ZECNT on Galatians

The Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament is a fairly recent series published, as you might guess, by Zondervan, and edited by Clinton E. Arnold.  The four volumes currently available are Matthew by Grant R. Osborne, Galatians by Thomas R. Schreiner, Ephesians by Clinton E. Arnold, and James by Craig L. Blomberg.  The goal of the series is to address the entire New Testament in twenty volumes, providing a conservative yet scholarly analysis of the original Greek, though at a level also accessible to those without extended formal instruction in Greek.

Recently, Zondervan gave the opportunity to participate in their blog tour to raise awareness of this new series.  They were kind enough to send me a review copy of Galatians by Schreiner.  I would like to touch on a few of the highlights of the volume for the rest of this post.

Layout and Format

Before even getting to the text itself, the format and layout were attention-getting.  The font is pleasingly sized and clear, with plenty of white space around the text for easy readability.  Each chapter begins with a section titled Literary Context, followed by a preview of the exegetical outline (with the verses under discussion bolded for emphasis), and then a summary of the main idea of the verses highlighted in the chapter.  Translation is provided next, laid out in an indented table structure with three columns: verse number, use (of the verb or participle, such as "assertion"), then the translation of the phrase itself.  After the translation, the structure is analyzed, complemented by an expanded exegetical outline.  Explanation of the text follows and serves as the largest segment of each chapter. At the conclusion, a Theology in Application section provides helpful analysis of themes and concepts addressed during the chapter and their relevance to daily Christian life; this final section should prove invaluable for pastors and teachers.

Exegesis

In order to give a good idea of the value of the approach of this commentary, I'll use Chapter 11 on Galatians 3:15-18 as an example.

Literary Context

Schreiner places these verses in the larger context of Galatians 3, as well as the entire book and its preceding arguments.

Main Idea

According to Schreiner, "The central point in these verses is that the Sinai covenant must be subordinated to the Abrahamic covenant" (p. 224).

Structure/Outline

The section on structure essentially explains Schreiner's exegetical outline, in conjunction with his translation.

Explanation of the Text

The explanation follows a verse by verse format.  Each subsection is headed by the verse or phrase, given in bold text (in English) as well as italic text (in Greek), then followed by multiple paragraphs of explanation, with extensive footnoting.  For example, this section has some forty-one footnotes, which indicate significant awareness of the work previously done by other commentators on these verses as well as explaining the relationship of Schreiner's interpretations to those found in preceding commentaries.  Schreiner's tone is polite yet firm regarding those with whom he disagrees; he lays out the various options before clearly stating his preferred view.

Schreiner's conclusion to the Explanation section admirably illustrates the rest of the section:

"Those who belong to the family of Abraham do not enter into his family by subscribing to the Mosaic law.  They are children of Abraham when they are united to Christ Jesus, the offspring of Abraham.  Hence, they receive the promise as a gift" (p. 232).

Theology in Application

The goal of this section is to provide contemporary relevance of the text, and Schreiner does an excellent job in this regard.  Here is one example:

"When we consider the Mosaic covenant, therefore, we must carefully consider elements of both continuity and discontinuity with the Abrahamic covenant.  Here Paul features the discontinuity, and hence those who fail to see such discontinuity between the covenants flatten out the differences in the redemptive-historical timeline and are even in danger of falling into the same error as the false teachers in Galatia, for the latter did not distinguish between the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants.  Thus, they argued that circumcision was necessary for salvation!" (p. 233).

Conclusion

While the number of commentary series has grown exponentially in the past few decades, it is easy to question the value of one more commentary on a specific book of the Bible.  In this case, the easy readability of both layout and content, as well as the thoroughness of the scholarship, ensure a place for Schreiner's volume on Galatians in the ZECNT for any pastor or Bible teacher or even layman who wants to better understand Paul's epistle.

Never Satisfied

In light of Black Friday being last week and this week being declared "Cyber Week" by various retailers, Ecclesiastes 6:7 is a good reminder.  We work hard to get, but once we get, the thing gotten no longer holds our attention.

The Marginalized?

I was reading this the other day.  Normally, I find posts from the Gospel Coalition to be refreshing and helpful.  But not in this instance.

To begin, there is a significant difference between "things that are nice to do individually for people" and "things the church is supposed to be focused on doing".  If you as an individual Christian want to support an aspiring artist, do it (as long as that doesn't replace your support of the church). 

Confusion about the church's mission and relationship to culture will inevitably lead to these kinds of misplaced priorities.  The church is supposed to be witnessing and discipling, not painting pictures and making music in order to "take back culture."  The church shouldn't be focused on helping people feel better about themselves and their dreams.  If art happens along the way, great.  If someone finds encouragement for a legitimate goal, great.  But none of that is the main thing.

We have to remember that people in the Catholic church created quite a bit of great art throughout the Middle Ages.  Much money was poured out to ensure the creation of masterpieces like the Sistine Chapel. But spiritual life and personal holiness were in sad shape for centuries.  I wouldn't like to have to make the choice, but if I had to choose between a vibrant church and a beautiful painting or oratio, which is honestly more important?  Artistic abundance is not inherently connected to spirituality.

What about this?

Youngren, the son of church planters in Ecuador, began to see artists through a missiological lens, thinking of these “misfits” and “extras” as a lost tribe.

The result of this sort of thinking is excellently eviscerated by Carl Trueman here.  Marginalized artists are no more a lost tribe than any other group that feels left out because the church is about Christ and His priorities, not about them and their priorities.

How about this?

Despite many churches’ fear of artistic impression in a corporate context, impression is often how God works. At The Line, they look to Abraham for their theology of impression. When God called Abraham and first told him he was going to make him into a great nation, he didn’t sit him down and say, “Here are my promises 1-5, sign here.” Rather, God said, “Abraham, come outside. Look up.” Abraham gazed into the luminous Middle Eastern sky. As he was contemplating the stars, God continued, “See how amazing that is? That’s what I’m going to do with you.” God started with impression and then moved to propositions. He directed Abraham’s attention to his handiwork, and then asked him to imagine the impossible.

The biggest problem with that paragraph is that unless I'm missing something, the Bible says exactly the opposite of what is claimed.  The propositional statements precede the 'impression' of the stars in the sky as a picture of God multiplying Abraham's descendants.  God first told Abraham "Go" (Genesis 12:1-3), promising to bless him and make him a great nation (and Abraham did 'sign here' by going).  Later, God told Abraham "Look" to the sky (Genesis 15:1-6) as a reminder and illustration of his earlier promise.  So the precedent in this case is proposition then illustration, not illustration that results in springing a proposition on someone.

Another telling statement:

In most evangelical churches, many view artistic expression as being merely supplemental to other forms of revelation and understanding. Its centrality to worship is muted.

Exactly right.  We are to be emphasizing Christ crucified, resurrected, and returning as central in our services, not "artistic expression." Which is not to say we shouldn't sing, and sing well, and be led in singing well.  Or that we shouldn't preach in a way that is clear and careful and connected.  Or that our buildings have to look rundown. But it's God's power that works through us, not our skill or ability, not the beauty of our surroundings.

What is their goal?

The Line is on a mission to give back to the church a voice that has long been muffled, the voice of artists who lead in the church. “There is an undiscovered richness of the character of God that we will find when we are led by this particular tribe of serious makers and artists and when we submit to that,” Youngren said.

What are the biblical qualifications for leading in the church?  Not artistic ability but spiritual maturity.  Some have both.  The men who lead in worship at the church I attend are great examples in that regard.  But honestly, I'd take a godly man who's tone deaf over a recognized artist with a shallow testimony any day.  Hopefully it's not a choice that has to be made.  Admittedly, it seems the goal of the fellowship described in the article is both spiritual maturity and artistic ability.

“If we're not doing the hard work of studying Scripture and taking care of our own spiritual lives, why in the world would people listen to anything we put out?” Guerra asks. “There needs to be a well from which we are drawing, and that well needs to be rich in the truth so that we aren’t given to vagueness or heavy-handedness.”

But if their previous example of exegesis re: Abraham and impressions is any indication, more time in Bible study and less time in the studio would go a long way.

One final quote:

 Submitting yourself to this tribe is not limited to attendance at The Line, or churches with a similar elevation of artists. Anyone can submit to beauty and art by simply learning to appreciate it. Learn how to read a novel or a poem. Learn how to listen to music and experience a painting. Support the artists in your community not just spiritually but also financially. Seek out creative and unsolicited ways to do this. Attend a Milano concert or buy their new EP. Purchase a painting or attend a friend’s show. By supporting artists, you are co-collaborators with them in creativity and truth-searing. And remember that, as Fujimura pointed out, “the first people known to be filled with the Holy Spirit were not priests, kings, or generals, but artists named Bazelel and Oholiab, who built Moses’ Tabernacle.”

Don't pretend that supporting and appreciating art is somehow on the same level of spiritual obligation as preaching the gospel.  Can art communicate truth?  Yes.  Can art reflect beauty?  Yes.  Should we learn aesthetics?  Yes.

Still, God didn't pick a group of painters or a band of musicians to go spread His truth.  He picked ordinary people (1 Corinthians 1:26-29), with a simple verbal (e.g. Paul preaching) or written message (e.g. Luke writing Luke and Acts to Theophilus).  Let's not lose that simplicity because of enthusiasm for pet causes.

Can Rap Be Christianized? Part 2

This is about a week late, but I wanted to point out that Dr. Murray followed up on his previous post about rap with a new one here.  In it, he makes some crucial clarifications to his previous comments.

Two essential points involve the interconnectedness of the medium and the message, as well as the dangers of assuming stepping-stone evangelism is the best approach.

First, the medium is closely connected to the message.  Murray explains:

Would President Obama go to peace talks with Iran's President wearing combat fatigues and carrying a machine gun? Would he deliver the State of the Union address in Bermuda shorts and a beach boy T-shirt? Would you evangelize in Alabama wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit? The medium may not be THE message, but it's usually a large and inseparable part of it. 

Second, the stepping stone approach to evangelism has significant implications:

The stepping-stone argument is powerful. Our inner cities are certainly not going to be won by be-suited, white men swooping in for a few minutes a week with soup, sandwiches, and a sermon. But where do we draw the line with the stepping-stone? How do we reach Islamic suicide bombers? How do we reach strippers? How do we reach callous Wall Street traders? We all draw the line somewhere, but why? and where?

In Worship, Talk Less

Ecclesiastes 5:1-3 offers helpful insight regarding our approach to God.  I realize we have a more direct access to God because of the work of Christ (Hebrews 10:19-22), in contrast to the former system of priests in Israel, but we should still approach God with reverence.  He is the same God. 

Therefore, as the author of Ecclesiastes reminds us, we should be thoughtful, contemplative, and reverent in our approach to God.   Especially in public worship.  We should place a priority on listening and considering the truths of Scripture.

This does not rule out joy or excitement or even verbal expressions of worship, but our excitement must be moderated by our remembering of God's exalted position (Isaiah 6:1-5).  God has graciously condescended to us, but we must be humble in memory of the sin from which we have been saved, even as Isaiah was (Isaiah 6:6-7).

Psalm 36: The Plans of Evil

Psalm 36:1-4 offers insight into the nature of sinful habits.  These verses are speaking about the man who does not know God, but even we who know God can fall into similar patterns.

Notice the temptation in verse 1: "Transgression speaks to the ungodly within his heart."

Observe the deceitfulness of the temptation in verse 2, where it "flatters him", convincing him that his sin won't be discovered, and that it's acceptable to love sin, rather than hate it. 

Look how his words begin to reflect the sinfulness of his heart in verse 3: "The words of his mouth are wickedness and deceit."

In summary, verse 4 describes the pervasiveness of temptation - even coming to this man when he is in bed at night, from which he gives in, rather than despising evil as he should.

We need to keep in mind the similar pattern described in James 1:14-15.  We tend to forget the consequences (or "hook"/"trap") of a sinful choice in our eagerness to get the pleasure ("bait").

Returning to Psalm 36, David contrasts the wickedness of the man in Psalm 36:1-4 with God's righteous character toward His people in Psalm 36:5-9.

How can we avoid being like the ungodly man of Psalm 36:1-4?  The answer is in Psalm 36:10-12.  We ask God for His help (Psalm 36:10-11), and we remember the consequences of sin (Psalm 36:12), and, by implication, we actively stop doing whatever the sinful activity is.  This requires replacement of the wrong with something good.  Our minds and our habits are wired to work on this principle of replacement (Ephesians 4:22-24).

Repeating Earlier Mistakes

When reading through Genesis, it's intriguing to note that Isaac pretended his wife was his sister (Genesis 26:6-11), like his father Abraham had done (Genesis 20:2-3) - with the exact same pagan king (or at least a ruler of the same name/title from the same area), Abimelech.  Rather than trusting God for protection, Abraham and Isaac showed fear before the pagan king, and indirectly, his false gods.  This gave God a bad name in the sigh of the pagan king (s).

Similarly, Jacob followed the example of his grandfather Abraham (Genesis 16:1-3) by taking his female servant as a concubine, on multiple occasions (Genesis 30:1-5; 9-13).  Isaac experienced similar familial strife as a result.  Even as Hagar and Sarah despised each other (Genesis 16:4-6), and the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael have fought for centuries, so too Rachel and Leah sparred with each other for their husband's affection (Genesis 30:14-18), and their sons hated one another (Genesis 37:2-4), perhaps contributing to later occasions of war or conflict between the various tribes (e.g. Judges 8:1-3).

What can we learn from this?  At a minimum, we learn that children often pattern themselves after their parents and grandparents.  Also, our actions can have long-lasting consequences.  Our actions can show God badly to the unsaved around us.  Finally, failing to be content with God's provision of children, a wife, or anything else can lead to a lot of conflict.

I've had to consider this more carefully since the birth of our son, Braeden, who is not quite five months old.  He watches me constantly.  Am I being a good example for him?  Or will he end up repeating my mistakes and sinful choices, just like Isaac and Jacob did in following their parents' examples?

Entertainment Choices

Like any decision, our entertainment choices should be based on Biblical principles.  We examine what the Bible says, then we ask the right questions, then we make a choice.  

Why is this important?  Culture is inherently derived from religious systems in some way. So our response to and participation in culture has to be done with an awareness of this fact.  It's not just a matter of "I like this" or "This is fun", but we are to be pleasing to God in all that we do (1 Corinthians 10:31).

Let's take the scenario of deciding whether or not to go see a given movie, or even rent that movie.

Biblical Principles

This list is by no means exhaustive, but a few principles to consider would include:

• Ephesians 6:1ff - Children should obey their parents
• Phil 4:8 - The content of what we choose to watch, listen to, and surround ourselves with should be right.  Remember we're talking about voluntary choices for entertainment, not leaving the world entirely or failing to witness, which we ought not do (per 1 Corinthians 5:9-13).  Also, objectionable elements are present in the Bible, so this principle has more to do with how objectionable elements are presented vs. whether they are present.  A helpful starting place is here.
• Romans 14:13, 23 - As a Christian, I should not cause another Christian to sin or to violate his conscience, whether correctly informed or not.  My Christian brother's sanctification is more important than my enjoyment of a legitimate activity.

Questions to Ask

These questions are derived from the principles listed above.  You may come up with better questions, but these are a starting point.

1. What guidelines have my authorities established?  
   In the case of Ephesians 6:1, children (who live at home and are dependents) must obey parental guidelines (unless the guideline is something like "Don't read your Bible" or "Don't go to church ever", which God has explicitly commanded).
2. Is this activity right?  This question is derived from Philippians 4:8 and similar passages. 
3. Will this activity cause me to violate my convictions (Romans 14:23)?
   We should realize that sometimes our convictions are derived from habit rather than clear biblical principles. Still, we should consider carefully, rather than quickly throwing out the red flags our consciences raise for us. 
4. Will it cause a fellow Christian to sin if I participate in this activity (Romans 14:13)?  Or, will my actions bring dishonor to Christ, since I profess to be His follower? 
   Part of this question deals with the fact that things which bother us as conservative Christians may not bother Christians from a different background, or our typical lost coworker, for example.  Behavior and belief are connected, but sometimes we tend to emphasize behavior above belief, and become known for "Christians don't do ___" rather than "Christians believe ___."  There are things we shouldn't do, but if we don't also have a clear verbal witness of our biblical basis for how we live, people will miss what's most important: salvation through Christ.  They cannot live right until they have experienced that new life.  Also, we have to get to know fellow Christians in order to recognize what will or will not create a temptation for them to sin. 
5. Am I being a wise steward of resources by participating in this activity? 
   Entertainment is big business and much time or money can be wasted if we're not careful.  Also, we should not make entertainment a higher priority than church or other Christian duties. 

These principles and questions are a helpful approach for future situations.  Once you make a habit of following this process, decisions about specific entertainment choices in the future should take less time and thought to evaluate.

Should We Be Renaissance Men?

See two helpful posts by Carl Trueman here and here.  A key point of the first is that we need to be careful about assuming we have to have a PhD in some field in order to have a correct or accurate assessment of it. 

One does not necessarily have to be a Milanese fashion designer to see that someone in the street is badly dressed, or even completely naked.

The tendency towards extreme specialization can occur even in theology because of the need to find something new to say about the Bible in order to get your degree.  Having said that, I admire those who have put in the time and effort and money to acquire PhDs, and for many I'm sure they're better equipped by having done so.

From the second post, I was motivated to learn my Bible better.  I don't need to be familiar with all aspects of contemporary culture.  However, I should be able to give some answer on all the key topics in the Bible, even if it is not an exhaustive answer.  In other words, I need to know at least a little about everything, rather than everything about just one thing.

Trueman says again:

In my experience, questions that touch on, say, how to understand the Bible relative to guidance, suffering etc. are always more common than questions on Scorsese.  That narrows the field of appropriate generalism considerably; and, indeed, obtaining a simple catechism (the Westminster Shorter Catechism, the Heidelberg, either of Luther's) will give you a good guide to the kind of things of which I am thinking. Considered in these terms, the possibility of being a generalist does not seem quite so far-fetched.

On a related note, the second set of ideas is helpful in general conversation.  I don't need to know everything about cars in order to talk to someone, if cars are his thing, but I do need some basic information in order to ask the right questions.  Obviously, when dealing with the Bible we're considering more critical subjects, so we should strive to know more about the key ideas.  Especially if we're serving in some ministerial or leadership role, because people will expect us to know those answers.

Can Rap Be Christianized?

A thoughtful analysis of the question may be found here.  I think Dr. Murray's strongest point is the concept that if rap is being used as a preaching medium, it perhaps violates Paul's methodology expressed in 1 Corinthians:

The Church is always at risk of slipping slowly and imperceptibly away from the "foolishness of preaching" to the seemingly reasonable and persuasive "wisdom of this world." In ancient culture, worldly wisdom said to Gospel preachers, "Use philosophy!" or "Use miracles!" but Paul stuck by the seemingly foolish method of a single, unaccompanied human voice authoritatively declaring the Truth. He did not use the common Greek Socratic method or the accepted Jewish Rabbinic model. He used God's method and model of preaching - culturally unacceptable then as now.

Through the years, the Church has been continually tempted to use various cultural fads and trends to reach the lost - Christian punk rock, Christian glam rock, Christian death metal - usually with little lasting fruit. The temptations take different forms in different cultures, but God has designed and designated preaching to be the universal means of gathering in His elect, no matter what culture or age we live in. 

However, I do think we need to distinguish between several issues at stake, and I would like to emphasize a few different points other than the association question, which were covered well in his article. Plus, I think our conclusions about the appropriateness of rap has implications for other musical forms (techno, rock, country, etc).

To begin, 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 is talking about preaching as a medium for reaching the unbelieving.  Should music be used for evangelism?  Paul appears to say no.  Verbal proclamation of the gospel is the method God has chosen.   We need to use God's chosen method in our evangelism, even though it may seem wiser to do something else.  We can easily justify doing something besides preaching/verbally witnessing in evangelism because our alternate method is familiar/easier (comfort zone), effective (pragmatics), or more widespread ('everyone' does it).  But even if we are sincerely trying to accomplish something good, sincerity is not the final test; conformity to biblical principle is.  Our music does say something about us, but it is not to be the method of our evangelism.

What about in our worship services?  We need to start with biblical principles, such as these, and then consider carefully our own context. Biblically accurate lyrics, music which fits those words and is appropriate to the church setting, and a structure that is ideally accessible for the normal person in our congregations to sing are a good starting point. 

In contrast, taking words that reflect great gospel truths, such as the satisfaction of God's wrath, or our purpose in life, and then pairing those words with techno, rap, or similar styles that tend to distract from/drown out the words seems to violate several of these principles.  This is in addition to the tendency of such forms drawing more attention to the performer or the emotional high than to the message.  To clarify, I'm not saying that reverting to lyrics tied to classical or revival music is inherently better.  But we need to be principle-driven in what we sing as a congregation, and evaluate what we sing by at least these three principles.

I have to admit, I'm still thinking through these issues. For example, there may be some room for differences between "what we use in worship" vs. "what we listen to at home".  There's a time and a place for Lord of the Rings soundtracks, at least for me, but Sunday morning during church isn't one of them.  There's a time and a place for motivational music, such as at a soccer game.  Still, it's hard for me to see how several popular musical forms (rap, techno, etc) fit with Hebrews 12:28-29, in connection with John 4:23-24.  We cannot forget that our God demands reverence just because our culture, Christian and otherwise, has exalted personal emotional fulfillment over and above quiet contemplation.  Also, life in our sin-scarred world is characterized by joyous sadness, which such music often does not reflect.

So we've considered music in evangelism, and music in congregational worship.  What about at home?  Is there a place for rap, techno, and similar forms in the category of personal motivation to holiness outside of congregational worship?  

Before answering, we should perhaps ask ourselves how the early church was able to get by without all the props we seem to find essential to our sanctification.  What did they have, beyond the Bible itself?  (This is not a secret rant against seminary education or Bible dictionaries).  My point is, the method for our daily growth in being like Christ is not found in allegedly Christian music, books, or apparel.  The method for our sanctification is daily and consistent obedience to the principles laid out in the Bible; for example, 1 Thessalonians 4:3.  Other things may encourage, to the extent they remind us of biblical truth, but they cannot transform.  

The short answer is that we don't need to listen to Christian music in order to live a Christian life; admittedly, listening to secular music probably won't help us, either. We should perhaps consider as well whether a form is addictive (1 Corinthians 6:12), especially before jumping to the "But I like it" reason for using it.  Can you be edified by rap?  Perhaps.  But at a minimum, make sure you're not trying to make your music take the place of studying the Bible itself or time in prayer before God.  And make sure it's not controlling your life; this is something you probably need someone else to evaluate, because we are often blind to our own faults.


To conclude, can rap be Christianized?  For evangelism, no, because Paul said we should use preaching instead.  For congregational worship, no, because it doesn't fit with certain biblical principles.  For personal use, I'm not sure, but at a minimum, I can say it is not needed, as well as potentially addictive for some people.  I don't plan to use rap in my church someday, as preaching or congregationally in worship, and I question its value for personal edification.

HT: Tim Challies

Are You A Fundamentalist?

If so, make sure that the reason you use the label is doctrinal rather than merely cultural.

Disclaimer: I'm not on quite the same page regarding question #4.  Still, the point that some professing Fundamentalists "care less about what you believe and more about what you do and don’t do" is right on.  What we do or don't do is important, but if you don't know God, you can't even begin to do right in His sight.  So right doctrine has to be the starting point; sometimes right action takes a lot longer (cf. the church at Corinth).

Should We Be 'Radical'?

An excellent review of the popular new book here.  Confession: I have not read the book in its entirety, but from what I have read, I think Gary's criticism and praise are both well-founded.

HT: Tim Challies

Is Interest Wrong?

This question arose while reading Proverbs 28:8.  So I checked a few of my resources, and I like what Kidner says in the TOTC volume on Proverbs about this verse.

Usury or (rsv) interest: the Mosaic law shows that the legitimacy of it depends on its context: what was quite proper in terms of economics (Deut. 23:20) was pronounced improper in terms of family care (Deut. 23:19)—as if a doctor should charge for treating his own children.

Obviously interest is a key part of society today, but there are implications/applications of this passage in terms of not taking advantage of family members (and by extension, church members) in need.  This would of course need to be filtered through the context of 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10, to avoid encouraging laziness or irresponsibility. 

On a related note, credit card companies are completely justified when they exact interest from people for making unwise financial choices.  On the other hand, perhaps they should make it harder to obtain credit in the first place.

The Poor Always With You

Although we should be careful to fulfill our individual biblical responsibilities to demonstrate compassion to those in need, I think Matthew 26:11 is also a key verse to keep in mind.  Obviously the main point in context is that Christ's ministry was almost over and His death was imminent, so the disciples should make the most of their time with Him.  Still, the fact is that poverty will be a reality as long as men are sinners and until Christ returns to reign as righteous King.

A Famine for Hearing God's Word

Amos 8:11-12 foretells a day when there would be a famine of hearing the word of the LORD.  It seems that the gap between the Old and New Testaments is what this passage anticipates.  No prophets spoke from the end of the Old Testament until the coming of John the Baptist and then Christ Himself.

Good Advice for Fathers and Children

For fathers: Proverbs 19:18

For children: Proverbs 20:11

If you as a parent do not discipline your child, you are setting him on a course that will typically result in his physical death.

If you as a child want to gain respect, you must demonstrate wisdom by right action.

The Fringes of God's Ways

After a description of various ways that God demonstrates His power in nature, Job concludes this segment of his discourse with Job 26:14.  If these things are the "fringes of God's ways," how much more awesome will the full manifestation of His power be at the end of days?

Should We Have Worship Leaders (revised)?

Update (11/2/2010): After realizing today that my blog comments were enabled but I wasn't being notified about them, I came across Bob Kauflin himself commenting on my post about Should We Have Worship Leaders?  I was surprised, since I've only told a few people I was doing a blog; I'm guessing some Google tools are behind him finding this post.  Regardless, I am grateful for him taking the time to interact with my thoughts, such as they are, and his kind tone in doing so.

Anyway, I went back and re-read Chapter 6 in Worship Matters several times.  I have revised some things I said previously and have rewritten my conclusion, because I don't feel that I did his presentation justice.  In addition, I realized some of my criticism has more to do with what I observe about how worship is practiced in contemporary American churches, rather than what Bob was saying in his book, and I didn't make that clear enough.  I look forward to finishing the book soon, once things slow down a bit at work and home.

Revision of original: In his book Worship Matters, Bob Kauflin argues that we should have worship leaders.   I've been reading his book off and on during the past month or so.  The first few chapters were thought-provoking and helpful in terms of what worship is and our attitude as we approach worship--specifically on Sundays, since giving God glory (worship) takes place outside of the church assembled.  But as he turns to the concept of worship leaders, I still have some reservations about the role of a worship leader.

From chapter 6, "What Does a Worship Leader Do?":

We can glean some important principles from Old Testament Levites....But we can't transfer everything they did then to what we do now.

A few paragraphs later:

Second, the most important worship leader is Jesus. He reveals God to us and through his perfect sacrifice provided the only way into the Father's presence (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 10:19-22). 

We can't do what only Jesus does.

And a little further on:

Humanly speaking, the pastor is the worship leader.  He is the one responsible before God for the corporate worship of the church (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

In light of these reasons, which are obviously not exhaustive, is there a biblically based role for a non-pastoral worship leader?  Kauflin states that "teaching and leading roles are pastoral in nature"; therefore, in Sovereign Grace churches, worship leaders are men.  At the end of the chapter, he outlines his definition of a worship leader, which is very good.

In contrast, many contemporary American churches are led in worship by a man, woman, or group whose primary qualification seems to be musical ability, especially vocally or with the guitar.  If worship is a central aspect of the service, shouldn't the most essential qualifications be theological training and spiritual maturity?  When they aren't, the result seems to be a prioritization of performance and entertainment, rather than a focus on God and how to rightly approach Him, with prayer and reverence and awe (John 4:24; Hebrews 12:28-29).  Worship in these cases typically follows what's been happening for a while or else what people like.

I'm glad that Worship Matters urges those who lead in worship to think more biblically about the issues involved. In the absence of biblical precedent for much of what the church today does in worship, we need to step back and consider whether we do what we do out of habit, convenience, or preference, or because we are convinced that it is the best way to glorify God.

Our Place in God's Plan

Much of the conflict and wasted effort throughout church history has resulted from failing to understand the difference between God's overarching plan for history and our place in that plan.

Definition

What is God's plan?  There are various ways of putting it, but a simple definition could be: To glorify Himself by setting apart a people for Himself and conquering His enemies to reign finally and eternally over all His creation.

Categories
 
What was Israel's place in God's plan?  God set apart Israel as a family (of Jacob), then a theocracy (Judges 2:16 - mediated through the judges), then as a theocratic kingdom (2 Samuel 7:26 - mediated through Saul and later David's family line).  Israel's primary obligation was to follow the Law given to Moses, and to serve as the one ethnicity through whom God's influence in the world would be mediated.  Israel failed, both in following the Law and in serving as a light to the Gentiles.

What is the church's place in God's plan today?  God set apart the church from the day of Pentecost as a real yet intangible grouping of those called out by regeneration and faith in the Gospel (2 Thessalonians 2:13-17), from among every nation (Revelation 5:9), composed into local assemblies (Romans 1:7; 2 Corinthians 1:2, etc) .  Her mission is to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, by making disciples who make disciples, instructing them in the teachings of God, then establishing more local churches which follow the corporate commands given in the New Testament (e.g. Hebrews 10:24-25).

What is the individual Christian's place in God's plan today?  Essentially, after believing in the gospel (Romans 10:8-10), his place is to obey the commands of God that were given generally to humanity (e.g. Genesis 1:28-30) or to New Testament believers individually (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-7).

There are other categories which precede the above (Adam; the patriarchs) or come after (the Millennial Kingdom, the eternal state), but I want to focus on the three highlighted above.

Issues

The church is not an extension of or a replacement to the nation of Israel.  Confusing the two usually results in misapplying promises or assuming things that are similar are identical.

For example, Israel received promises of physical health and material wealth.  If applied to the church, these promises can easily be twisted into a "health and wealth" gospel.  Or, circumcision has some similarities to baptism, but assuming they are the same thing results in the error of infant baptism, despite no Scriptural evidence for the practice.

God has given some responsibilities to the local church as a gathered assembly; others were given to individual members in the local church, as participants in humanity as a whole.  Confusing the two results in the church becoming distracted from her primary mandate of establishing and grounding churches.

For example, the local church is instructed to observe the Lord's Supper as a memorial to his atoning death (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).  An individual church member cannot legitimately observe that ordinance apart from the assembly.  Other commands of a similar nature include the "one another" passages, focused primarily on ministry in the church gathered (Hebrews 10:24-25).  On the other hand, the individual church member is commanded to submit to government (Romans 13:1-7).  Though local churches should also be law-abiding, that command is not intended primarily for the church as a whole but individuals in the church.

Summary

Regarding Israel and the church, we must avoid the error of supersessionism.  The church is not a continuation of Israel nor a replacement for Israel.

Regarding the local church and the individual member of the church, we must avoid confusing corporate and individual responsibilities.  There are "two kingdoms"¹; though they overlap, in that the individual Christian participates in both, they are not identical.  We must be careful to obey God's commands both for the church as a whole and for individual members in day to day life.


¹ For more information, please consult Dr. Mark Snoeberger's excellent session notes from the 2010 Mid-America 
Conference on Preaching, which was themed Church, Kingdom, Mission.  His notes may be found here.

Psalm 18:5-19 and Descriptive Imagery

In Psalm 18:5-19, David is describing in a vivid fashion the nature of God's deliverance in a specific circumstance.  Most likely, this was rescuing David from Saul, based on the ancient but not inspired title/description at the beginning of the Psalm. 

This passage raised a particular issue in my mind.  In the Psalms, or poetic sections of the Bible, often we don't let poetic imagery be just imagery.   One school of interpretation tends to seek for hidden meaning or symbolism.  Another tends to force passages like these into a newspaper-type description of a historical event, or at least wish it were.

So, I think we need to remember that it is possible and legitimate to portray God by means of descriptive language (Psalm 18:7-15) even in the context of a specific historical event: delivering David (Psalm 18:16-19).  Even David's explanation of how God rescued him is picturesque ("out of many waters", verse 16) without being literalistic (David was obviously not drowning in water, but overwhelmed by the opposition of his enemies).

To sum up, imagery is a valid and useful aspect of language.  We should not seek for hidden references to other parts of the Bible (assuming this passage somehow foretells an event in Revelation, though there are similarities), extract minute details from their context ("the cherub here represents..."), or tone down the imagery to make the section merely into a statement or list of facts ("David called on God who delivered him"). 

Truth can be portrayed in beautiful phrases as well as concise assertions.

Tasting Words

Job 12:11 is a fascinating verse.

Should We Have Worship Leaders?

In his book Worship Matters, Bob Kauflin argues that we should have worship leaders.   I've been reading his book off and on during the past month or so.  The first few chapters were thought-provoking and helpful in terms of what worship is and our attitude as we approach worship--specifically on Sundays, since giving God glory (worship) takes place outside of the church assembled.  But as he turns to the concept of worship leaders, I find his argument a little shaky.
From chapter 6, "What Does a Worship Leader Do?":

We can glean some important principles from Old Testament Levites....But we can't transfer everything they did then to what we do now.

A few paragraphs later:

Second, the most important worship leader is Jesus. He reveals God to us and through his perfect sacrifice provided the only way into the Father's presence (1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 10:19-22). 

We can't do what only Jesus does.

And a little further on:

Humanly speaking, the pastor is the worship leader.  He is the one responsible before God for the corporate worship of the church (Hebrews 13:17; 1 Thessalonians 5:12-13).

In light of these reasons, which are obviously not exhaustive, is there a biblically based role for a non-pastoral worship leader?  Kauflin seems to think so.  His argument appears to go something like, "There's not a lot of biblical precedent, but since we do this, here's how why should do it."  But on what basis?

It's hard to see how the role of "worship leader" flows out of biblical principles.  Especially when "worship leader" means the stereotypical guy (or girl) whose primary qualification is ability to play the guitar, rather than pastoral qualities or theological training.  Should such a person lead in a central aspect of the gathered church's Sunday activities?

Perhaps the problem is that the role of worship leader, like the function of Sunday School, is practiced from habit rather than biblical principle, and in the absence of biblical principles, almost anything goes.  We need to take a long, careful look at how we do worship, specifically the musical aspects, and who we designate to lead in those activities.

What Would You Do If You Had a Million Dollars?

You probably will.

Finding a Bargain: Idolatry or Time Well Spent?

Tim Challies has an excellent post on the subject of frugality here. 

I think he hits the main issues admirably. 

1) The heart motivation: Why am I pinching pennies or trying to be frugal?  Is it because I am constantly worried about never having enough?  Is it because I want to have more to meet both my own needs and those around me?  What is my goal?


2) The question of greed: This is related to our motivation. This one is more difficult and will vary in application, but what relevance does the principle of the gleaner have today?  God didn't want the farmers to pick up every last stalk of grain from their fields.  Do I take advantage of another person's financial distress?  Craigslist comes to mind; in some cases I know I could talk a person's price down on some item, but perhaps they do actually need the money.

3) The question of pride:  Again, this is related to motivation.  Why do I look for good deals?  So I can boast about them to someone else?  If so, I'm probably trying to be frugal for the wrong reasons.

4) The question of time: Can I better use this time elsewhere?  If God has given me enough to buy a particular item for $10, can I justify deal shopping to find it for $8?  How long will it take me to do that?

We must be wise stewards of the resources God has given to us.  At the same time, "finding a deal" can become a form of idolatry or an obsession that takes us away from time with our family or in serving those around us.  So we need to think about our motivations and how we spend our time. 

Significant Choices

On Sunday, we heard about a family serving in a restricted access country who was coming home due to threats of violence.  This reminded me of several things; the first was an assignment I had to complete for a missions block course in college.  The scenario was essentially the same: if threatened by violence or death, would you 1) come home, 2) send your family home but stay, or 3) all stay and suffer with the Christians in that place?  A difficult decision indeed; I'm not sure what I would do.

I don't want to downplay the importance of serving God where we are at, in terms of faithfully fulfilling responsibilities.  In one sense, there is no difference in terms of being pleasing to God whether I'm making tents like Aquila and serving in a local congregation or getting beaten up constantly like Paul for preaching the gospel in new places.  However, for me, I was struck by the comparative insignificance of the choices I make daily.  Should I read a book or go for a walk?  Which restaurant should I eat at, or stay home?  What time should I go to bed? 

Although the accumulation of these choices will affect the course of my life over time, these decisions don't have the seeming weight of one like "Should I leave my ministry? If I don't, I will probably die."  We need to be doing things that matter.  Faithfully obeying God in the daily, mundane tasks of life is a part of serving God, but we can't let the stuff of life deaden us to eternally significant choices.

The important questions we should be asking are things like "Does this please God, or me?"  "What value will this have in a year?  Five years?  Ten years?"  Then we can better place priority on activities which have a lasting impact: teaching our children, building our marriages, knowing our God.

A Long Break and a New Book

Sorry for the long hiatus.  Work has been exceptionally busy with the start of school plus several intensive renovation and upgrade projects.

I've been reading through The Shallows by Nicholas Carr recently.  Ironically, since the subtitle of his book is What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains, I'm reading it in eBook form in iBooks on my iPod.  As a result, citations will be no more specific that what chapter I found them in, because I have no easy way to give page numbers.  Now, for some thought-provoking quotes (all taken from The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains).

From Chapter Three:

"Our technologies can be divided, roughly, into four categories, according to the way they supplement or amplify our native capacities."

 I appreciated his summary of technology, according to function: strength, senses, reshaping nature, and "intellectual," including computers and books.

From Chapter Four:

"Our fast-paced, reflexive shifts in focus were once crucial to our survival."

 This is in the midst of a discussion of the transition from distraction to immersing yourself in a book.  Obviously this flows out of an evolutionary view which assumes language and writing developed gradually rather than very early (cf. written records described in Genesis).  But, assuming there was such a transition (though not due to evolution, but rather due to growth of early ancient metropolitan areas or other factors), it would be ironic that we have seemingly come full cycle, from distracted reading among much toil, to dedicated reading, back to distracted reading among much leisure today.

From Chapter Four as well:

"Whether a person is immersed in a bodice ripper or a Psalter, the synaptic effects are largely the same."

Whether or not this is true, it is definite that the spiritual effects are not the same.  Still, it is hard for me to imagine that the type of reading won't impact the brain as well.  Obviously there are significant perceptual or conceptual differences between a literate and an illiterate person, but it would seem logical that there would be similar, though less noticeable, differences between a reader who primarily consumes romance novels and a reader of classics, like The Count of Monte Cristo.  But this remains to be seen.

Good Preaching

A final (or perhaps nearly final) quote from Why Johnny Can't Preach:

To preach the Word of God well, one must already have cultivated, at a minimum, three sensibilities: the sensibility of the close reading of texts, the sensibility of composed communication, and the sensibility of the significant.

(T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach, Kindle location 1012)



To preach better, we need to learn to read carefully, rather than distractedly, to write clearly and thoughtfully, rather than haphazardly, and to emphasize the important, not just the intriguing, in both our study and our sermons.

Outdated Worship Or Just Poorly Done?

From Why Johnny Can't Preach:

What the contemporaneists and emergents have not yet considered, however, is the possibility that such moribund churches are so not because they are doing the wrong things, but because they are doing them incompetently.

(T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach, location 269)

In other words, the solution to poor preaching and the resulting lack of interest by congregations is not to throw out the act of preaching and replace it with lots of loud music and entertaining skits.  The solution is to fulfill our job as preachers by clearly and fervently proclaiming the truth God has given (1 Corinthians 1:18-24).  Not our wisdom, not our marketing strategies, not following the latest fads: we must preach Christ.

Trading Moments

Again, from Why Johnny Can't Preach:

Every technological development has an opportunity cost because once we spend even part of our day using a technology we once did not use, some of the things we once did with our time we no longer do.

(T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach, Kindle location 564)

For example, if I'm watching TV, I don't have that time to read a book. This is not inherently a bad thing, but something about which we should be aware.  My point is not to avoid technology - e.g. we must write letters rather than email - but that we should be conscious of how we are using our time.

Facebook and Ministry

Good thoughts by Tim Challies.

The Curse of Mundaneness

Continuing in my reading of David Gordon's Why Johnny Can't Preach, I encountered this paragraph:

Mundaneness is, I believe, part of the curse of Genesis 3. The earth no longer yields its bounty without toilsome labor and much frustration. Our routines make us more efficient, as we attempt to scratch out some form of survival in this cursed environment, but those same routines can make us more like cogs in a machine and less like humans. Life becomes a series of tasks, with few uninterrupted moments to pause, to reflect, to appreciate. Verse is a common-grace gift that enables us, through the fog of images and sounds, to again see ourselves and others as bearers of the image of God. When the poet stares at that which the rest of us merely glance at, he invites us to take a longer look along with him. It is precisely this longer look that is necessary to cultivate a sensibility for the significant.

(T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach, approx p. 53*)

This is connected, I believe, with our modern tendency to fill every waking moment with activity and noise.  We are afraid of silence; those who do not know God especially fear silence.  Away from the activity of our lives, when outside under the stars, or in the quiet of the night, the knowledge of God is harder to suppress (Ecclesiastes 3:11; Romans 1:18-21).


Reading poetry and good literature may be part of the solution; reading our Bibles for uninterrupted stretches is perhaps a larger part of counteracting our obsession with constant activity that drowns out what may be far more important.



Note: I'm reading this book on my Kindle, so the page location is an estimate of its location in the print copy.  The actual quote will be within a page or so of the number given.

Instructive Preaching

In Why Johnny Can't Preach, David Gordon references Dabney's Sacred Rhetoric, from which he draws seven essentials of good preaching.  These were: 1) Textual Fidelity, 2) Unity, 3) Evangelical Tone, 4) Instructiveness, 5) Movement, 6) Point, and 7) Order.  The one that caught my attention was Instructiveness, and specifically Gordon's comments:

Does the sermon significantly engage the mind, or is the sermon full of commonplace cliches, slogans, and general truths?  Is the hearer genuinely likely to rethink his view of God, society, church, or self, or his reasons for holding his current views?  Is the mind of the attentive listener engaged or repulsed?

(T. David Gordon, Why Johnny Can't Preach, P&R: Phillipsburg, NJ, 2009, p. 26)

I find I have to make a conscious effort when preparing sermons to be specific.  It's much faster to give application generally: "And the point is that we should love one another."  It's far more effective to say, "When your son wakes you up crying in the middle of the night, do you love your husband or wife by willingly and quickly getting up to take care of him?"  The first is general and easy to ignore; the second is specific (and for those in that situation, perhaps uncomfortably so).

We must strive to have specific preaching.

No Church Is Perfect

Tonight our pastor said something in an aside which caught my attention.  His comment was along the lines of, "We should give Timothy more credit than he sometimes gets, because he had to deal with all the bad churches."  Which is true - Timothy went to Corinth, and Ephesus, and various other places to deal with problems and get things organized. 

Here's my conclusion flowing out of his comment: all of the churches had issues, sometimes serious ones.  Corinth might be the most notable example, but most of the other churches mentioned in the New Testament had to be corrected doctrinally (ie the Galatian and Colossian false teacher incidents) or instructed further (the Ephesian elders in Acts 20).

What's the point?  No local church is perfect, because churches are made up of sinners.  So although we should strive congregationally toward holiness (1 Peter 1:17) and being perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48), we won't meet that goal here on earth.  So there are also times when we need to cut each other some slack.  Not ignoring sin, but letting love cover our pet peeves and personal annoyances with other believers.

Creeds Are Not Exhaustive

Bavinck makes an excellent point:

In this connection it must also be kept in mind that the dogmas have never been fully incorporated in the church’s creedal statements and ecclesiastically fixed. The life and faith that the church possesses is much richer than what comes to expression in its creedal statements. The church’s confession is far from formulating the entire content of the Christian faith. To begin with, a confession generally comes into being in response to specific historical events and arranges its positive and antithetical content accordingly. Furthermore, a confession does not make clear the inner coherence that exists among the various dogmas nor does it ever fully articulate the truth which God has revealed in his Word.

(Herman Bavinck, translated by John Bolt and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 1: Prolegomena, p. 31)

So for those who assert we only need the Apostles' Creed or some similar statement, you're missing the point.  They were never intended to cover everything, nor do they reflect the battles won and lost in theology since that time.  Instead, the scope of what we must believe is much broader than basic mental assent to a few key facts about God, the Bible, Jesus, and the cross.  Those things are essential, but there is much more in Scripture.  Incidentally, this is the same sort of approach that sets out to ask, "What is the minimum I can believe and be a Christian?"

We need to beware theological minimalism.

What Is Most Important?

Last week we were driving through a nicer subdivision and noticing all the enormous houses and spacious yards with expensive cars parked out front.  I began to imagine how many hours my wife and I would have to work to keep up payments on a house like that, let alone own it. I'm sure those who live there have very well-paying jobs; I don't begrudge them what God has blessed them with financially.

But leaving all that aside, most people spend a lot of time away from home working to afford the house, cars, TVs, clothes, and so on that are important to them.  But what is really important in life?  Enjoying labor and the food which is provided by it is good (Ecclesiastes 1:24; 3:22).  Enjoying your spouse and family is also good (Proverbs 19:14; Song of Solomon 8:7).  Most important is the condition of your soul (Matthew 16:26).

I don't want to come to the end of my life regretting that my children have wandered spiritually or my wife has been neglected because I failed to properly care for them.  Balancing responsibilities can be difficult, and we will not always choose rightly.  The choices of our children will someday go beyond our ability to direct.  Sometimes work will demand time away from home.  My point is that we ask ourselves whether our work is truly to provide for our needs or so we can serve other believers, or whether we work unnecessarily hard to accumulate stuff because our friends have it or we enjoy it or that's how we've always lived.  Do we neglect our families and fail to train our children in godly discipline to the extent we are able (Ephesians 6:4)?

When it comes to money and how we order our lives, King Lemuel gave wise counsel.  Pray to God that He gives you enough and no more (Proverbs 30:7-9).  That is my prayer for my own life, and I trust for yours.

The Problem Is Within

We've been having a lot of construction here in Southeast Michigan.  I've had to come up with about four different routes to get home because every few weeks another road is one-laned or blocked or severely backed up for some reason.  As a result, I've been frustrated when driving on several occasions recently.  My wife made a comment which caught my attention a few weeks ago.  She saw I was getting frustrated, and said, "We should maybe move out the country someday."  But then I began to think; the problem is not with the construction, or the traffic, or whatever else might be frustrating me.  Moving to the country or far away from busy city streets wouldn't solve the problem; it would only make it less frequent.

The problem lies within (Luke 6:45).  Just like the monks of the Middle Ages who tried to wall themselves up, but found their monasteries degenerating into pits of vice and greed and hypocrisy, each of us will fail if we attempt to solve our heart problems of anger, jealousy, greed, and so on by running from the external circumstances.  In some cases, running is the appropriate response to temptation in order to avoid sin (Genesis 39:11-12).  However, in many other cases, the right course of action is to ask forgiveness of God and those around you for your sinful reaction.  You and I often do not have control over the situations we find ourselves in, but we can respond with patience when we find our frustrations peaking (contrast Galatians 5:20, "outbursts of anger", with Galatians 5:23, "self-control").

Calling and Vocation, Part 2: How Do I Know God's Will?

Returning to the topic from yesterday, one section of King Me in particular caught my attention.  Farrar says, "God gives men the gifts that they need to accomplish His purpose in their lives" (p. 146).  Reading that phrase, I began to wonder about the role that natural gifts or even spiritual gifts should have in my son's choice of vocation. 

Taught by Dr. Greg Mazak, Counseling Techniques was one of the most helpful courses I took during my B.A. from Bob Jones University.  A particularly useful lesson discussed discovering God's will, during which  Dr. Mazak refuted several common and unbiblical approaches.  The next few paragraphs are an adaptation of that section of class notes from Counseling Techniques.

Unbiblical Approaches to Decision Making

First, I can try to figure out what God wants me to do by looking at circumstances.  There is the "open door" approach, based on a misunderstanding of Colossians 4:3. Paul is not trying to decide what to do based on his circumstances; he knows God wants him to preach, so he's asking the Colossians to ask God to give him opportunities to fulfill that ministry. 

Related to the "open door" approach is the "putting out my fleece" or "testing God" method.  I pray something like "God, I will witness to the next person who walks into Starbucks," or, "If the coin comes up tails, I'll go to prayer meeting tonight."  The worst adaptation I recall hearing was a man who prayed, "Lord, I'll marry the next woman who walks through the door of this lobby."  This comes dangerously close to violating Matthew 4:7 by putting God to the test - trying to make Him serve my whims and wishes, and blaming him for my poor choices and the resulting consequences. 

Second, there is the subjective feelings-driven or results-driven approach.  When making decisions based on feelings, I ask myself, "What do I feel like doing?" rather than "What pleases God?/What has God told me to do?"  When making decisions based solely on results, I remember, "That worked last time. It must be the right thing to do."  Applied to churches, we praise churches with large crowds or large numbers of apparent conversions: "God must be blessing; look at those results."  It is dangerous to assume that temporary success measured by extra-biblical standards indicates God's blessing.

While there is merit in considering circumstances, feelings, and results at some point, these things cannot be the primary factor in our decision making, especially when it comes to deciding on a vocation.

A Biblical Pattern for Making Wise Choices

What, then, is a biblical pattern?  We begin by realizing that the truth to guide us is found in the Bible (John 17:17).  God is in control of all things (Daniel 4:35; Ephesians 1:11).  He has made every true Christian into a new person (2 Corinthians 5:17).  God will give us wisdom, not so much by giving us new knowledge, but by helping us remember the truth of the Bible (James 1:5-7).

I believe a biblical approach for determining God's will can be modeled after the pattern for the call to ministry, discussed yesterday.  First, there is a God-given desire.  Second, there are qualifications which ensure that the desire is pleasing to God rather than driven by selfish ambition or some other wrong motive.  Third, there is some degree of confirmation.

The call to ministry is not identical to the call to a vocation.  One significant difference is found in the specifics given in the Bible.  There are clear requirements for what a pastor is to be and do; the expectations for an architect, engineer, or lawyer are not specifically outlined. But there are general principles which apply. 

How does the choice of vocation look when following a similar pattern to that found in 1 Timothy 3:1-7? 

Let's say your son who is a Christian has a desire to be a musician.  Perhaps that is what God wants him to do, since God is at work to transform our desires to please Him.  However, since our hearts are still deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9), it would be wise to proceed on that path cautiously.  For example, suppose he is tone deaf, or unable to get the fingering right when playing an instrument.  Obviously I'm on more tenuous ground here, since I'm applying a biblical principle, rather than describing a clear command.  Still, I think you can take clear biblical principles (God gives us as Christians new desires, God equips us to serve Him, we ought to do all to God's glory) and arrive at a decision that would please Him.  God will enable your son to do what He wants him to do, whether through natural abilities, or through spiritual gifts, and the development of both. 

There is a further degree of confirmation when a child is following the advice of his parents, his pastor, and older, mature people in his church.  They are not infallible, but God gives parents to children to lead them (Ephesians 6:4). 

All of these factors taken together (biblical principles, practical skills/abilities, the advice of mature Christians) will help to guide your child into a God-pleasing vocation.  Circumstances may alter those plans somewhat; feelings of accomplishment or frustration may test his resolve; results, both positive and negative, may spur him onward or cause him to stop and reconsider.  But the ultimate starting point and guide must be Scriptural principle; all other sources of guidance are unreliable and cannot reach the same degree of authority.

I'm not describing anything profound, or asserting anything new here.  Still, I hope I am setting forth a biblical pattern for how we figure out what is pleasing to the Lord, whether in our day to day decisions, or the more important questions of vocations that may last decades.

Calling and Vocation, Part 1

Recently, I've been reading through Steve Farrar's book, King Me, along with several other men from our Adult Bible Fellowship.  Throughout Chapter 7, Farrar is discussing the role a father plays in guiding his son, neither forcing his son to fulfill his own unreached goals, nor letting his son wander in uncertainty.  How does this idea work out practically?

I began to consider this topic more when my pastor, David Doran, preached on 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12 this past Sunday.  In that passage, Paul is praying for the Thessalonian believers, pleading with God that these Christians might be worthy of their calling.  What was their calling?  What is my calling?  What is my son's calling?

Every Christian has the same calling, in one sense.  All of us who are saved are irrevocably and effectually called to salvation by the work of God's Spirit (2 Thessalonians 2:14). But I think there is another sense in which we all have different callings.  God directs each of us to serve Him in a particular way, by means of a specific vocation or job.  How can I identify the vocation to which God is calling me?  How can you?

I am convinced that God wants me to serve Him as a pastor.  Why?  Did I hear a voice?  Did I experience a particularly moving message, followed by an emotional invitation?  Did I open my Bible and point to a verse that persuaded me of this fact?  No.  Instead, I believe I am in the process of following a simple, yet biblical, pattern.

Consider 1 Timothy 3:1.  Paul makes a simple assertion.  "If you want to be a pastor/overseer, you desire a good thing."  This is the subjective component of the calling to ministry.  I have a desire to preach, to pastor, to serve in that capacity.  This desire may well be God-given, since God initiated the work of salvation (Philippians 1:6, Philippians 2:12-13) and continues to work in the Christian's heart.  If I don't want to pastor, or if I'm only doing it because my parents, friends, or seminary professors said it was a good idea, then I'm likely to quit when the task becomes difficult.  But Paul urges that the desire alone is not enough; we can easily deceive ourselves, substituting what would please us for what would please God.

Paul continues in 1 Timothy 3:2-7 by outlining specific qualifications. This is the objective component, which confirms the desire is God-given.  If I desire to be a pastor, but my life in no way matches Paul's criteria, then I need to soberly consider my own character.  If I wanted to be a surgeon, but had a 2.0 GPA, I would need to consider another vocation.  If my character doesn't match the criteria Paul lays out, I need to consider whether in time I can live up to those expectations. I want to be clear: Paul does not demand perfection; he himself admitted the need for continual growth in obedience (Philippians 3:12). Still, there must be growing conformity to these character qualities.  How can the people in my church trust my intentions if I'm constantly trying to sell them some product instead of finding out their needs, their hopes, their hurts?  How can I lead the church in an orderly way if my own son is a slob, or a troublemaker, or the class clown?  I must be striving to live out 1 Timothy 3:2-7 each day by God's grace.

Assuming I have the subjective desire and I am meeting the objective qualifications, I'm still not ready.  The decision of who should lead the church can't be made in isolation by the one who wants to be a pastor. For example, there is the pattern implied in 1 Timothy 4:14 where Timothy was commissioned by the church, specifically her leaders.  In another instance, Paul and Barnabas didn't set out as missionaries on their own; they were sent out by the church at the direction of the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:1-5).  While the Holy Spirit is not going to audibly direct a specific church to choose me as their pastor, there needs to be some measure of external confirmation of both my desire and qualifications for that role.  God gifts all of us for specific roles, beyond merely natural abilities, and those gifts are to be used in the service of the local church (Ephesians 4:11-13).

So there are at least three components of the call to ministry, specifically that of being a pastor.  There is a subjective desire, which I believe comes from God.  There is a growing conformity to the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9. Finally, the local church must confirm both the desire and the qualifications, so that the congregation can serve as a filter to exclude the man who is unfit in his doctrine or his character to serve in the role of their pastor.  This is a simple pattern, but I believe a biblical path to recognize the call to ministry.

In the next post, I will explore a potential application of the biblical pattern for the call to ministry.  I believe this pattern can be useful in determining a God-pleasing vocation for any person, not just for pastors or missionaries.

The Beginning

I realize I'm jumping into blogging fairly late in the game.  Many blogs are already abandoned; many more will be in the near future. So why start now?  I just finished seminary.  For the first time since I began kindergarten, I don't have the regular discipline of schoolwork and related deadlines.  So, I hope that both the discipline of writing regularly and the potential scrutiny of writing publicly will prove beneficial.  I intend to record various reflections, primarily flowing out from the books that I'm reading.

 Why the title of this blog?  The title is inspired by a biography of Martin Luther I read a number of years ago, and then again more recently, entitled The Triumph of Truth: A Life of Martin Luther.  This book, itself a translation of a much longer work by the Swiss historian Jean Henri Merle d'Aubigne', is closely connected in its title with a verse from Luther's famous hymn, A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.  That verse reads:

 And though this world, with devils filled,
Should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God has willed
His truth to triumph through us.

God's truth will always triumph; therefore, truth will never die.  This is the hope of the Christian, a hope which arises in the darkest moments of life and history.  God is victorious and will establish His kingdom, overcoming all powers of darkness and evil to do so.  Though we are weak jars of clay, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 4:7, God makes His power known even and especially through us.

It is my hope that if what I write points people to Christ, He will be honored, and in some small way, the triumph of truth will be furthered.