The Lamppost

Our lack of love leads us to Christ

2012-01-18T13:48:00.000-05:00

My Epitaph

2011-10-04T09:33:00.003-04:00

If I die, put this on the stone (Not that I expect this to be soon!)

A sinner saved by grace

Gone to be with his Savior

What a glorious day!

Understanding The Love of God

2011-09-01T14:57:00.002-04:00

Does God love everybody (or everything)? I found D. A. Carson’s Categories in The Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God very helpful here. He breaks God's love into 4 parts.

1) God’s providential love over all that he has made - God loves birds, and cows, and insects, and even cats. God loves inanimate objects like mountains and iron.

"God creates everything, and before there is a whiff of sin, he pronounces all that he has made to be ‘good’ (Gen. 1). This is the product of a loving Creator…The birds of the air find food, but that is the result of God’s living providence, and not a sparrow falls from the sky apart from the sanction of the Almighty (Matt 6). If this were not a benevolent providence, a loving providence, then the moral lesson that Jesus drives home, viz. that this God can be trusted to provide for his own people, would be incoherent.” (16-17)

2) God’s salvific stance toward his fallen world - Can you say to your nextdoor neighbor who doesn't know Christ, “God loves you”? In one sense, yes!

"God so loved the world that he gave his Son (Jn 3:16). I know that some try to take cosmos (‘world’) here to refer to the elect. But that really will not do. All the evidence of the usage of the word in John’s Gospel is against the suggestion…However much God stands in judgment over the world, he also presents himself as the God who invites and commands all human beings to repent.” (17-18)

3) God’s particular, effective, selecting love toward his elect - Really this love is the most emphasized. This is the love that saves. God loves his creation, but there is a saving love towards his children. Those who are trusting in Christ as Lord and Savior.

“The elect may be the entire nation of Israel or the church as a body or individuals. In each case, God sets his affection on his chosen ones in a way in which he does not set his affection on others.” (18)

4) God’s love is sometimes said to be directed toward his own people in a provisional or conditional way—conditioned, that is, on obedience. Does God love me less if I sin? No, you don’t ever stop being his son or daughter. But does your sin displease God and your obedience please God? Yes.

“it does not have to do with how we become true followers of the living God, but with our relationship with him once we do know him. ‘Keep yourselves in God’s love,’ Jude exhorts his readers (v. 21), leaving the unmistakable impression that someone might not keep himself or herself in the love of God."

Another Day Trip - Northampton (Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening)

2011-07-26T08:15:00.000-04:00

Took a trip with the fam to Northampton, MA, about a two and half hour drive each way from home. I procrastinated this visit for awhile, even though I love Edwards, simply because there is so little about Edwards at Northampton. Even though he pastored there for many years and it was the home of the First Great Awakening, the town seems to barely recognize this fact. It's a fun town to walk around in, with plenty of shops and restaurants, yet the only real remaining reminder of Edwards legacy is his church, First Churches of Northampton which has a few token memorials to him. On their website it is clear that they no longer accept Biblical authority and are uneasy about their historical connection with Edwards.

I consider Jonathan Edwards to be the greatest American theologian, and a man who truly treasured God and exalted Christ, holding firm to the Scriptures. He truly loved his wife and children, and ministered faithfully (though not perfectly) in Northampton. No doubt he is in perfect happiness with his redeemer:

"The enjoyment of [God] is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, fully to enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here. Fathers and mothers, husbands, wives, or children, or the company of earthly friends, are but shadows; but God is the substance. These are but scattered beams, but God is the sun. These are but streams. But God is the ocean."(J. Edwards)

Easter Sunday Sermon

2011-06-20T16:19:00.000-04:00

The Sweet Satisfaction of Being Done!

2011-05-19T12:47:00.000-04:00

Good writing that makes for good reading (IMHO)

2011-05-17T15:15:00.000-04:00

Good writing that I love to read is:

a) clear - I know what I've read when I read it. The author doesn't try to be obtuse, but clear and concise.

b) vivid - The language is engaging, creative, and memorable.

c) diverse - The writer knows the English language, and how to use (but not overuse) metaphors and adjectives.

Priorities

2011-02-23T13:44:00.000-05:00

1. God
2. Spouse
3. Kids
4. Church
5. World

If I mess with this list in anyway, I am in serious danger. To replace 1 with 2-5 would be idolatry. To replace 2 with 3, would create a weak marriage. To replace 3 with 4, would be hurtful, unfair, and sinful (a particular temptation for pastors.) 4 must always come before 5, "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers" (Gal 6:10). The desire should be to see 5 become 4.

The "moral" non believer puts 2-3 in the place of 1. The nominal christian puts 4 in the place of 1. The typical unbeliever puts 5 in the place of 1.

I've seen the damage of messing with this list, and it's not pretty. May God help me to keep it in order!

Bad Preaching

2010-12-15T13:30:00.003-05:00

"The preacher, instead of looking out upon the world, looks out upon public opinion, trying to find out what the public would like to hear. Then he tries his best to duplicate that, and bring his finished product into a marketplace in which others are trying to do the same. The public, turning to our church culture to find out about the world, discovers there is nothing but its own reflection." (Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil, 59)

A Short Stop in Princeton University

2010-12-04T15:55:00.012-05:00

On our way to VA, we stopped off in Princeton, NJ and got a chance to walk around the University for awhile. Actually it was incidental, I was sleeping as Jess drove for awhile. When I woke up we were in downtown Princeton, and we had to stop and take a look around.

Out of our country's earliest major universities (Harvard, Yale, and Princeton), Princeton was the last to go liberal. Men like Jonathan Edwards, Charles Hodge, B B Warfield, and Machen held off the tide of Enlightenment philosophy against Biblical authority for an extra few generations.

I have to say the architecture at Princeton was absolutely stunning! Far exceeding anything I've seen at Harvard (haven't been to Yale yet). Jess and I's first impression walking around campus was that there were two types of students there: rich privileged kids enjoying themselves and scholarship kids scared to death of failing!

Though I think it is probably too late to hope that Princeton Theological Seminary will ever return to Biblical authority, it was a beautiful reminder of the history this University has played not only in this country but in the Christian church of a past day and time.

C S Lewis on Humility

2010-11-09T13:50:00.004-05:00

I've always been challenged by Lewis description of Humility. A humble person is someone who constantly focuses on others rather than him/herself. It is also someone who willingly admits that pride is everlurking in his/her heart. He writes in Mere Christianity:

"Do not imagine that if you meet a really humble man he will be what most people call “humble” nowadays: he will not be a sort of greasy, smarmy person, who is always telling you that, of course, he is nobody.

Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him.

If you do dislike him it will be because you feel a little envious of anyone who seems to enjoy life so easily. He will not be thinking about humility: he will not be thinking about himself at all.

If anyone would like to acquire humility, I can, I think, tell him the first step. The first step is to realise that one is proud. And a biggish step, too. At least, nothing whatever can be done before it. If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed."

Makes me realize how far from humility I really am...

Courage

2010-10-26T17:23:00.002-04:00

The Wise King

2010-10-15T16:28:00.004-04:00

A short story I wrote for my wife and kids:

A long time ago lived a young but wise king. The youthful king was searching for a bride that possessed the wisdom to co-rule his kingdom. After years of searching, he finally met his match.

The young lady came to the king's castle and was led into a dimly lit ballroom by an eager steward. Shortly after a man emerged from the shadows and approached her with haste. He was large and impressive, dressed in scarlet and burdened with a heavy crown. The steward introduced the maiden to the king and bowed lowly. "My lady, might I introduce to you his royal highness," the steward declared.

The man stepped forward and spoke with a deep bellow, "Greetings my lady, I am king Stephen, Lord of the provinces, Commander of the army, and Keeper of the peace."

"A pleasure, dear king," she replied.

"Forgive my abruptness, but I must ask my lady, can you bear the burden of determining the welfare and fate of a kingdom?"

"Sir?" she replied

The king continued, "The queen must be willing to rule in the king's absences. The kingdom will look to you as Ruler in my stead. You will need to be at time firm and at times ruthless. Firm to those who have quarreled with the King's authority and ruthless to those who rebel against it. Ten thousand men look to me as the commander of the army, and one hundred times that look to me as provider of their safety. Every day they work their fields, raise their children, and go to their beds at night trusting in my strength. The duty of a king is to lead with strength and valor, courage and resolve. Would I not be amiss if I did not ask the same from their noble queen?"

The maiden replied, "Surely you speak clearly and rightly your majesty."

The king pressed on, "But my lady there is more. I am also Judge, called to be equitable and just. The kingdom looks to me for law and order. People must fear the office of king as keeper of the law. My queen, by my side, must also demonstrate the harsh but necessary reality of Law. For, as all wise men know, it is not a man who rules a kingdom, but laws. Do you still agree?"

Before the young lady could answer, another man walked into the room, rushing as if to the aid of a damsel in distress. He was dressed in blue, tall and thin.

"Do not be unsettled, my dear, I am the true king Stephen, the kingdom's Poet, chief Philosopher and humble servant.

The young lady, with a look of confusion, "Pleased to finally meet you your majesty."

The king continued after kissing her hand, "Do not allow this imposter to cause you to fret, my lady, with concerns of battle and bravado. He speaks of body to serve his country, but what of heart? The king is not a soldier who goes off to war and plays the man, he must lead his people in education and virtue. For what do the people fight, if their kingdom is led by tyrant? Philosophy and art, literature and music, these are what make a kingdom worth fighting for, and should be the realms of a king's leadership.

"I do agree, your majesty" she replied

The tall thin man continued, "Yes, he speaks of justice, but what of mercy? For what makes a king more kingly than mercy? A brute can uphold justice, but mercy takes virtue. Let mercy be the mark of kingship and may my queen share in the king's merciful heart! Laws do not rule kingdoms, people do. Men with conscience and common sense, who understand grace to balance judgment. Men, and of course maidens. My queen must model beauty, elegance, and nobility. My dear, are you ready for the challenge?

She only replied, "I am not sure your majesty, but yes, I do believe you have spoken truly of virtue and mercy."

Just then the steward broke in, "My lady, I do ask for your forgiveness for the king's, uh, mischief. The true King Stephen stands before you, this I assure you as a steward of this kingdom and under the true king's oath. However, I am forbidden to reveal his identity. His intention is for you to choose. He wishes to know what you value most as a queen. When you are ready, if you would kindly state which you value most in a monarch and choose your king."

She paused, and replied, "Well, my dear steward, I do believe the answer is clear."

"Clear, my lady?"

"Why yes, it is clear who the true king is."

"While I am delighted, my lady, that you have found his dilemma discernible. Please reveal to us the true king Stephen" the steward replied with disbelief.

"Certainly the first spoke honestly of the king's need for valor and justice. What would a kingdom be without such noble character? Surely his queen must support him with sincerity" she stated.

"Then my lady you choose Justice, and the first man to be King Stephen..."

"Oh no, certainly not."

"But I thought..."

"Well you see, valor and justice are essential, but no less than mercy and grace. The second spoke truly that a kingdom that is powerful and just, but lacks virtues of love and grace is a famished kingdom indeed."

"I see, then you choose mercy and the second"

"I'm sorry sir, but you misunderstand me."

"I suppose I do. Then you have no answer to the dilemma?"

"At first, I must admit I was puzzled by the test. But not because I could not discern which man was truly king, but why he would pose this test to his queen. What virtue does he value most in doing so? But I do believe I understand," she stated with confidence.

"Which?"

"Wisdom. By setting before me a paradox, he wishes me to be able to discern, to know whether justice should rule over mercy, or love should rule over valor. It takes wisdom to weigh the two in balance. Certainly wisdom is needed to decide between justice and mercy."

"No doubt my lady. No doubt," the steward replied.

"The king has not presented me with dilemma, but a trilemma. Surely you, kind steward, are none other than king Stephen, for you promised me on oath that he stands before me. I do believe it is wisdom that you seek most earnestly in your queen."

After saying this, the maiden, bowed lowly to the ground before the steward. Seeing this, the two imposters quickly did the same. The steward gently lifted her hand, looked in her eyes, and asked, "Would you do me the kindness of becoming my queen?"

Tasting Life: An argument against anti-depressants as a first option

2010-09-27T15:09:00.004-04:00

First let me say, for many medication (anti-anxiety, anti-depressants, etc.) is the only responsible option. Hear me say this before you read the rest of this post: Medication may be what you should be doing. But I have a sneaking suspicion that many of us are medicating life, not disorders.

Are you afraid of depression? Are you afraid of anxiety? Are you afraid of fear? If you are, do you know what that makes you? human. I am not being facetious. Perhaps it is better to speak personally. I look back on my life and can remember with pain the difficult times. A time of depression during my freshman year of college. Fears over major life decisions. Intense pain and emotional hurt. And yet all of these things have made me into who I am. What if I didn’t have them? What if instead of dealing with them, instead of seeking the face of God through them, I simply numbed myself towards them? It would have been to my loss not gain.

There is something else. Life is short. We live in a fallen and sinful world that will not last. Soon there will be no more pain and tears. Then eternity. Until then, we have a calling to live through it all. I want it! As crazy as that seems, I want it. I want the depression. I want to have to work through my fears. I want to face my pain head on…and live through it. Like a Man, with courage, with faith in Christ through the valleys. I know the day is coming when there will be no more valley and no more struggle. The battle will be over and we will enjoy the victory. Until then, I am here to fight...not run away.

The Devil doesn't play fair

2010-08-18T14:52:00.003-04:00

I've been a Christian for 18 years now, over half my life. I've learned a few things about living the Christian life, like how to study the Bible, how to pray, how to worship. I've also learned a few things about how to resist sin. Sin is fleeting, sin is always deceptive, sin is destructive. But, even now I am confronted with aspects of sin that still surprise me. Sin is ingenious and the devil is witty. They conspire to create seemingly irresistible temptations for us. If you expect sin to be easy to overcome, think again.

The devil does not play fair. What looks so 'good' is often evil. What looks so 'right' is often wrong. What looks so 'satisfying' is often an empty trap. Sin comes to us like a delicious fruit, not like rotten meat. It comes to us with a smiling face, not with a look of disgust. It seems so desirable until we taste it and feel its bitterness slowly making its way down our throats.

But remember there is always a way out, ALWAYS, "No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" (1 Cor 10:13). If you are serious about being a Christian, meditate on this verse. Memorize it. Turn to it often in your prayers. Don't take the fruit no matter how pleasing it looks. And remember, the devil does not play fair.

Inception

2010-08-16T11:30:00.002-04:00

A few thoughts on the summer hit "Inception", if you decide to go and see it:

1. The movie is hitting on something important. Dreams are mysterious. In the Bible God uses dreams to reveal Himself, the future, and even His Son (to Joseph husband of Mary). Yet, of course, this does not mean that all dreams are necessarily God speaking. I would guess most are not. It's probably not helpful to think every dream is a revelation from God.

2. The movie is a creative and cool concept, but impossible (okay, highly improbable). They never, to my notice, explain how we can share dreams. They simply have a device that connects people in order to enter into eachother's dreams. I know, I know, I'm ruining the creative license of the movie...

3. I think they make too much of dreams as alternate realities. The truth is, a dream, though it may seem real when we are in one, clearly is different than our reality (we eat, we have laws of gravity, etc). Yes, it is true, as the philosophers have told us, that there is no way to 'prove' that our existence is real. Isn't what we see, feel, hear, touch, just our sensory perception? But we take it for granted (and I think fairly) that the world in which we live is a true reality.

4. Having said that, let me back track. Is there not a sense that the world we live in is not the true reality, but only a shadow of eternity? Eternal life is not the dream but the reality, making this reality more like a dream. When we are in eternity, this life will feel as the dream from which we awoke.

5. A dream within a dream is pretty mind-blowing. A dream within a dream within a dream is awesome! Love the idea that time is slower in a dream, so the dream within a dream within a dream is even slower...and on and on. The more complex the movie got, the better it got!

6. Cool Movie.

Check out the trailer HERE

7 Questions an Atheist Cannot Answer

2010-06-14T13:47:00.010-04:00

#1 Why is something right or wrong?

Atheists may believe something is right or wrong, they may even live very moral lives, but they cannot give you a reason to do what is right as opposed to what is wrong. If there is no God, then there is no objective standard of right and wrong. If there is no Law-giver, there is no transcendent Law. Steal, kill, and lie...or don't, whatever you choose.

#2 Why is human life valuable?

An atheist may tell you that human beings are high-up on the food chain, even that they are complex and intelligent. But they cannot offer a reason why human life is more valuable than any other animal, insect, or even plant life. Then again, what makes life more valuable than non-life, like a rock. Or non-life more valuable than nothing at all. In fact, the idea of anything having 'value' must be foreign to an atheist perspective. (You can say something is valuable for survival, but not inherantly valuable as survival is no more valuable than extinction).

#3 What is the purpose of life?

An atheist can tell you what he or she personally feels about life (do good, love people, save the environment, or whatever else), but there is no actual purpose to life. We exist as a result of chance and time. No purpose, no meaning, no real significance to life. An atheist may live a life of love and compassion, but there is no objective reason for doing so, and certainly they cannot speak meaningfully against others who choose to use their 'matter' to do otherwise.

#4 What makes music, art, and poetry beautiful?

An atheist may love music and art and poetry, but there is no transcendent reason to do so. They do not add anything to our survival instincts. They are simply superfluous...unless there is something in us that rises above just physical nature. If not, it is completely relative. Eric Clapton is no better than me strumming my guitar, Van Gogh is equal to a 1st year art student, and Shakespeare is as beautiful a poet as anyone else. Beauty is ONLY in the eyes of the beholder right? (or did God place a love for beauty in good music, art, and poetry in our souls?)

#5 Where did we (matter) come from?

I know different answers have been attempted, but seriously? The two that rank the top of my completely unscientific and ridiculous list are 'We came from nothing' and 'We always existed'. I'm not sure which is more non-sensical, that the universe could spring into existence out of absolutely nothing, or that matter existed for all eternity. Go back a trillion years and there it is! Go back a trillion times a trillion years, there it is! Go back a 1 with a trillion zeroes after it and there it is! Keep going and going and going and still there it is!

(Some might respond: but where did God come from? The basic answer to this question is that God does not exist within our universe and thus is not subject to the cause and effect physical world that we live within. He is transcendent, other than us. He is the unmoved mover, as Aristotle and Aquinas labeled Him. In our universe every effect must have a cause, but Christians have never said God is subject to our universe. He is its Creator. Thus God's infinity is not irrational just difficult to imagine)

#6 Where are we headed?

Well, actually there is a sort of answer atheists can give to this: extinction. It is absolutely inevitable from an atheist framework. It may happen in 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, a million or more, but it will be the ultimate end of human life. No matter what we say, do, think, eventually we will be extinct. Eat, drink, and be merry now, because this is all there is!

#7 How do you know there is no God?

The only way you could know with certainty that there is no God is for you to have infinite knowledge of the universe. This is true of all absolute negatives. It is like saying "I know there is no such thing as a 5 legged dog in this universe" The only way I could know that with absolute certainty is to have complete knowledge of the universe and every dog within it. In other words, the only way to know there is no God is to be omniscient, which can only be an attribute of God himself. Funny, the only one who can know that there is no God would be God himself! This is why many atheists now call themselves 'agnostic' the Greek word for 'ignorant'.

On the flip side, an absolute positive is different. I don't have to have infinite knowledge to know my wife exists. I have experienced a genuine relationship with her. To be a Theist (to believe there is a God) only requires personal knowledge of Him, something that many (most?) human beings have experienced since...all of recorded history!

Trip to Providence, Rhode Island

2010-03-24T20:37:00.018-04:00

More historic New England day trips. Recently we took a family trip to Providence, RI. What a clean, historic, and beautiful town. It was yet another New England gem that I never visited (at least that I can remember) until now. The kids loved it, although as you can see Isaac is not a big fan of taking pictures.

Providence was founded by Roger Williams, an early Baptist minister who founded the town based on religious freedom in the early part of the 17th century. The first two pictures are at the Roger Williams memorial, the second two at the First Baptist Church in America (the oldest Baptist church in America, that as far as I know has sadly gone liberal). We also took a trip over to Brown University and walked through their bookstore...and fed my insatiable love for books.

What an important reminder that the gospel can never be forced upon people. The gospel must be received, personally and willfully by the individual, as God first works in us. As much as I love Calvin, Luther, and Edwards, I am unashamedly a Baptist. Individual conversion, based on the conscious reception of the will (again, as God first works within us), leaves the State or Government powerless to produce regeneration. Paradoxically, because I believe Jesus is the only way to be saved, I would therefore fully support an individual's freedom to unbelief. In the end, it is God who must do the work on their soul.

With sincere respect...our Hope is elsewhere

2010-02-07T08:21:00.012-05:00

Politics are important. And, there is nothing wrong with hoping for a better nation and more competent leaders. We should pray diligently for those entrusted with decision making for our nation. But Christians should remember where our hope ultimately rests. Not in ANY politician...but in a King.

What should Christians say about homosexuality? -some thoughts

2009-11-25T18:19:00.009-05:00

What does the Bible teach about homosexuality? What I think is needed most on this issue is clarity, so let me state what I believe the Bible teaches without any 'political correctness':

1. Homosexuality is sinful

2. Christ can forgive any sin

Let me argue just these two points

First homosexuality is sin. By that I mean it is against the explicit, revealed will and command of God (Ge 19; Lev 18:22; 20:13; Ro 1; 1 Cor 6:9). It is displeasing to God and immoral. Morality is not a cultural symbol, it is the unchanging standard of what is good and what is evil. As a sin, like all sin, it is also destructive and hurtful to the individual who engages in it. The unwillingness of sincere Christians to speak clearly against homosexuality is a demonstration of the lack of love for those who struggle with this particular sin. In other words, if I love someone, I must be willing to tell them if I see something harmful in their lives. Consider these common objections:

a. But what if homosexuals are born that way? Let it be understood that there is to this day no reliable evidence that this is the case. Part of the confusion is based on an unreliable study in a book known as The Science of Desire, which has been discredited by any serious scientists. But regardless, it is irrelevant to the morality of the issue if one is born a certain way. The Bible, and Jesus particularly, teqaches that we are born sinful. To say because we are born with certain desires they are therefore innocent is absurd. Think about those prone to violence, pedophilia, drunkenness, etc. We do not, and cannot justify anything by simply asserting that 'we are born that way'. We are all sinners since birth.

b. Shouldn't we be accepting and loving towards all? We need to be so careful as to what we mean by 'accepting and loving.' We should spurn all acts of hatred, violence, and vitriol towards homosexuals. In that sense we absolutely should be loving and accepting. Yet, that is an entirely different question as to whether we should recognize the sinfulness of homosexuality. As a parallel, let us say Harry is an alcoholic. Should we be loving and accepting of Harry's alcholism? Yes...and no. We still love Harry. We still accept Harry as a valuable human being. But we must recognize the destructive and sinful behavior of alcohol addiction. To ignore it, is to be unloving towards Harry.

c. Don't Christians need to be less judgmental? If what is meant by this is that Christians need to be less hypocritical, then I certainly agree. It is easy to condemn homosexuality, and ignore anger, or pornography, or gossip. But, if what is meant by this is that Christians need to be more fuzzy about sin and less clear about truth, I entirely disagree. If anything, I think the more pressing issue is the unwillingness to lovingly express the sinfulness of homosexuality in capitulation to the culture. In a fear of offending someone, many Christians have become cowards. In a world filled with ambiguity and fuzzy thinking, the greatest need is honest, forthright, truth. Homosexuality is, was, and always will be, a sin.

d. If it is a sin, isn't it no one's business but theirs? Yes, if we care nothing for them. If your sole concern in life is yourself, then you may keep quiet and ignore it. However, if you love someone, you should care for them. All sin has horrifying consequences both in this world, and if unforgiven, as we enter the next. If you love your neighbor, you will alarm them if they are in danger. If your neighbor's house were on fire, you would tell them if you care about them. If you love only yourself, you may watch them burn with no concern. As Christians, the only option is to love them. Love sometimes means speaking the truth even when it is unpopular, even when it hurts.

e. But aren't there a lot of homosexuals who are spiritual? Truth is not a popularity contest. If that were the case, Christ's disciples would never have spread the gospel to begin with. If we follow Christ, we follow someone who was rejected, beaten, and murdered for what he believed. Popularity is not Christ's primary concern. The key question is what does God's Word teach? What does God say about this? Christians have always been called to go against hte flow, to not simply let the culture dictate what we believe. Hollywood, Oprah, and TV Shows do not determine what is right and what is wrong. That job is already taken...by God.

f. Isn't all sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage sin? Yes. Homosexuality is one form of sin among many sexual sins.

Let me spend some time on the second point: Christ can forgive homosexuality. It is not the unforgivable sin. It is a grievous and blatant disobedience to God's command, and yet, like all sin, it too can be forgiven by God through repentance and faith in his Son Jesus. Christ came to transform us through the gospel.

You see, the problem is we too often see sin as sort of God's naughty list. We ask questions that Christ is not interested in like 'What sins are worse than others?' or 'How many times can I do this and still get to heaven?' The problem with that is that Christ came to totally transform us. He calls us to become new men and new women, who live in worshipful relationship with our Creator. We are called to live in joyful fullness, forgiven and redeemed through Jesus. That can happen, only if we repent of all known sin and seek the transformation available in Him. Sinful desires may never go away, but the battle is not to save ourselves, but in loving and glorifying a God who gave his own Son to save us.

Joy is available! Not the cheap unsatisfying joy that the world is trying to sell us. Don't buy it friends. Don't sell yourself for a cheap sinister imitation of the real thing. Instead there is a True, everlasting joy. A joy better than sex. A joy better than self. A joy in God, knowing and worshipping the God who made you and offers you infinite grace in Him. It is what we were made for!

Freemasonry: A cult?

2009-10-09T14:20:00.006-04:00

For a while now I have been trying to understand Freemasonry. It is perhaps the most convoluted group of teachings of any society I've seen. It is extremely hard to pinpoint what masons actually believe. Most of the stuff you find against freemasons is equally whacky. There are numerous conspiracy theories alleged, along with accusations concerning the worship of Satan.

However, here is what can be absolutely determined.

1) Freemasonry is syncretistic. In other words it brings together different religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Buddhism, etc. To become a mason you simply must believe in a god. It seems especially taken with mysticism (Kabbala, Rosicrucianism, gnosticism).

2) Freemasonry is a secret society and a religion. Though they deny both of these, their practices and writing affirm both. It is a society that is secretive about its rites and rituals (hence secret society). To reach various degrees you must swear an oath of secrecy. It is a religion. It includes prayer, rituals, moral systems, chaplains, beliefs about salvation, heaven, and morality (hence a religion).

3) Freemasonry teaches salvation by works. There are clear teachings that affirm that it is through good works that we attain salvation into the 'celestial lodge'. This salvation, as well as its symbols, is offered to people of any religion and therefore is not about the gospel of Christ.

Having said all this, these are the clear markers of a cult (which is why at least the Anglican and Roman Catholic church has labelled Freemasonry as heretical). Churches should be careful. One thinks about the letters to the churches in Revelation which warn the churches about the dangers of allowing false teaching to run rampant. It will effect the spiritual health of the church. What is more it is a dishonor to the sacrificial death of Christ in our behalf, the only means by which we can be saved. In him and him alone is our salvation.

The best resources available on the subject that I have found are from The Christian Research Institute (www.equip.org) A reputable ministry that does good work. Follow the links below:

Should Christians Join the Masonic Lodge

Masonry, My Savior, and Me

The Masonic Lodge and the Christian Conscience

Anglican Synod Concludes Freemasonry Is Heretical

Freemasonry: Is Freemasonry Occultic?

George Whitefield's Crypt - Old South Church, Newburyport, MA

2009-09-19T16:13:00.013-04:00

One of the blessings of living in New England is that history is right in our back yard. The great evangelist/preacher of the Great Awakening George Whitefield's crypt is buried in a church he founded in Newburyport, MA. I can't believe I've lived here this long without having visited it. So, today I decided to drive the 2.7 miles over to Old South Church and visit.

While I was looking around at the outside of the church we met a guy on his way inside. I anxiously asked if there is a way to get a look inside. Just then the pastor of the church Rob John came to the door. Providentially he allowed us in for the '50 cent' tour. He said, next time, it is really helpful to call first...yeah, I was a little pushy, but hey it's George Whitefield's crypt! Thanks to Pastor Rob and his church member for being gracious to us. Take a look at some of the pictures below:
Though Whitefield never pastored at Old South, he was good friends with the first pastor there Jonathan Parsons whom he is buried here with (along with Joseph Mince a minister who preached blind). It was pretty stunning standing at the pulpit, which felt about 10 feet higher than the congregation, under which Whitefiled is buried. After that, I took a seat by the crypt itself in the basement (that skull behind me is just a mold, his real skull is underneath with the rest of his remains!).

Of course Whitefield is in glory, awaiting the resurrection, and forgiven of all his sins through a mighty Christ, as he said, "What if thou hadst committed the sins of a million worlds? Christ's righteousness will cover, Christ's blood will cleanse thee from the guilt of all."

Peacemaking

2009-07-29T10:34:00.004-04:00

Right now for our summer sunday school, we are going through a study by Peacemaker Ministries, that deals with conflict resolution. It is, to put it simply, OUTSTANDING. If you attend FBC, and you are able in any way to make it to the class, come. It is biblical, gospel-centered, practical, and profoundly helpful. I hope and pray that this class will lead to further small group and individual training on peacemaking. Follow the links and check it out:

Peacemaker ministries

Blurb on FBCs website

It is not too late, in fact you can borrow that previous material to catch up if you are interested.

Cliches

2009-06-02T11:33:00.002-04:00

A few years ago I started a sermon with a compilation of funny and nonsensical cliches. It went like this:

Cliché Analogies

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. And if that horse is stubborn as a mule than there is no sense beating a dead horse.

It’s important to have all your ducks lined up in a row, because Birds of a feather flock together. Besides that a bird in the hand is worth two in the air, but that’s okay if you can Kill two birds with one stone so long as you don’t count your chickens before they hatch. Because you don’t know which came first the chicken or the egg
And at the end of the day, To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs

You can’t teach an old dog new tricks. That’s too bad because Dog is man’s best friend even though it’s a Dog eat dog world. The last thing you want is to find yourself in the doghouse. Unless of course it’s Raining cats and dogs. In which case try to be a cool cat because their Bark is worse than their bite!
One more. You need to be able to Read people like a book, because some people even though they are as Quick as a whip and Sharp as a tack and maybe even cute as a button they will still Lie like a rug. So if you don’t know what you are doing you will be as Blind as a bat and as Dumb as doorknob, all dressed up with no place to go, and Standing there with your head in the sand, your tail between your legs, not knowing which way is up, and one thing is for sure you will not be happy as a clam.

Books to Read Before You Die

2009-05-12T09:41:00.011-04:00

In my opinion, all these:

And at least one book by John Piper (preferably one of these):

The Shack versus The Bible

2009-05-05T15:00:00.007-04:00

When there is enough buzz about a popular book impacting Christians, I try to read it to get a gist of it so I can comment knowledgably about it. The Shack is the newest thing down the pipe. At first, I resisted buying the book and spending the time it would take to read it. I heard a couple of guys I respect (Albert Mohler and Mark Driscoll) talk about all the theological problems with the book, and that was enough for me (see also Michael Youssef's condemnation). But as more and more buzz grew about the book, I realized I should read it myself. I just finished it Tuesday.

I once heard it said that poison is most dangerous when it looks like something edible, such as candy. When poison sits in an ominous bottle with a skull and crossbones on the label, few are tempted to drink it. However, if poison were sitting in a candy bowl on the coffee table and looked like M & Ms it is much more dangerous. The Shack, I think, has enough poison in it to kill but comes packaged like candy coated chocolate.

Here is what I mean. There is much ‘good’ to say about the book. This is the candy coating of the book. First, it is an engaging story. I have to say I found myself almost in tears a number of times while reading the book. The main character Mack, loses his daughter to a serial killer. Just thinking about losing a daughter is deeply hurtful to me. The writer, Mr. Young is a decent writer and the book is very readable. Also the book deals with some of the hardest questions in life about God. For example: The Trinity, The Problem of Suffering and Free Will vs. Determinism, to name a few! Sadly, I think the Bible disagrees with Mr. Young on all three of these issues (and a host of others). Another candy coating is the book is very accessible. People are reading it, you can buy it at any Borders, Barnes & Noble, or book shop. It is wildly popular. That is the outer candy shell, but where is the poison? Where do I start.

Let me say I do not know Mr. Young personally, and my comments are not about him, but about the book. For all I know he may be a genuine Christian who let his imagination get away from him! Instead of making this a ‘me versus the author’ discussion, which would basically be useless, let me compare some of the direct quotes from the Shack with the Bible, and add just minimal explanation. In the end, what I think you will find, or at least what I found, was the god of the Shack was not the God of the Bible and not the God I love and worship. I know that is strong, but meditate on these differences:

In the Shack, God the Father is represented primarily by a ‘big black woman’. In Scripture God must not, indeed cannot be represented by any image human or otherwise.

The Bible: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” (Ex 20:4) “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (1 Tim 1:17)

The Shack: “Am I going crazy? Am I supposed to believe that God is a big black woman with a questionable sense of humor?’ Jesus laughed. ‘She’s a riot! You can always count on her to throw you a curve or two. She loves surprises, and even though you might not think it, her timing is always perfect.” (90-91)

In the Shack the Father suffered the cross along with the Son. This has been labeled Patripassianism (a form of Modalism) in church history and condemned as a heresy. Scripture clearly denies this, as only the Son was born, died on the cross, and rose from the dead:

The Bible: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God…The Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1) “What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (Ro 8:31) “In a loud voice they sang: ‘Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” (Rev 5:12)

The Shack: “Papa [God the Father] didn’t answer, only looked down at their hands. His gaze followed hers and for the first time Mack noticed the scars on her wrists, like those he now assumed Jesus also had on his. She allowed him to tenderly touch the scars, outlines of a deep piercing, and he finally looked up again into her eyes.” (97) “When we three [the Trinity] spoke ourselves into human existence as the Son of God, we became fully human. We also chose to embrace all the limitations this entailed. Even though we have always been present in this created universe, we now became flesh and blood.” (101)

In the Shack, there is no authority in the Trinity. The book is adamant about this, as if all members of the Trinity spurn all forms of authority. According to the Scriptures, although there is equality in the Trinity, there is also authority.

The Bible: Jesus says, “You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.” (Jn 14:28) “For [God the Father] ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. (1 Cor 15:27-28)

The Shack: MacKenzie, we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity. We are in a circle of relationship without any overlay of power. We don’t need power over the other because we are always looking out for the best. Hierarchy would make no sense among us. Actually, this is your problem, not ours.” (124)

In the Shack, you do not have to be a ‘Christian’ to be a child of God, and Christ uses many roads to find you. In the Bible there is no other way to become a child of God but through the faith in the gospel of Christ as one becomes a Christian.

The Bible: “Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (Jn 1:12) “I am the way and the truth and the life and no man comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn 14:6) “The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.” (Acts 11:26) “You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.” (Ro 3:26-27)

The Shack: “Those who love me have come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims;…I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, in my Beloved.” “Does that mean,” said Mack, “that all roads will lead to you?” “Not at all.” Jesus smiled as he reached for the door handle to the shop. “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” (184)

Similarly the Shack teaches that God has forgiven everyone’s sins (not just those who believe). According to the Bible, the only way to be forgiven is through faith in Christ.

The Bible: “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins.” (Acts 2:38) “I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.” (Acts 26:17-18)

The Shack: In Jesus, I have forgiven all humans for their sins against me, but only some choose relationship. (227)

In the Shack, God submits to us (yes you read that right) so as not to impose on our free will. You almost have to ask the question of the book “Who is god to whom?” In the Bible, we submit to God and God never submits to us.

The Bible: “submit to the LORD” (2 Chr 30:8) “But my people would not listen to me; Israel would not submit to me.” (Ps 81:11) “Now as the church submits to Christ....” (Eph 5:24)“Submit yourselves, then, to God.” (James 4:7) As far as God submitting to our free will, this is simply wrong: “One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will? “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' ‘Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” (Ro 9:19-21)

The Shack: “Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we [The Trinity] are submitted to you in the same way.’ Mack was surprised. “How can that be? Why would the God of the universe want to be submitted to me?’ Because we want you to join us in our circle of relationship. I don’t want slaves to my will; I want brothers and sisters who will share life with me.” (147-148)

This anti-authority mentality extends not only to man, but to all institutions in the Shack, such as politics, economics, and marriage. The Bible has a very different view.

The Bible: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves….This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Ro 13:1-7). Jesus tells Pontius Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” (Jn 19:11). “I urge, then, first of all, that request, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim 2:1-4)

The Shack: “Like I said, I don’t create institutions; that’s an occupation for those who want to play God. So no, I’m not too big on religion, and not very fond of politics or economics either.’ Jesus’ visage darkened noticeably. ‘And why should I be? They are the man-created trinity of terrors that ravages the earth and receives those I care about. What mental turmoil and anxiety does any human face that is not related to one of those three?’” (181)

In the Shack, suffering is not from God and not part of God’s plan. According the Scripture, God is sovereign over all things. Again, what Mr. Young is saying is partially true. It is the part that is wrong that is so dangerous. But first the Bible:

The Bible: “’Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?’ In all this Job did not sin with his lips.” (Job 2:10) There are numerous places where God brings judgment on someone, take for example Uzzah who touched the ark “The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.” (2 Sam 2:7). As for Christians and our suffering, “Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons.” (He 12:7-8)

The Shack: “But I still don’t understand why Missy had to die.” “She didn’t have to, Mackenzie. This was no plan of Papa’s. Papa has never needed evil to accomplish her good purposes. It is you humans who have embraced evil, and Papa has responded with goodness. What happened to Missy was the work of evil, and no one in your world is immune from it.” (167)

I could go on and on, and as it is, I have failed to mention serious issues with regard to God’s holiness, the gender issue with God, the doctrine of sin, the doctrine of the atonement, the teaching about Scripture, etc. that are misconstrued and disfigured in this book. If you haven’t read it, my suggestion is, don’t, simply because it is unhelpful and will be over and done with in a year or two. If you have read it, I would encourage you to ask the question “Does this match up with Scripture?” Where is The Shack getting its view of God? If not from Scripture, then where?
In the foreword to the book we read the line, “Mack would like you to know that if you happen upon this story and hate it, he says, ‘Sorry…but it wasn’t primarily written for you.’” With this I would have to agree. This book was not written for me. I have grown to love the The Unseen Father in Heaven, and Christ Jesus his Son who alone died in my place, and the Spirit of Truth who gave us the Word of God in the Bible, far too much to really enjoy a book such as the Shack.

Justice and Mercy

2009-03-31T12:17:00.003-04:00

I love this quote by Christmas Evans (1766-1838). He personifies the justice and mercy of God and how they must come together in the cross:

"An embassy of angels, commissioned from Heaven to some other world, paused at the sight; and Heaven forgave that pause. They saw Mercy standing by the gate, and they cried, ‘Mercy, canst thou not enter? Canst thou look upon that world and not pity? Canst thou pity and not relieve?’ And Mercy, in tears, replied, ‘I can see, and I can pity, but I cannot relieve.’ ‘Why dost thou not enter?’ inquired the heavenly host. ‘Oh,’ said Mercy, ‘Law has barred the gate against me, and I must not, and I cannot unbar it.’ And Law stood there watching the gate, and the angels asked of him, ‘Why wilt thou not suffer Mercy to enter?’ And he said, ‘No one can enter here and live;’ and the thunder of his voice outspoke the wailings within. Then again I heard Mercy cry, ‘Is there no entrance for me into this field of death? may I not visit these caverns of the grave; and seek, if it may be, to raise some at least of these children of destruction, and bring them to the light of day? Open, Justice, Open! drive back these iron bolts, and let me in, that I may proclaim the jubilee of redemption to the children of the dust!’ And then I heard Justice reply, ‘Mercy! surely thou lovest Justice too well to wish to burst these gates by force of arm, and thus to obtain entrance by lawless violence. I cannot open the door: I am not angry with these unhappy, I have no delight in their death, or in hearing their cries, as they lie upon the burning hearth of the great fire, kindled by the wrath of God, in the land that is lower than the grave. But without shedding of blood there is no remission.’

Thank God for the cross which satisfies God's justice and provides us the mercy of salvation! As we approach Good Friday and Easter, may we be reminded of God's love for sinners like us.

A Cry for Unction

2009-03-24T15:41:00.002-04:00

What is unction: It is an old word, the puritans were fond of that meant a special God-granted anointing on a sermon. It is God showing up when a preacher preaches in a powerful and glorious way.

John Owen, the brilliant Puritan theologian once preached,

“What is authority in a preaching ministry? It is a consequent of unction, and not of office. The scribes had an outward call to teach in the church, but they had no unction, no anointing, that could evidence they had the Holy Ghost in his gifts and graces. Christ had no outward call, but he had an unction; he had a full unction of the Holy Ghost in his gifts and graces for the preaching of the gospel.” --John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Sermon V “The Duty of a Pastor” 63

I long for unction. Not just for my own preaching, which I desperately need and all too often lack. I long to hear sermons flowing with unction. It seems that there is a drought of it in a lot of preaching today. I do not know why. Perhaps it is because we do not ask. Perhaps it is because we have left behind us a day of clearer teaching concerning sin and grace. Perhaps it is because our lives are not characterized by the study and prayerfulness that God would desire of us. Whatever the reason, we can feel it.
Do not misunderstand me, there are many sermons today that are edifying. There are many sermons that are faithful to the text. There are many sermons that are emotional and passionate. But let us pray that there may be a day when preaching is flooded with the unction of the Spirit and sermons fueled by holy lives will produce Christ-exalting sermons that cut the heart; that the mouth of every preacher would be golden, heavy with the weight of the gospel; That the eye of every hearer would be filled with tears, not merely from a heart-wrenching illustration a preacher passes on, but by the wonderful brokenness of the gospel. Tears of repentance. Tears of joy. Tears of love for the Spirit-empowered sight of the Savior.

The Gospel, defined

2009-03-24T15:33:00.003-04:00

By God’s grace, I persevered through two years as a youth pastor when I began pastoral ministry. One of the great blessings of doing youth ministry was to recognize the need to be as simple and crystal clear as possible. Otherwise forget it, teenagers will eat your lunch. If I tried to skirt an issue, or beat around the bush, or was fuzzy in my own thinking, they would see it as naptime. Eventually, I learned to be direct. I would say to the teenagers, “If at the end of the day, after all is said and done, you do not know what the gospel is, I have failed you as a youth pastor. But if at the end of the day you do know what the gospel is, then I have succeeded. Yes, there is more to it than that, we are going to be learning how to love each other, and serve others, and build community together and learning how to understand the Bible, all of which are products of the gospel. But at the end of the day, the primary measure of my success as a youth pastor is whether or not you understand what the gospel is.” Hopefully till this day you could walk up to them and ask them, “What is the gospel?” and hear a simple short summary. Here it is, the gospel is this:
We are all sinners who stand under the judgment of God. But God in his grace has sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place on the cross and to rise again, that whoever repents and believes in him will be saved.

Grace Immediate (another poem)

2009-02-04T12:56:00.000-05:00

'What is Grace? Is It absurd?
Can It be touched, can It be heard?
Where do we find It? Where is It known?
Can it be held? Can It be shown?
Is Grace of God? Or is Grace of man?
Is It transcendent? Can it grip our hand!'

The world is darkened in need of You
Broken and fettered, so we ask 'Who
Are you oh Grace? Speak or we die
Vanquish us now, or comfort our cry!'

Then spoke a man of humanly face,
'I hear you my son, I am true Grace.
I am transcendent yet I am here,
Enclothed in flesh, dying all stare
Suffering for you I carry the cross
I have known anguish; I have known loss'

Could it be Grace, come as a man?
Grace to be held, gripping our hand!
You are true Grace, whom my soul seeks
Grace that can hear, grace that speaks!'

The Dissection of a Sin

2008-12-16T09:47:00.003-05:00

The other day, I found myself in an awkward situation. I observed a mini feud between two friends, and realized that I had unwittingly thrown myself in the middle of it. I knew I was in a place where I would appear guilty.

What did I do? I asked one friend to not let on that I took part in it, so as to relieve me of any appearance of guilt. Now, let me say, I wasn't guilty. At that point I had done nothing wrong, I just knew it would appear that I had to the other person. So, I manipulated the situation to 'clarify' my innocence.

What's the problem with that? A lot. I sensed it in my soul immediately.

First, my manipulation meant I didn't trust God to reveal my innocence in the situation. I trusted my own craftiness. I did not trust in God's sovereignty over all circumstances. This trust in self rather than God seems to be at the heart of a lot of my sin.

Second, I showed cowardice. Instead of being willing to face up to the situation no matter how bad it looked, and speak the truth no matter how awkward it seemed, I opted to take cover in secrecy.

Third, I encouraged my friend to lie. Though I did not ask him to lie, my manipulation led to a subtle lie on his part, that I was no doubt partly responsible for. If I had not chosen to be manipulative, there would have been no lie.

Sin is most dangerous when it looks friendly: “Sin comes to us, like Judas, with a kiss; and like a Joab, with an outstretched hand and flattering words.” (J C Ryle, Holiness)

I confessed my sin, first to God. Thank God that I have a mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Thank God that I have a Savior. I did not, indeed could not, try to earn forgiveness, rather I look to my only hope in life and death, Christ.

Then, I confessed my sin to another. This is simply a safeguard to my own heart. I looked to a trusted person and explained what I had done, without trying to defend myself.

Finally, I dealt with the situation and admitted guilt.

Why? What does all this matter? Because we love God, and sin displeases him. Because He is worth it. Because holiness matters.

New Members Class

2008-10-16T18:28:00.002-04:00

FBC entire new members class in now online. Use it for Bible study, for review, or to prepare for membership at FBC Haverhill

www.newmembersclass.blogspot.com

Thanks

Pastor Rick

A Travellers Choice

2008-09-22T09:37:00.000-04:00

A message for you traveler who’s not traveled so long
Some tidings I bring you, and present them in song
Soon the road takes a turn, and the turn grants a fork
You will need choose a path, a difficult work

You may choose the direction that is journeyed by most
You’ll find plenty of company, ‘A fine path’ they all boast
Or instead you may choose the path overgrown
Rare will be company, you shall go mostly alone

But a word I must give you, I advise you to heed
The outcome of the paths and the direction you lead
Young lad please consider, think carefully with haste
For one is toward life, and the other toward waste

If you choose the direction, where most have tread feet
The passage will be broad, it will be steady and mete
You’ll face little challenge and the adventure will be ease
Flattering tongues and wise men, will be not in the least:

“The journey you’ve set on, and now just begun
Will face good times many, in not long we’ll be done
There’ll be merriment and gladness and smiles to grin
There’ll be laughter and happiness and plenty of sin”

“The path is long approved, so join in the feast
Take life easy and lightly, let us revel like beasts!
Here take a drink and some meat, then a maiden or two
Soon we will be at journey’s end, and all will be through”

Little do they know that their way leads to sure death
They come closer and closer, as they draw each blind breath
There is anguish that way, I dare not speak of their fate
For O how wide is that road, and how broad is that gate!

But if you should choose the path so less often tread
The journey will be difficult and much harder to stead
There you shall find twists and there you shall find turns
No doubt there will be wounds and cuts and bruises and burns

You may find a friend, who will be more like a brother
As you stumble and tire, you must hold up each other
He will not flatter you, and you must speak truth to him back
You shall protect one another, and defend from attack

The journey will seem long, and the sun less often seen
You’ll get dirty and cold, and you’ll wish to be clean
Don’t misunderstand me, joy and contentment descend
But it comes down mostly, when fixing both eyes on the end

Then young lad don’t despair, don’t let your courage diminish
With each step you draw closer, with each breath towards the finish
And there you’ll find Him welcoming, to your Eternal abode
Through the small gate, at the end of the long narrow road

Silencing the Drums

2008-09-03T15:22:00.003-04:00

Jesus spoke of a horrible place called the Valley of Hinnom. By his time it had become a trash heap, used to burn unwanted waste, such as animal carcasses. The place was continually burning in order to keep disease from spreading, and provided a picture of judgement Jesus used to describe 'hell'.

But the Valley of Hinnom, or Gehenna, had a notorious history to it. Before it became a trash heap it was a center for the worship of the pagan god Molech. The things that went on there would be enough to make even the most insensitive squeam. Fathers would offer their children to be burned alive as child sacrifices. Of course what father could stand and listen to the horrifying screams of the child he offers up? But the priests had a solution to this problem. They would bang drums to drown out the screams of the innocent. It is enough to give you nightmares. The deafened fathers, the cold-hearted priests, the screaming babies. You can almost hear the sound of the drums...drums...drums.

What a crazy society. Isn't it great that we have progressed so far from such a savage world? Such a thing is unheard of today. Not in America. No way.

Wait not so fast. The drums are still banging, and the screams of the sacrificed are still being drowned out. This day 3,700 children are sacrificed before they even see the outside of the womb. 3,700 abortions. 3,700 child sacrifices in America. Molech would be more than satisfied. Though they are not offered to him. They are offered to a much greater god, the god of Self. A much greedier god. Where are the screams of these innocent children? Could the fathers bear such screams? No, they must be drowned out. They are drowned out by the priests of self. Drowned out by the drums. Can't you hear the drums? 'The right to choose', 'women's lib', 'unwanted teen pregnancies', 'planned parenthood', 'down syndrome babies'...drums...drums...drums.

It is not enough merely to overturn Roe v Wade, we need to reveal how wicked, abominable, vile, horrifying, terrifying abortion is. We need to reteach a basic principle that even the barbarians and savages knew: Mothers don't kill their babies. They love them. They protect them. They take care of them. Or, we can continually be apathetic, mesmerised by the sound of the drums.

Till We Have Faces

2008-07-09T10:05:00.004-04:00

I just finished a book by C S Lewis called Till We Have Faces. Some have said it is his best work. I might agree. It is amazing how shallow we have come to think about God today, compared to people like Lewis.

The book is a retelling of a Greek myth. In the myth Psyche, a beautiful young woman marries Cupid the son of Aphrodite. There are two parts to Lewis' retelling of the myth. First, is his argument against the gods. He said he had been thinking of this part of the book since he was a boy. Orual, Psyche's sister and virtually mother, loses Psyche to 'the gods'. The 'god' who Psyche is united with is mysterous: is he hideous or is he beautiful? Orual voices her argument against the gods:

“Do you think we mortals will find you gods easier to bear if you’re beautiful? I tell you that if that’s true we’ll find you a thousand times worse. For then (I know what beauty does) you’ll lure and entice. You’ll leave us nothing; nothing that’s worth our keeping or your taking. Those we love best—whoever’s most worth loving—those are the very ones you’ll pick out. Oh, I can see it happening, age after age, and growing worse and worse the more you reveal your beauty: the son turning his back on the mother and the bride on her groom, stolen away by this everlasting calling, calling, calling of the gods. Taken where we can’t follow. It would be far better for us if you were foul and ravening. We’d rather you drank their blood than stole their hearts. We’d rather they were ours and dead than yours and made immortal.” (Till we have faces, 290-291)

The second part of the book, is Lewis' answer to his argument against the gods. This part Lewis says could only put together after becoming a Christian. The 'speech' he is referring to is that honest recognition of who we are, how we have lived.

“When the time comes to you at which you will be forced at last to utter the speech which has lain at the center of your soul for years, which you have, all that time, idiot-like, been saying over and over, you’ll not talk about joy of words. I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean? How can they meet us face to face till we have faces?” (Till we have faces, 294)

Orual ends,

I ended my first book with the words no answer. I know now, Lord, why you utter no answer. You are yourself the answer. Before your face questions die away. What other answer would suffice? Only words, words; to be led out to battle against other words. Long did I hate you long did I fear you.” (Till we have Faces, 308)

Stuff Happens by Religion

2008-07-01T12:29:00.003-04:00

I loved this (yes I changed the word 'stuff' from an expletive)

Buddhism: If stuff happens, it's not really stuff.

Islam:If stuff happens, it's the will of Allah.

Hinduism: This stuff happened before.

Judaism: Why does this stuff always happen to us?

Catholicism: Stuff happens because you're bad.

T.V. Evangelism: Send more stuff.

Atheism: No stuff.

Jehovah's Witness: Knock knock, stuff happens.

Christian Science: Stuff happens in your mind.

Agnosticism: Maybe stuff happens, maybe it doesn't.

Existentialism: What is stuff anyway?

The Boston Celtics and life

2008-06-23T11:01:00.004-04:00

I'm a huge Celtics fan. Been one since I was a boy. This year was magical for me to see the Celtics win the whole thing. I'm glad the season is over, for the simple reason that I spent way too much time watching games (pre-season, season, and post-season). But I have to say I learned alot about life and ministry from watching the Celtics. I'm serious, this isn't a stretch either. In fact, Jess was telling me how happy she was that she could point to the Celtics as a model for sportsmanship in talking to our son. Here's a list of characteristics that I think the Celtics displayed that transfer over to other aspects of life:

1) Be willing to make big changes. The celtics were the 2nd worse team in the league last year until they made HUGE changes in the off season. They basically pulled a 180 in terms of their game plan and took enormous risks. Jobs, futures, big money, and whatever else was on the line, and they did it anyway. They took a lot of heat for it.

2) Leadership must lead. Sounds simple, but without KG the Celtics would never have won. No one, since I've been watching Basketball, has as much passion and intensity as KG. The guy would literally not sleep between games just focusing on what needs to be done. He's insane to watch (In my extremely biased oppinion, I think he was the league MVP). That set the tone for the whole team.

3) Teamwork, Teamwork, Teamwork. When Paul Pierce was injured in the first game, the coach turned to his players and said "That's why we play 12 guys". The reason why this season worked is because big egos were willing to play like a team instead of looking for their own glory. All their personal stats were down, but they ended up with the best record in the league and a ring.

4) Good coaching. Doc Rivers isn't the most masterful strategist. I found myself questioning him a lot. But what he is, is a player's coach. He has a good reputation with all his players. They love him, he loves them. He's straight forward with them. That relationship took them all the way to the Championship.

5) Hard Work. As the saying goes 'Offense wins games, Defense wins championships.' The difference, offense is hit or miss (excuse the pun), defense is all about how hard your willing to work. Ray Allen's work out ethic was so exemplary that Pierce decided to adopt it as his own. These guys starting working out together before the coaches even called them together. Allen shows up 2 hours before ever game I believe and goes through the same shooting routine. Hard work.

6) Humility. That word is seldom used in pro sports. But it was evident among the Celtics. After virtually every win the Celtics would respond the same way, "We saw some things we did badly, and we know we can do better." KG wouldn't take photos without Pierce and Allen with him, because he didn't want it to be all about him. They wouldn't insult other teams or players, even when asked point blank about them. In fact they would often comment on the ability or skill of their opponents.

7) Integrity. Doc Rivers (the coach) continually modeled it for his players. Stop arguing with the officials and play the game boys. When asked about the 'officiating scandal' Doc responded by saying 'I have know question about the integrity of our officials.' Pierce cleaned his bad boy antics up for the whole season. They were the class act of the league. (One criticism: KG and the F-bomb. It's pretty easy to read his lips)

8) Perseverance. Some personal struggles (Doc and his father's death) and some sport struggles. After struggling mightily in the first two rounds of the playoffs, they simply kept pressing on. Numerous injuries and they played hurt. Love it.

9) Respect for tradition. The players were constantly surrounded by old celtic greats like Bill Russell and Havlicek. Their response: respect. They would continually talk about what an honor it was for them to play for a team with so much tradition and history. These guys paved the way for the current generation.

10) Masculinity. They were a nitty-gritty tough time. Diving on the floor for loose balls, bumping hard for rebounds, and even getting into a few shoving matches time and again. I don't care for dirty players, but there is a time to man-up and stand your ground. The Celtics did that. They were a tough, strong, and grind it out team every game.

Every one of these is something that can transfer into other aspects of life, even ministry.

My attempt at fiction: A Parable of Ogres

2008-04-30T09:46:00.000-04:00

There once lived a group of ogres, ugly as can be. Their favorite past time was to laugh at how horribly ugly ogres look. They would mock their large humped back figures, their big crooked noses, their sharp yellow teeth, their long pointy ears, and their lime-green skin, which was covered with pimples. At times this laughter turned to all out ecstasy. The ogres would fall to the ground and laugh and cry and shake their heads with delight, all at the terrible and grotesque appearance of an ogre.

Then one day, in the course of his hunting, an ogre found a most peculiar object, which he reasoned came from the land of humans (a great feat, as ogres don’t reason much). He went to go show the other ogres and gloat about his new treasure. It was shiny and round and flat. But when the ogres looked more closely at the object, they began to see images and pictures of ogres inside the object. At first they began to fight over the little treasure, thinking it was magic. They yelled and grunted at each other to touch it and hold it. But ogres, being the type of creatures they are, could fight and laugh at the same time. So their laughing and mocking went on. In fact, the sight of the other ogres fighting over this shiny little object was even more humorous to an ogre than merely their appearance alone. Soon the whole tribe was rapturous with laughter. But then, one ogre finally got a hold of the object. He ran to be by himself so he could selfishly enjoy his new treasure. As he looked closer and closer at the image revealed in the shiny object, his countenance slowly changed. His laughter began to fade into a chuckle, and his chuckle faded into a smirk, his smirk to a frown, and so on. In a matter of a few minutes, the ogre was the saddest ogre in the woods.

When the other ogres finally found him, they decided to fight for the object once again, if for no other reason than to see the funny sight of ogres hitting each other for the shiny little object once again. To their surprise, the sad ogre willingly gave the treasure up. Desperately, the sad ogre had hoped that giving the treasure up would make him jolly again (a rarity, ogres don’t give treasure up too often). But afterwards he didn’t feel better, instead he felt even more gloomy and upset than before. The other ogres took little notice of him at first and as planned began to fight each other to hold the treasure. In time, one by one, they each had their turn looking into the shiny object by themselves with its images of ogres, and one by one they each slowly changed from his jolly delight to sad melancholy.

Finally, the last ogre, after becoming saddened by the object, tried to give it back to the others. No one took it. None of them wanted to see the images again. So the last ogre had a novel idea (very unusual, novel ideas don’t come easily to ogres). He would smash the treasure to little pieces and be rid of it once and for all. So the great big ogre took hold of the shiny little treasure and smashed it to a hundred pieces. At first all the ogres grunted and growled in cheer for the bravery of the last ogre. For a moment they celebrated as usual laughing and mocking at the horrible appearances of the others. They even thought the image of the one who smashed the mirror was the most funny and ugly thing they had ever seen. But alas, they looked upon the shards of the broken treasure scattered around the ground. And as each ogre looked upon the shards, he saw that each separate piece contained the same images as before. Of course (as humans know), being broken pieces, the shards were smaller and they were not as clear as the larger object, but nevertheless they revealed the same image as the original treasure.

From that time on ogres have been a grumpy sort of creature. They don’t much like laughing at each other, and they sure won’t stand for anyone laughing at them. Many ogres have clubbed each other to death over a little giggle, and rumor has it many humans have been clubbed as well. Since that dreadful day in ogre history, ogres have hated humans above all else for sending upon their tribe the curse of the Mirror.

Does Church History Matter?

2008-03-24T13:46:00.004-04:00

In a so called unprecedented age, where all of Christianity is re-inventing itself, and all of Christian doctrine is up for re-writing, one must ask the question "Does church history matter?" (Just to write this almost makes me cringe at how unbelievably near-sighted my generation has become!)

If we say 'yes it matters' too emphatically, the response will be "Why are you Protestants then?" Didn't Luther radically depart from centuries of theological teaching. One common criticism against Luther (and the Reformation) was "Can you alone be right and the whole world be wrong?" And, when Luther talks about Sola Scriptura, isn't he saying Scripture is all that matters?

A few things about Luther. First, his Sola Scriptura argument was not that Scripture is the only authority for the church, but that Scripture alone is the final authority for the church. According to Luther, there can be, indeed should be, lesser authorities, including pastors, doctors, and theologians of the past. Also, Luther himself was not a "My Bible and me" would-be-theologian. He was extremely well-versed in both Scripture (in which he earned a doctorate) AND church history. Luther did not see himself as departing from all of church history, but that part which strayed from Biblical faith. He would often use church history to defend his arguments, as did Calvin and all those who followed. Calvin himself was so well versed in Augustine that he would quote lengthy sections from his works from memory.

Now, having said that, here is the value of church history. I am one person. I read my Bible and come to certain conclusions based on what I know of the historical and textual context. You (my reader) are another person who does the same. For us to converse with each other may help us to see blindspots in each others thinking. What if we could multiply that by, say...a few million others throughout all generations of Christian history from every diverse background. Also, when I read the Bible, I find it helpful to consult an expert every so often, like a mature Christian friend or pastor. What if I could hear what theologians, philosophers, monks, pastors, and scholars have said about something for say...two thousand years? It is possible that we will discover something totally new, something that all of church history was wrong about, and we alone have discovered. It is possible, but not probable.

Church history is not authoritative in that it can tell us contrary to what Scripture tells us (in such case Scripture always wins), but it is authoritative in that it tells us what men and women (far more smart, far more faithful, and far more godly than I!) have thought of Scripture from generation to generation. Many of whom lost their lives because of their belief in it.

So, maybe instead of re-writing all of our Christian doctrine in this unprecedented age of reinventing the church (again cringing), we should humbly dialogue with the few million friends who went before and see if they have something to offer?

Emerging vs. Emergent

2008-02-08T12:51:00.001-05:00

The Main thing at FBC

2008-01-29T11:46:00.001-05:00

What would you want in a New Service?

2008-01-25T12:05:00.000-05:00

At FBC we are thinking about adding a new service, open to everyone but geared towards 20-30-40 year olds. The gospel remains the constant, but how are we to be all things to all men that by all possible means we might save some. What would you want to see happening in a worship service that would allow style to work towards gospel-centeredness rather than as a hindrance from it? Examples

1. Breaking into small group prayer, more chance for fellowship

2. Better use of technology

3. Question/answer times during or after the message

4. More cultural engagement --dealing with what's going on in the world

5. More ancient liturgy, candles, incense, better tie into history

Any thoughts, lay them out.

The 'Greatest' Theologian/Preacher/Christian Philosopher

2007-10-03T17:28:00.000-04:00

Heres a fun geeky little discussion for us. Who is the greatest theologian since the apostle Paul? Sounds too subjective, but there are some criteria to evaluate by:

1) Personal life - did his personal character reflect his convictions effectively?

2) Breadth of Influence - how wide and long has his influence effected the church and the world?

3) Depth of thought - How careful, biblical, and articulate were his works?

My vote to come...

John Piper on the prosperity gospel

2007-09-24T21:03:00.001-04:00

Total Depravity and the Imago Dei

2007-09-21T20:56:00.001-04:00

While I would agree that the doctrines of grace are axiomatic to biblical interpretation, I am curious as to the best articulation of Total Depravity. Total Depravity expresses the reality that all areas of life are tainted by sin. Since the Fall of Adam, natural man is entirely influenced by sin. This depravity is expressed in different degrees for different individuals. Thus the murderer and the mystic are both totally depraved, yet their depravity may exist in varying degrees of depth.

The question is, Does total depravity posit that no unbeliever will demonstrate a 'seeking' of God? (though never to find him outside of Christ). Does it argue that the works, thoughts, and art of the natural man are worthless in aiding us to know God? For example, can a pagan paint a picture that is 'God-reflecting'? Can an agnostic express philosophical truth clearly enough that it actually helps Christians to better understand God? Can a musician who knows nothing of Christ's atonement produce music that is valuable to the pursuit of knowing God?

Now, of course the typical cautions need to be explicit. The pervasiveness of sin is not the issue. Naturally man is sinful, rebellious, and treacherous towards God. To study any area of human existence without God is to study the ruin of the image of God, and I certainly wouldn't advise a Christian to delve deep into the teachings of Buddha or Bertrand Russell to know God more. That is not the issue. The issue is does this ruin mean 'worthlessness' or 'unworthiness'?

The apostle Paul can quote the OT "There is no one...who seeks God" (Ro 3)and he can say to the pagan Athenians "Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17) Explain the paradox...

A Thought about Thinking, a little tribute to Chesterton

2007-09-17T21:14:00.000-04:00

I have to offer another quote. Sorry, I've been reading GK Chesterton and I just love this guy. I'll try to supply the context after,

"...the modern man fancies he has reached supreme culture because he opens his intellect...There is one odd aspect of the man with this sort of open mind...it is that being thus gaping and helpless, he is really brutal and oppressive. he tyrannises; he forces on all other men his own insolent indecision. He forbids his followers to come to any conclusion till he has done so. He will allow no one else to find the truth...He is the worst tyrant that the world has seen; he is the persecuting sceptic. He is the man who has held up the whole world now for over a hudred years." (London Times Oct 16, 1909)

His point is very simple. One who tries to forever remain an 'open mind' is one who can never actually come to a decision. For example to be open-minded when it comes to say abortion, or euthenasia, or Reformed theology really means to never actually believe anything definitive about it. Once you do you become 'closed-minded.' And the one who demands others maintain an open mind really demands indecisiveness upon others. To maintain an open mind is to never close down on an idea, or theology, or viewpoint. It really is to detach yourself from the world of thought. Isn't it interesting that the ebbing flow of culture has taken something so compassionate sounding 'open mindedness' to mask something so bland and boring and dangerous as detachment?

As a side note --read GK Chesterton, you'll love him (probably)!

Abandon hope all who enter here?

2007-09-13T20:07:00.000-04:00

CS Lewis described hell, "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man ‘wishes’ to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved” (C S Lewis, The Problem of Pain). In other words, those in Hell would rather be there then in glory. I like the concept, but I'm not sure about it. Is hell a place where people are running further and further into God-forsakenness, or is hell a place where people are beating on the door of Heaven agonizing over their God-forsakenness? It's not a moot question: Do we present the gospel as a 'last chance' before eternal regret? Or is an unbeliever's rejection of the gospel a magnifying glass on the state of damnation of a soul which desires nothing else?

U2 Bono Speaks at the Harvard university part 2

2007-09-12T08:36:00.001-04:00

U2 Bono Speaks at Harvard University part 1

2007-09-12T00:15:00.001-04:00

Romney

2007-09-11T13:33:00.000-04:00

Looking for some pros and cons of Mitt Romney for president. Maybe you don't like his politics, maybe you don't like his mormonism. As 'evangelicals' should we be responsible to put the first Mormon president in the White house? Do we have the option of being 'religiously prejudiced'?

An Ode to time

2007-09-11T13:31:00.000-04:00

Time

Time is elusive, how would you define
That which is intangible, unheard, unsigned
It cannot be stopped, it will not be slowed down
Measure it we may, but heedless to bound

Time crashes on, like a raging tide
Undiminished by man along for the ride

Some try to waste it, others to kill it
Wise men redeem it, fools try to still it
The Old recognize Time’s fearful rage
Young wish to contain it with porous cage

Time marches on, like a soldier brave
Unwounded by men who eternity crave

Time turns an infant into a child
A child becomes a boy, reckless and wild
Boy will be man and man will be old
Then comes the death-dew merciless cold

Time races on like an athlete in field
Unfettered by man who to it must yield

Birth, life, death, sorrow, Time sees them all
‘You can not stop me!’ its harrowing call
Chase it you may, but soon you will fail
Vanishing, nimble, it hides in its veil

Time soars intently, like an eagle with prey
Unchallenged by men, by night or by day

Then comes a man, appears on the stage
Of history’s scene, humble and brave
‘Time, you will yield, but not by my might,
By the cross I’ll appease Time’s vicious bite’

Time slows down gently to see who does yell
‘My Creator, I hear you, and thus will dispel’

‘Man shall be free, from the anguish of time
Time will give way to grace so sublime
Eternity with Him, free from their hearts
For there I have set it, it never departs’

Time bows with submission content with a smile
Thank you my Master, might I rest for awhile?

Return to Rome?

2007-09-11T12:31:00.001-04:00

All right. Here is my first question to throw around to everyone: "Why am I not Roman Catholic?" (of course, if you are, help us understand why you are and why we should be(?)) Sounds like an easy question, but not so easy. Let me ask a few penetrating questions to get us going. These are all questions I've heard in different forms...

Does Christ not have only one church?
Does Rome not have the only consistent historical connection to the early church?
Did not Rome determine the new Testament cannon of Scriptures?
Does not Rome have what so many evangelicals lack: mystery, awe, contemplation, etc.?
One more, does our theology go asunder so irreparably?

Consider these Evangelical favorites: J RR Tolkien, G K Chesterton, and Mother Theresa. Are they not a sterling model of Christian imagination, thinking and service?

Hope this gets some discussion going.

Welcome to the Lamppost

2007-09-11T12:14:00.000-04:00

welcome to anyone interested in meaningful discussion about theology, politics, philosophy, history, and social issues. My name Rick, thankful to be the moderator. For full disclosure, I am an evangelical Christian pastor, mostly reformed theologically. I'm not affiliated with either political party but lean toward conservatism in the social issues. I'm a married father of two, white/Asian male, enjoy reading, rock-climbing, basketball, art, and ice cream. Looking forward to being challenged and challenging.