this and this. Could any Christian leader say "Oh well, stuff happens"?

"Hermeneutics" (plural in form, but used with both singular and plural verbs) is the art and science of Biblical interpretation. It's the set of rules, held consciously or not, that govern the way you read the Bible. You have a hermeneutical construct, I have a hermeneutical construct. It may be pretty darned good, it may be smelly-awful wretched, but you and I have one.

How one arrives at his hermeneutical position may very well be a chicken/egg conundrum. Does [your-favorite-reprobate's-name-here] read his Bible the way he does because of his appalling lifestyle? Or does he have an appalling lifestyle because of the way he reads his Bible? Or is the relationship symbiotic, co-dependent?

In my case, doubtless there was symbiosis, but mostly it was the former. I was in a cult called Religious Science, or the Science of Mind. I won't honor it with a link. I was New Age before New Age was cool. Back then we called it "New Thought," though it was barely either. (If you've ever sung "Let There Be Peace On Earth," you've sung a song cherished by that cult.)

It was your standard panentheistic Christian heresy, very like Christian Science except we weren't so negative on seeing doctors. Fundamentally, Religious Science taught that God is in all things, and expresses Itself as and through all things. Therefore, we are all expressions of God, and all have within ourselves the Christ-consciousness. "Christ" is the principle of god-consciousness, the I AM, within everyone. Our goal in life was to harmonize our minds with God, and thus to manifest truth, love, joy, stuff.

Dizzy yet?

Now, like most American cults, Religious Science wants to get on the Jesus-bandwagon by mouthing great platitudes about Jesus, how He was a great prophet, a great teacher, a great mystic, the most perfect manifestation of God-consciousness to date. But Jesus was no different than we, and we can all live the same life.

Stay with me, I am going somewhere with this.

The Religious Scientist runs into the problem that Jesus did not say much that sounded like any of that.

And that's where hermeneutics comes in. See (we said) the problem is that Christians have misunderstood and misrepresented Jesus all this time. They took His words too literally and shallowly, when really they had a deeper, spiritual meaning. When He said to pray, "Our Father," He was saying that all without distinction are God's children.

So what about Hell, sin, salvation? No problem; Hell is just the experience of being at seeming disharmony with the One Mind; sin are thoughts out of harmony with the One Mind; salvation is just reaffirming and manifesting your union with the Godhead. See?

Now, the tale of my conversion, and of why I am still a Christian, is a much longer yarn than I will untangle here, except to focus on one aspect: how the Holy Spirit used hermeneutics to convert and save me. (The fuller story is told starting here.)

I learned to read the Bible the Religious Science way from my pre-teen years. I looked for (and found) the "deeper meaning" that those idiot Christians and Jesus-Freaks kept stubbornly missing. It was a mindset, on the level of the reflexive.

But I did keep running into things that He said that jarred even my firmly-set grid. It created a slowly growing tension: on the one hand, we thought Jesus was the greatest Teacher and Prophet and Mystic who ever lived; on the other, He sure expressed Himself poorly sometimes! But never mind; we were always there to "help" Him.

The single greatest snag was John 14:6 -- "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

Sure sounds as if Jesus was saying what we Religious Scientists all denied: that no relationship with God is possible without a personal relationship with the person, the man, God incarnate, Jesus Christ.

But that isn't what we thought He meant. It couldn't be. It would destroy the whole foundation and superstructure. Here is how Ernest Holmes, founder of that cult, explains Jesus' words: "We cannot come unto the Father Which art in Heaven except through our own nature." So, what Jesus really meant was the precise opposite of what He seemed to be saying.

That worked fine for me, for a good long while.

But over the period of many months, the Spirit of God did a work on me, convicting me of sin, exposing to me my actual distance from actual God, my God-un-likeness, the multilevel trainwreck that was me.

When I combined the realizations that I basically had found a religion that told me what I wanted to hear, and that I myself wasn't much better than a drooling idiot in the ways that mattered, it shook me to my foundations — and I started looking at Jesus anew. And I prayed, that God would show me the way to Himself, even if it meant that I had to become a Jesus Freak. (That was the worst thing I could think of at the time.) What did I have to do?

And again loomed John 14:6, giving me Jesus' answer to my question.

This was the great Teacher, the great manifestation of God, Jesus, clearly laying out the only way I could come to God. But what did He mean? Did He mean that I was my own way to God (with Religious Science)? Or did He mean that I needed to believe in and know Him, Jesus, personally (with the Jesus Freaks)?

I had no idea, but at that point my very life was hinging on a hermeneutical question.

Here's the line of thinking that the Spirit of God used to deliver me from the deceptive maze of mystical subjectivism.

I took the premise that Jesus was the greatest Teacher, and assumed that a good teacher is a good communicator. He says what he means; his words convey his meaning. He speaks to be understood by his audience.

So then I simply posed this question question to myself: "If Jesus had meant to say that each of us is, within himself, his own way to God, could He have said it more clearly?" To put it differently, do these words best express that thought? The candid, inescapable answer was an immediate No. In fact, if that had been what Jesus had meant to say, He could hardly have phrased it more poorly... in which case He wasn't much of a teacher at all, let alone the greatest ever.

Then I asked myself this: "If Jesus had meant to say that He Himself personally is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one can have a relationship with God apart from relating to Jesus Himself, could He have said that more clearly?" I was forced to admit that, in fact, that thought is exactly what these words most naturally express. (Later I was to learn that the Greek original underscores this very point all the more emphatically.)

That was a turning-point. I had to face the fact that Jesus did not believe what I believe. Jesus did not think God could be known as I thought He could be known.

And that, in turn, threw the question to the decisive fork in the road: who is more credible? Jesus, or me?

Had you said "Hermeneutics" to me at the time, I might have responded, "Herman-who?" Had you further said "Grammatico-historical exegesis," I couldn't even have managed that much. But that is precisely what was going on.

Now it's well over thirty years later, I've taken classes in Hermeneutics on the master's and doctoral level, read books and articles, written on the subject, fleshed out and used an array of principles of interpretation. But still that single method, that simple question (along with its implications), has resolved more knotty issues for me than any other. It's why I'm an inerrantist. It's why I'm a Calvinist. It is at the root of my core convictions. In fact, at bottom, in the hand of God it is why I am a Christian.

As I've fleshed it out, it is simply a formulation of Hebrews 1:1-2a. The Bible is God's unfolding Word, and it is God's Word to us. He speaks to be heard, and understood. Hence its meaning is not a matter for secret-club decoder-rings, arcane rituals, and secret councils composed of a different class. It is to be understood according to the normal canons of language.

Does that matter? It sure matters to me.

It's what the Lord used to save me.

UPDATE: this post dovetails to a degree.

Dan Phillips's signature

24 May 2011

Humiliated and humbled: sadly, not synonyms

by Dan Phillips

Once there was a man with much to boast of; and boy, did he.

The man was builder/conqueror/despot Nebuchadnezzar. A dream, brought home by a genuine prophet, had warned him of the consequences of his arrogance and called him to humble himself before God (Dan. 4:2-27). Nebuchadnezzar shrugged off the prophet's pleas and doubled down (Dan. 4:28-33). The king was instantly humiliated by a word from Heaven, and spent seven periods of time (?; don't ask) living like an animal (Dan. 4:32-33), until he saw himself in true proportion to God (Dan. 4:34-36). Now Nebuchadnezzar wasn't so big, but God was.

In this case, Nebuchadnezzar was both (outwardly) humiliated, and (inwardly) humbled. That is, God undid him, and he received the message. It's actually a pretty happy story. Many believe ol' Nabu-kudurri-usur was saved through the encounter. Possible. Only God knows.


Too many of the similar stories I know, first-hand and second-, do not yet have such happy endings.

I know of a number of folks who have been massively and/or repeatedly humiliated, but never humbled. I could name politicians past and present, preachers past and present, religious bodies past and present, and individuals past or present. I could name a name leading the news recently. Some of these folks I've never met; some I knew (or thought I knew) as well as I will ever know anyone who isn't me.

In each case, the natural process of following (sinful) choice A led to (foolish) choice B, which then led to disaster. Anyone with two functional neurons to fire in sequence, observing the situation, could make the connection: A led to B; A is the root-problem. Humble yourself. "Own," then disown A.

But, see, children, here's a crucial axiom of fallen humanity. It should probably be added to the 25 Things I've Learned (which seem more timely than ever)... though that would mess up the title. But here it is:
Everyone caught in a sin will either repent, or double down
Sin snowballs.

There's only one way to be rid of a sin, and that way lies through repentance. Repentance is the way of humility. Repentance loves God, so it hates the sin. Repentance sees God as big, so it sees the sin as despicable. Repentance admits culpability, because it craves forgiveness — and only guilty people can be forgiven. Hence the need for "owning" — for confession — and for "disowning" through repentance.

By contrast, refusal to be rid of the sin inexorably takes one in the other direction. All defenses go up, and all assailants must be repulsed. Rationalization, blame-shifting, evasion, equivocation, lies, excuses... all these and many other baleful tools lie in the arsenal of the unrepentant.

Solomon's words, however, stand as true today as they were when first spoken and written:
Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper,
but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy
(Proverbs 28:13)
...and its companion warning:
One who becomes stiff-necked, after many reprimands
will be shattered instantly— beyond recovery
(Proverbs 29:1 CSB)
The lesson to us is clear: we should humble ourselves, lest we be humiliated. "Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you," Peter admonishes (1 Pet. 5:6).

Refuse to do so, and we will learn Nebuchadnezzar's lesson: that "those who walk in pride he is able to humble" (Dan. 4:37).

The fall back lesson is no less clear: if it comes to humiliation, take the message to heart. Don't be the last to know. Don't wait until the two saddest words in the English language become your epitaph:

"Too late"

UPDATE: see also this.

Dan Phillips's signature