From Russell Moore

It sure helps to love invisible people. That’s why one rattles on and on about “The Family” while neglecting his kids. That’s why another “fights” for “social justice” by “raising consciousness” about “The Poor” while judging his friends on how trendy their clothes are. And that’s why one pontificates on “The Church” while rolling his eyes at the people in his actual congregation.

“The Family” never shows up unexpected for Thanksgiving or criticizes your spouse or spills chocolate milk all over your carpet; only real families can do that. “The Poor” don’t show up drunk for the job interview you’ve scheduled or spend the money you’ve given them on lottery tickets or tell you they hate you; only real poor people can do that. “The Church” never votes down my position in a congregational business meeting or puts on an embarrassingly bad Easter musical or asks me to help clean toilets for Vacation Bible School next week; only real churches can do that.

As long as “The Family” or “The Poor” or “The Church” are abstract concepts, as long as my interaction is as distant as a government policy, they can be whoever I want them to be.

The Spirit warns us about this. Jesus lit into the Pharisees for “fighting for” the Law of God while ignoring their financial obligations to their parents, all under the guise of their religious advocacy (Mark 7:10-12). The Apostle Paul tells us that a man who doesn’t “provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household” has “denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:9).

And James, particularly, shows us the difference between “fighting” for a cause, and loving people. “If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” (James 2:15-16). “Be warmed and filled” is advocacy; “get in here” is love.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for government policies to protect the family and to care for the poor. J.D. Trout probably has a lot of good ideas as to how to do some of those things. I’m for missions activity for people I’ll never see or know. But I have to remind myself that “fighting” for such things is a great deal easier than loving those people, the ones God has put around me in my house, my neighborhood, and my church.

Truth is, apart from the transformative power of Christ, we’re all something like the empathy expert. We want to live by our self-crafted motto, “I am my brother’s keeper (some restrictions apply).”

From J.D. Greer, pastor of The Summit Church in Durham, NC

Often Calvinists will say that Calvinism is the essence of the Gospel (see Piper, Sproul, Spurgeon, etc). Unfortunately, that statement often gets translated to mean that the particulars of the 5 points are the essence of the Gospel, which they clearly are not. But I don’t think that’s what those guys mean. What they mean is that Calvinism gets at the heart of the Gospel.

There are 4 things Calvinists often teach which really do get to the heart of a Biblical theology. Regardless of where you come down on the “5 points,” these are things I think Gospel-centered Christians should agree on:

THE ‘PRIORITY’ OF GOD’S WORK IN SALVATION: The Bible teaches that no person can come to God unless Jesus first works in Him. Our own hearts, naturally, are so dark and hard that they hate God rather than love Him. It takes a work of God’s grace in us before we will desire to know God. How that happens, what role our cooperation plays in that… those things we might disagree on. But we must agree that God must work in us before we can choose Him (John 1:13; Philippians 2:13; John 6:44)

THE PREEMINENCE OF GOD’S GLORY IN SALVATION: Calvinists often emphasize, correctly, that the biggest reality in the universe, and the priority among God’s purposes on earth, is His own glory. Thankfully, God’s glory is most shown in our salvation, but God’s glorification takes priority over our salvation, because God takes priority over us. This is made very clear in Ezek 36:22-23, Romans 3:24-25). God is so incredible that He glorified Himself by emptying Himself, being trampled on and crucified for us (Philippians 2:5-11). This is important because if the fact that God’s glory is ultimate in the unverse were not true, then a lot of things in the Bible won’t make sense to us. (Why is there an eternal hell? Why isn’t everyone saved?)

THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN THE SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL: Even if you don’t believe that God determines, individually, who will be saved and who will not, we have to recognize that God has maintained control of when and how the Gospel has been preached. It was Jesus who chose to choose 12 (He could have chosen more than 12, or even an army of angels to do it). It is He who chose where to send them. He told Paul to go certain places and steered Him away from others. He transported Philip into the desert. He chose to let me be born to Christian parents. God has an agenda He is pursuing and is, ultimately, in charge of. That is a promise to me that even the hardest, most closed Muslim places will one day experience the Gospel.

THAT GOD, IN NO WAY, OWES ANY SALVATION: We all deserve hell, no exceptions. The fact that God saves any of us is an act of lavish grace. God does not award salvation, or even the chance to be saved, because of any good He sees in us. He didn’t choose me because He saw I’d believe. From start to finish, His work in those He saves is ALL grace.

Anyway, that’s my .02. I try to pray like it’s all up to God, and then preach Christ like it’s all up to me. The strange thing is, the more people I share Christ with, the more people seem to keep getting elected. Honestly, I care less whether you’re a “Calvinist,” and more whether you are a Gospel-centered, glory of God-loving, fire-breathing missiologist. God give me the head of a Baptist, the heart of a Pentecostal, and the feet of a Jehovah’s Witness.

From Justin Taylor comes an excellent followup to John Piper’s article that I blogged about recently.

The best thing I’ve read on this is David Powlison’s essay-turned-booklet, “God’s Love: Better Than Unconditional.”

Powlison suggests that people who use the term often have good intentions, wanting to affirm four interrelated truths:

1. “Conditional love” is bad—unconditional is shorthand for the opposite of manipulation, demand, judgmentalism.
2. God’s love is patient—unconditional is shorthand for hanging on for the long haul, rather than bailing out when the going gets rough.
3. True love is God’s gift—unconditional is shorthand for unearned blessings, rather than legalism
4. God receives you just as you are: sinful, suffering, confused—unconditional is shorthand for God’s invitation to rough, dirty, broken people

These are true—and previous. But Powlison offers several responses. (I can only summarize and paraphrase here—buy the booklet to see the arguments in full.)

First, Powlison suggests that “there are more biblical and vivid ways to capture each of the four truths just stated.” “People currently employ a somewhat vague, abstract word — unconditional — when the Bible gives us more vivid and specific words, metaphors, and stories.”

Second, it’s not true that unmerited grace is strictly unconditional. Jesus Christ opened a way for us to experience the biblical love of God by fulfilling two conditions: a life of perfect obedience to the moral will of God, and a perfect substitutionary death on our behalf. Powlison writes: “Unconditional love? No, something much better. People who now use the word unconditional often communicate an acceptance neutered of this detailed, Christ-specific truth.”

Third, God’s love is more than conditional, for it is intended to change those who receive it. “Unconditional” often connotes “you’re okay.” But there is something wrong with you. The word “unconditional” may well express the welcome of God, but it does not well express the point of his welcome.

Fourth, “unconditional love” carries a load of cultural baggage, wedded to words like “tolerance, acceptance, affirmation, benign, okay,” and a philosophy that says love should not impose values, expectations, or beliefs on another. In fact, humanist psychology even has a term for it: “unconditional positive regard” (Carl Rogers).

Here is Powlison again:

We can do better. Saying “God’s love is unconditional love” is a bit like saying “The sun’s light at high noon is a flashlight in a blackout.” Come again? A dim bulb sustains certain analogies to the sun. Unconditional love does sustain certain analogies to God’s love. But why not start with the blazing sun rather than the flashlight? When you look closely, God’s love is very different from “unconditional positive regard,” the seedbed of contemporary notions of unconditional love. God does not accept me just as I am; He loves me despite how I am; He loves me just as Jesus is; He loves me enough to devote my life to renewing me in the image of Jesus. This love is much, much, much better than unconditional! Perhaps we could call it “contraconditional” love. Contrary to the conditions for knowing God’s blessing, He has blessed me because His Son fulfilled the conditions. Contrary to my due, He loves me. And now I can begin to change, not to earn love but because of love.

. . . You need something better than unconditional love. You need the crown of thorns. You need the touch of life to the dead son of the widow of Nain. You need the promise to the repentant thief. You need to know, “I will never leave you or forsake you.” You need forgiveness. You need a Vinedresser, a Shepherd, a Father, a Savior. You need to become like the one who loves you. You need the better love of Jesus.

Read Piper’s post and Powlison’s booklet. Both are well worth your time!

From Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Ultimately, creation serves as the theater of the glory of God’s redeeming love. The drama of God’s redemption accomplished in Christ is the great story on display. In the consummation of history, the revelation of a new heaven and a new earth will become the platform for the manifestation of the glory of the triune God throughout eternity.

Does this make God a megalomaniac?

Our starting point for answering this question is the perfection of God. As the only perfect being, all that God does is perfect. He perfectly seeks to display his perfection. He is even jealous of his own glory. As John Calvin reminds us, “God is called jealous, because he permits no rivalry which may detract from his glory.” In a human this attitude would be ugly and contemptible. In God it is perfect and holy.

As Herman Bavinck expressed this truth, “God can rest in nothing other than himself and cannot be satisfied with anything less than himself. He has no alternative but to seek his own honor.” Similarly, though from a very different theological perspective, Karl Barth defined God’s glory as “his dignity and right, not only to maintain, but to prove and declare, to denote and almost as it were to make himself conspicuous and everywhere apparent as the One he is.”

This is merely the logic of what it means for God to be the one perfect being. As such, he cannot look beyond himself for anything or anyone greater. In an often-overlooked passage in Hebrews, we are told that “when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself” [Hebrews 6:13]. When humans take an oath, we naturally invoke God’s name. When God makes a promise, he can invoke no greater name then his own. This is not evidence of selfishness or narcissism — only an irrefutable logic.

Even so, some who are troubled by this question may remain puzzled. Even when God is understood to be the one perfect being, this still appears to be a cold logic.

The most important corrective to this misunderstanding is to realize that God’s glory is a generous and self-giving glory. His glory is his own joy, and the display of his glory brings his creatures true joy.

When a human glorifies himself, he robs others of joy. Self-aggrandizement and human megalomania cause hurt and harm to others, not blessing and joy.

But when God displays and exhibits his glory, he shares joy with his creatures and wholeness with all creation. Put most directly, without the knowledge of God’s glory, we would be robbed of true joy. God would be less than perfect — even selfish — if he did not display his glory and allow us to share in the divine joy and fulfillment.

Is God a megalomaniac . . . the transcendent Egotist? Of course not. In the truest sense, this is an arrogant and irresponsible question. How can God be other than he is in his perfection? But in another sense, the question is helpful, for it directs our thinking to the essence of God’s glory and resets our theological framework. God shows his love for us in the display of his glory and in his jealous concern for his own name and reputation. Our greatest joy is found in beholding his glory and in glorifying the triune God for all eternity.

Fallen creatures, blinded by sin, cannot see that to rob God of his glory is to rob ourselves of true joy. It takes the grace of God to make that known to us, and, incredibly enough, God glorifies himself in making himself known to sinners and in saving them through Christ’s perfect atonement for sin.

For now, we see the glory of God most perfectly displayed in the cross of Christ. That fact alone answers the question far more convincingly than any argument.

From Tim Chester, of The Crowded House and Total Church

 

At the end of last year we spent some time reviewing leadership within our network with a view to identifying new leaders and training needs. As part of that process I put together a document stating our expectations of leaders. Here’s what I came up with. You can download these leadership expectations as a PDF file.

Leaders love Jesus, delight in his grace, manage their own households well, and walk in daily faith and repentance so that their lives are an example to others.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 (Titus 1:7-8)

Potential Indicators

(These indicators are not a checklist that people must ‘pass’. They are an aid to assessing a person’s potential as a leader and a description of the kind of leaders we aspire to be.)

1. Do they show joy, excitement, confidence, awe and gratitude when they talk about Jesus?
2. Are they confessing sin and welcoming accountability?
3. Are they respected by believers and unbelievers?
4. Does their mood affect their conduct?
5. Do they serve their wives so that their wives flourish spiritually and in ministry?
6. Do their children respect them?
7. Are they slow to contradict other people? Are they rarely in quarrels? Do they confront people with gentleness and humility?

Do they have a living confidence that:	contrary indicators
God is great - so we do not have to be in control	they are over-bearing  they are inflexible or risk averse they are impatient with people they avoid responsibility
God is glorious - so we do not have to fear others	they avoid confrontation  they crave approval they behave differently around certain people they pretend or hide their true self
God is good - so we do not have to look elsewhere	they feel ministry is a burden  they often complain they make people feel a burden of duty they don’t stick at things
God is gracious - so we do not have to prove ourselves	they take criticism and failure badly  they find it hard to relax they are proud or envy the success of others they make people feel guilty

2. Bible

Leaders know and can teach the gospel to small groups and one-to-one, explaining the Bible, applying the Bible and addressing people’s hearts.

1 Timothy 3:2 (Titus 1:9-11)

Potential Indicators

1. Do they know the Bible story?
2. Are they constantly concerned to submit to the authority of the Bible?
3. Do their contributions to Bible studies show a good understanding of the passage?
4. Do their contributions to Bible studies show a concern to build up others?
5. Do their contributions to Bible studies show an ability to draw out practical implications?
6. Are they often speaking the gospel into other people’s lives?
7. Do they address the beliefs and affections of people’s hearts as well as their behaviour?

3. Vision

Leaders are enthusiastically committed to the vision expressed in our ten core values and live that vision by practicing our five rhythms.

Ephesians 4:11-16 (Titus 2:1-15)

Potential Indicators

1. Are they enthusiastic about our ten core values?
2. Are they able to explain the values to others?
3. Do their contributions to team discussions reflect an understanding of the values?
4. Do they make decisions with regard to the community and consult over major decisions?
5. Do they take responsibility when other leaders are absent?
6. Do they use the language of ‘we’ and ‘our’ when they talk about our network?
7. Are they involved in mission? Do they have friends who are unbelievers?

4. Servanthood

Leaders take responsibility for the life of the church at the expense of their own interests and agendas.

1 Peter 5:1-5 (Philippians 2:1-5)

Potential Indicators

1. Are they eager to serve and do they serve without complaining?
2. Do they show submission to, and respect for, existing leaders and the wider community?
3. Do they lead in prayer and contribute to discussions?
4. Do they avoid making general discussions about their issues?
5. Do they show a concern for other people’s walk with God?
6. Are they generous with their time and money?
7. Are they regularly showing hospitality?

A leader won’t feel overwhelmed by these expectations, nor self-confident, because they have living knowledge of:

• God’s grace – which means we can acknowledge our failures without having to prove ourselves
• God’s power – which gives us true confidence

 

From Stephen Witmer of Pepperell Christian Fellowship  

I preached yesterday morning on 1 Peter 5.1-5. Verse 5 tells members of the congregation to ‘be subject to the elders.’

I made the point that Peter tells the flock to be subject only after devoting four verses to setting the bar very high for the elders’ leadership. It is godly, humble, sacrificial leadership that the flock of God at PCF is called to submit to. And the rest of 1 Peter makes it clear that the flock is never to submit to elders who encourage them to sin.

This raises the question: how do congregational votes square with submission to elders?

In other words, if the elders support a certain decision, and hold a congregational vote on that decision, are you obligated to vote the way the elders want you to in order to be fully obedient to 1 Peter 5.5: ‘be subject to the elders’?

No, you’re not.

The reason is that, at a church-wide vote, the elders are asking for you to vote your prayerful, considered, conscience-bound decision. One good way to lead is to ask those you are leading to make a good decision. Good leaders do this sometimes. A good husband, though he is the leader of his home, will not make all the decisions. He will allow his wife to make some important decisions, too. As she makes that decision, a godly wife will of course confer and pray with her husband and show respect for his opinions.

Similarly, one way you can submit to your elders in a congregational vote is to take their thinking, praying, and leading very seriously. They are working hard for you, and they care passionately about the church. As you vote, you can ask yourself why they are moving in the directions they’re moving. This is one way to show respect to the under-shepherds God has placed among you.

Why do we even have congregational votes at PCF? Because we believe that, while God has instituted elders as the leaders of local congregations, God also intends for the church as a whole to be responsible to him, and to make decisions that please him. One example of this is in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul addresses the entire church (not just elders), and commands the church to take urgent action in obedience to God.

Bottom line: I’m excited to be moving forward with all of you as we seek to live out Peter’s instructions in 1 Peter 5.1-5. The promise Peter makes in v 5 is very desirable: grace from God.

 

We’ve visited 13 churches, viewed dozens of church web sites, and spent lots of time in prayer. The church I visited last week isn’t an option for a number of reasons

• very small
• the service included talking about the Scripture instead of just reading it
• a sermon more full of illustrations than Scripture
• a sermon about faithfulness that doesn’t talk much at all about God’s faithfulness
• a 69 joke!

So, this week, it’s back to Grace Bible Church. I am looking forward to returning. I’ve been excited about Grace ever since I met with Derek Whalen for lunch. Julie and I are praying that God will make it clear to us that Grace should be our church home.

From Jonathan Dodson’s Gospel and Method: Part 2

What we need is a gospel that is 100 percent grace, the work of the Spirit to violate our dulled taste for what it good, true, and beautiful and to get us drunk on God. We need more than changed behaviors—we need changed hearts, new affections, from which a life of worship flows. We need the new covenant in Christ’s blood. What America needs is churches that are more concerned about pointing us to the multi-faceted splendor and staggering lordship of Jesus Christ than innovative ways we can be the church through community or mission. What we need is 100% gospel.

Darwin’s science no threat to faith

Christian’s need to apologize to Darwin ” for the slander slathered on this good man’s name?”

Really?

Most Christians don’t have a problem with intra-species “natural selection”, which is the process discussed in this Opinion article. Believing that a moth with coloring more suited for its environment would have an advantage over other moths is obvious. Our problem is inter-species “natural selection”, where humans are postulated to have evolved from apes because humans and apes are similar, yet humans are “more evolved”. Christians who believe the Bible is the inerrant, revealed Word of God find conflict with the idea that humans are not the unique creation of God and simply the extension of other beings. We can’t reconcile Genesis 2:7 (then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature) with the theories put forth in Darwin’s The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. We have also seen the effects of Social Darwinism, where “natural selection” becomes eugenics, as championed by Peter Singer, and we shudder to think of the damage caused by viewing only the fittest as worth of survival.

Was Darwin met with opposition? Yes. Was that opposition at times sinful? Most likely. Does that past sin obligate Christians to give all of Darwin’s theories a free pass, without examining them in light of their near- and long-term implications? No, for doing so would submit the Almighty Creator God to the theorizings of His creation, Charles Darwin.

The other part of this letter that drives me crazy is the presentation of the rule of Jesus being “love”. That is true, but only partly. Jesus is all about love, but He was also all about His Father, who was Holy and Righteous, worthy of praise and jealous for our worship. This smacks of Jesusianity, which is 21st Century liberalism wrapped up in faux-evangelicalism.

23 “And if by this discipline you are not turned to me but walk contrary to me, 24 then I also will walk contrary to you, and I myself will strike you sevenfold for your sins.