Pure Church

A well-done video (HT: Reformation Theology). I don't know if anyone has done any fact-checking on the claims. But the most shocking thing about this video isn't the rate of technological development but the comparative birth rate and population statistics.

Michael Lawrence, Associate Pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church, began this past Sunday a series in the book of Philippians. The first sermon, Cause for Joy (Phil 1:1-11), is excellent. I hope to hold this nugget closely over the next few days and weeks:

President Bush completed a rather interesting interview with ABC News about his personal faith. It's revealing. I found myself cheering and encouraged at points, and scratching my head at others.

The video is here.

Here's my question: When you listen to Pres. Bush on the whole, how different are his faith claims from Pres.-Elect Obama? What do you think?

Two things are easily mistaken for opposition;

Yea, three things are often camouflaged as enemies:

Disagreement;

Questions; and

Critique.

Flame is up for a Grammy! Denny has the details.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer takes up the issue of African-American churches fighting for relevance and effectiveness in inner-city contexts. See here for the schedule of articles. The series looks to be promising.

The first article points to the difficulty of traditional African-American churches attracting and reaching young people. The dynamic is an old one, the proposed solutions well-worn. But it's useful to think through these things again and to discern biblical from unbiblical or merely pragmatic.

A couple of stats from the article:

There is reason to hope young people can be drawn back. In the 2008 Pew Forum Religious Landscape Survey, 71 percent of black adults under 30 said religion is very important in their lives, compared with 45 percent of all respondents under 30.

Pew Research Center surveys of 3,600 black adults in 2008 found only 14 percent of respondents ages 18 to 29 attended church more than once a week, half the percentage of those 50 and older. In contrast, 43 percent of younger respondents went a few times a year or fewer, compared with a quarter of the respondents 50 and older.

Continuing the 'Dear Abby' spirit from yesterday, here are the final two questions from 'Who Needs a Senior Pastor, Anyway?':

3. Is the concept of "senior pastor" biblical? If so, where do we find it? I agree that there are leaders singled out among the elders, but is this one leader?

In your first question, it depends on what you mean by 'biblical.' Do we find the title itself in scripture? No, not that I'm aware. Do we find some patterns in Scripture or is the function a necessary entailment of some teaching in Scripture? I would say "yes."

First, as you point out, the Scripture itself makes the distinction between all elders and those elders whose job is preaching and teaching (1 Tim. 5:18). "Double honor" is "especially" owed to those whose job is preaching and teaching. So, it would seem that there is to be at least one elder who plays that role in a local church. There could be more, but there must be at least one. That person would be the "primary preaching elder" or what we popularly call the "senior pastor." But if there is more than one who serves well in the word as this text presumes, then is there any grounds for establishing one "senior pastor"?

Second, there are the historical patterns in the NT itself. The most frequently cited (and abused) example of this is Jesus' closer relationship with Peter, James and John, with Peter serving as the most frequent leader and spokesperson of the twelve). Alexander Strauch sees at least two other examples in the situation with the deacons in Acts 6 and in the relationship between Paul and Barnabas (whom Strauch regards as an apostle equal to Paul). So, there does seem to be some historical patter of "first among equals" in the NT itself.

Third, there are cases where a local church only has one qualified teaching elder for a given period of time. That's the case with both Timothy and Titus as the ministries are being developed in Ephesus and Crete. Until the eldership is really established and trained, and in God's kindness other teaching elders are raised up, Titus stands as the sole elder who must "straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town" (Titus 1:5). That could take years; in which case, you would have one senior pastor or teaching elder doing all of the teaching. And even after elders are appointed, there would be grounds for that man to continue as the main teaching elder since he'll be training the others.

Fourth, with the churches in Revelation, the Lord addressed the "angel" or "messenger" of those churches (Rev. 2-3). We know that Ephesus had a plurality of elders in place since the time of the apostle Paul. But the address goes to a single messenger rather than to the elders as a group. Apparently one main shepherd is to communicate the message of God to the people of God.

Fifth, Paul addresses his strongest charge to "preach the word" to a single elder, Timothy (2 Tim. 4:1-2). Anticipating a context where false teachers will abound and the people will want teachers to tell them what they want to hear, Paul calls on this one man to be faithful in the midst of all of that. This is a pragmatic inference, but I think there is much to commend a primary preaching elder when it comes to warding off error and focusing the people on sound teaching.

It's interesting--and I don't know what to finally make of it--but it seems to me that most often when the NT addresses elders as a whole (Acts 20:25-31; 1 Pet. 5:1-4, for example) the main instruction is not a call for all of them to teach (again, 1 Pet. 5:17 assumes that won't be the case) but for them all to shepherd or oversee or care for the flock. This is an inference, but when I compare the direct addresses to a single elder to teach (Rev. 2-3; 2 Tim. 4) with the addresses to the elders as a group to shepherd or oversee (Acts 20; 1 Pet. 5), there does seem to be a working assumption that there is one elder with primary teaching responsibility in the congregation.


4. What do you think of Alexander Strauch's (Biblical Eldership) position on this?

Well, I'm no Alexander Strauch. He's a better scholar and writer than I would ever be. While I'm mentioning him, let me plug his book Leading with Love. An excellent meditation on 1 Cor. 13 and Christian leadership.

In brief, as I understand it, Strauch considers Jesus' relationship with the three (and Peter's leadership among them), Acts 6 and the prominence of Phillip and Stephen among the seven, and Paul's relationship to Barnabas as arguments for primus inter pares (for a free on-line booklet see here). He calls for a primus inter pares based not on official office but based upon a kind of prominence that comes from superior giftedness and dynamism when compared to the others. There are two weaknesses to this view in my opinion.

First, none of the texts in view actually say that "first among equals" status is established according to superior giftedness. It's an inference that Strauch draws in consideration of the unusual giftedness and events involving these individuals. The text is silent on this matter.

Second, if we take this functional basis for primus inter pares we're inevitably left with a debatable subjective criteria for establishing this role. We have no consistent way of determining leadership of the leaders, or "first among equals." For example, in the case of Peter, Peter arguably is not the best leader given his quick tongue and nature. John, perhaps, would be more loving and therefore a "better" subjective choice.

What I do like about Strauch's approach is that it reminds us to not pigeon-hole any one elder as "the" leader on every issue. We should pay attention to gifting and unique suitedness for particular leadership roles and tasks as the elders jointly carry out the leadership of the church. Put your best man forward for the particular issue at hand. That's wise. And it keeps the church from relying too much on one man or imposing unreasonable demands on one man. We should keep this in mind, even if we would suggest a different basis for "first among equals."

are available over at UA. The resources are both written and video in some cases. Great stuff! I think I'll work through these over the course of 2009. Thanks Colin for an excellent service!

Excellent counsel from Bob Kauflin.

Do you think the same applies to preaching and preachers?

Mohler offers a very good review and critique of the Newsweek Magazine's new cover story offering a "religious" case for same-sex marriage. Excellent response as usual.

I'm in a "Dear Abby" kinda mode of late. Some folks have been leaving good questions, so I'm pasting them into a new post and trying to give some thought to them. Today's questions come from 'Anonymous'. (In good 'Dear Abby' fashion, let's call her/him 'Who needs a Sr. Pastor, Anyway'). They ask:

What percentage of pulpit time should be occupied by one primary preaching elder? What if several elders are gifted preachers? Is the concept of "senior pastor" biblical? If so, where do we find it? I agree that there are leaders singled out among the elders, but is this one leader? What do you think of Alexander Strauch's (Biblical Eldership) position on this?

Let's take the questions in turn over the next two posts.

1. What percentage of pulpit time should be occupied by one primary preaching elder?

The short answer is "it depends" on another of other questions. For example, how agreed are the elders on basic ministry and preaching philosophy? Does the sharing of the pulpit further splinter the eldership and/or the church? Is any one or more of the elders laid aside by the congregation primarily for the teaching ministry as full-time elders? Does the church have a vision for training up other preachers and pastors? How much respite does the main preaching elder need through the course of a year? Does the church support and encourage the main preaching elder in ministry commitments outside the local congregation (i.e., writing, speaking)?

All of these and more would be factors in determining how much the primary preaching elder might be in the pulpit. And, of course, the percentage could fluctuate from season to season. In principle, I would think it prudent that the main preaching elder be in the pulpit enough to: (a) establish the tone and direction of the teaching ministy; (b) shape the congregation theologically; (c) give clear direction to the church practically; and (d) meet his own sense of calling and responsibility for shepherding in the word.

Conversely, it seems prudent that the main preaching elder be out of the pulpit enough to: (a) rest and be refreshed spiritually and physically; (b) train and encourage other men for pulpit ministry; and, (c) allow other gifted elders opportunity to use their gifts and edify the saints.

The deeper and wider the teaching ministry in a church can be, while maintaining clear and consistent character and direction, the stronger the church will be. How that affects the percentage of time the primary preaching elder is in the pulpit will vary.


2. What if several elders are gifted preachers?

This is addressed in the comments above. Such elders should have opportunity to use their gifts and will strengthen the ministry when they do so.

But the question begs another question: Whose responsibility is it to manage the pulpit? An eldership needs to be clear about that responsibility. Some churches simply leave that to the primary preaching elder as part of his responsibility. Some churches "team teach" and so there is a level of group decision-making there. But even there, the 'senior pastor' generally leads or manages that process in some clear way. Whether managed by an individual or a team, the thing to watch out for is the development of an "entitlement" to preach or control the preaching ministry that undermines clear direction and sense of responsibility in the pulpit ministry.

Personally, it seems prudent that the management of the pulpit ministry be the responsibility of the primary preaching elder. There should always be input from other elders about the spiritual and teaching needs in the congregation, but practically someone needs to manage the direction of the teaching ministry. Also, if there is any significant level of planning for the pulpit ministry, you quickly find that you're managing 1,000 day-to-day details in order to complete the preaching schedule (who is available, what other observances are happening on a given Lord's Day, what is the main preacher's schedule, special days that "warrant" a certain speaker, outside speakers, and so on). If an entire eldership gets engrossed in those kinds of details it will grind to a halt for a period and probably significantly neglect other spiritual responsibilities. That's why there needs to be a practical distinction between the work of staff and the spiritual work of the eldership as a whole.

May all of our mundane moments be filled with glimpses of that life to come.

To be released in January 2009, John Piper's newest book, Finally Alive (Christian Focus Publications), is a must read. Nothing could be more important than understanding the new birth, and understanding it, being sure we've come into possession of it. And as a preacher of the gospel, few things could be more important than to preach in such a way as to make the necessity, urgency, and the reality of the new birth a vibrant reality for our people.

I was there when it happened. And it broke my heart to see it. In fact, I can't even write about it. So, just check out the details here.

1. When Tim plugs a book, the sales skyrocket.

2. More women read his blog than just about any other blog on the planet.

3. You read his blog and you feel really warm inside.

4. People try to rip off his book covers (see here).

5. More people subscribe to his blog than any other (and maybe even more than O Magazine)


But then there are reasons that Tim is completely unlike Oprah.

1. His love for the Savior.

2. His commitment to the truth.

3. His love for the church.

4. The utter absence of New Age, therapeutic self-help gurus.

5. His picture doesn't appear on the cover of all his posts.

A "Concerned Church Member" left this important comment and question in the comments section of this post. I thought it such a good question that I decided to make the response (probably not as good as the question) a post in itself. Below is the question, followed by my response. What say others out there? "Help a brother out!"

That's the question David Jackman of Proclamation Trust asks and answers in this excellent article. (HT: UA)

Colin has abstracted Jackman's pleas:

1. Get rid of the idea that we have to make the text relevant.
2. Go back and work hard on the text, to find out what it meant to its first hearers or readers.
3. Make sure the original context determines your contemporary application.
4. Set the passage also in its wider Biblical theological context.
5. Focus your understanding and purpose in key sentences.
6. Develop a clear programme.
7. Study your congregation.
8. Apply the truth to the whole person.
9. Make your language count.
10. Pray for the Holy Spirit to blow his life-giving breath through it all and to do the gracious and powerful work of which only he is capable.

Al Mohler has an interesting commentary on Michelle Obama's decision to be a full-time wife and mother as First Lady rather than continue in a professional career. Apparently, many feminists have objected that she is "letting down the team" by deciding to focus on her marriage and children while her husband assumes the most demanding job in the country.

Mohler applauds Mrs. Obama's decision, and I join him.

This election has brought with it so many assumption-overturning events that at some point we're going to have to seriously consider casting aside the old party lines and stereotypes. For instance, the conservative vice-presidential nominee, Gov. Sarah Palin, herself a mother of five children, holds the highest office in Alaska and was prepared to take the second-highest in the land. That's not what we expect of a "conservative" or "family values" kinda candidate. It's not what we expect at all.

And all the conventional wisdom on the "progressive" or "liberal" or "feminist" side of the aisle said that First Lady Obama would and should keep her hospital executive position, proving women can make the bacon and fry it up at home, too. But, to the chagrin of some, she has decided that marriage and motherhood trump salary and abstractly representing the cause of women everywhere (as though marriage and motherhood does not represent women).

Personally, I say "good riddance" to all the stereotypes and "hello" to another national model of marriage and motherhood. Perhaps we'll be able to actually reason rather than react with our economic though deficient assumptions.

For the past couple of days, it's been a blessing and joy to be with and serve the saints of Antigua and the Eastern Caribbean Baptist Mission, led by good brother and friend Pastor Hensworth Jonas.

The weekend began with a leadership banquet on Saturday night. There were three services on yesterday, with a delicious dinner between the morning and evening services.

The people here are well-taught, hungry for the truth and the word, and growing more and more evangelistic. Beginning with last evening's service, the fellowship of churches are committed to hosting four evangelistic services through Wednesday night. Last night we began with Eph. 2:1-10. Tonight, D.V., it's Romans 1:16-32. Tomorrow, Romans 3. And Wednesday, perhaps John 3:16 or Romans 5.

The people here have worked really hard to be sure family and friends are included in the services and their prayers. Between the circuit of three churches, average Sunday morning service is somewhere around 400. Yesterday attendance was 842 people, many needing to hear the Good News. Pray that the Lord grants lasting and abundant fruit!

His theology..? Well... let's just say... it's "impacting."



HT: Shane

Ed Gilbreath's post of The Soul Children of Chicago "took me back." So, all day I've been humming a favorite song that I remember growing up called, "Take Me Back." Here's the late COGIC Bishop Gilbert Patterson leading the congregation in that song before taking communion.



And after a song like that... the pastor would ask something like, "How many of y'all know... that since that day... all night and all day... the angel of the Lord has been watching over you? How many of y'all know that?!" Right on cue, the congregation would break out in response with something like "All Night, All Day." Here's Robert Turner:



We'd just be getting started good. The sister on the piano would keep tinkling dem keys, and there'd be a clamorous couple minutes of celebration... then, "Oh I Want to See Him!"



But even over the last couple days, I've been musing on another song I remember growing up. This time the Gaithers' "He Touched Me" (of course, we would have given a bit of reprise to it):

This is what he brings out for Thanksgiving. Thanks for taking me back, Ed!




Walt Whitman and The Soul Children of Chicago.

We're just about to wrap up some budget planning at FBC. I know a number of other churhces are in the same activity as we. And it's been interesting to hear and consider how Christians are connecting the economic woes dot with the giving dot.

Given the data, one can only conclude that many treasure this world and its coffers more than they treasure Christ. That they have not sold all and purchased this One Pearl of Great Price.

A couple have passed along articles I've found helpful as we've tried to address the questions we're sometimes receiving.

The Decline and Fall of Charity

Studies like those in Arthur Brooks' Who Really Cares routinely show that churchgoers, particularly conservative evangelicals, comprise the most generous slice of society, yet the generosity and volunteerism of these very people are at historic lows. Moreover, plenty of Americans inside the Church and out think the opposite is true; they take it as a given that charitable giving among the religious is happening at the pace it has in the past.

A Lot of Lattes: Stingy Christians in an Age of Opulence

This is a review of Passing the Plate: Why Americans Don't Give Away More Money. Here's a snippet from the review:

Chapter 2 outlines the dismal reality of what American Christians actually give. Twenty percent of American Christians (19 percent of Protestants; 28 percent of Catholics) give nothing to the church. Among Protestants, 10 percent of evangelicals, 28 percent of mainline folk, 33 percent of fundamentalists, and 40 percent of liberal Protestants give nothing. The vast majority of American Christians give very little—the mean average is 2.9 percent. Only 12 percent of Protestants and 4 percent of Catholics tithe.

A small minority of American Christians give most of the total donated. Twenty percent of all Christians give 86.4 percent of the total. The most generous five percent give well over half (59.6 percent) of all contributions. But higher-income American Christians give less as a percentage of household income than poorer American Christians. In the course of the 20th century, as our personal disposable income quadrupled, the percentage donated by American Christians actually declined.

I'm learning to listen to my wife. It's part of what it means to live with your wife in a considerate or understanding way (1 Pet. 3:7).

An anonymous visitor to the site didn't find the video I posted re: changes with the national coordinator of Emergent stuff very funny. The video used a movie scene featuring a distraught Adolf Hitler and his advisors in a bunker to parody the Emergent shake up. My wife didn't find it funny either.

So, I've removed the video. And, with sincerity, I apologize to all those offended by the video and its use of that scene to poke fun at Emergent leaders. Please pray that those offended would receive this apology in the spirit in which it's intended, and that I would exercise better discernment.

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus our Lord, who saved us from the holocaust of God's wrath, and made us wretches a holy nation.

Thabiti

It was a privilege to read an advanced copy and offer an endorsement of Michael Horton's new book, Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church. What I appreciated most about Horton's book is that he turned his usually sharp mind and insight to focus on a slate of errors that affects masses of Christians in the Church, instead of focusing on other serious but more academic challenges. In other words, the book helps us address our people about things that are breathed so plentifully in the Christian ecospace: prosperity "gospel"; moralistic, therapeutic deism; and subjective individualism.

Here's a video of Mike talking about the book and a pdf of the first chapter.

Also, here is the first part of that video of Mike discussing the book:



Discerning reader has a review here.

Horton confronts modern evangelicalism in terms reminiscent of J. Gresham Machen's challenge to liberalism in the 1920s. Both authors spotlight flaws that do more than distort Christian faith; they reject it. Horton's brush is broad--expect loud lamentation from the evangelical camp--but the picture he paints is largely accurate. His argument is convincing: therapeutic moralism has, in fact, found a home among evangelicals.

Christless Christianity makes an important contribution in defense of the centrality of Christ to vibrant Christian life and witness. Horton has ably helped us see the train wreck that is so much of popular Christianity. While others are legitimately concerned with errors originating in the academy, errors that excite the intellectual but few average pew sitters are even aware of, Horton turns his sharp mind to exposing the mass production of a kinder, happier legalism that robs the average Christian of the liberating joy of knowing the Jesus whose work is finished and never improved. A more important and timely volume could not have been written.

Christless Christianity establishes Michael Horton as the outstanding protagonist for classical Protestant orthodoxy. His wide-ranging and carefully researched examples show how our churches and megachurches have pandered to the culture with Gnostic, Pelagian, moralistic, and self-help heresies bereft of the saving action of Jesus Christ. He leaves us with a profound trust and a sure confidence in our biblical faith. What could be more important?

Many people find the Obamas inspiring. Even some of those most opposed to their political views have at times had to admit admiring this or that about President-Elect Obama. I know... I know... there are some who can't bring themselves to admit even one thing they appreciate about the Obamas. But, here's one way I hope I'm inspired by them. I need this inspiration and I have the waistline to prove it!

Oh, Lord, keep me from suffocating in comfort and coasting toward insignificance! Give me the zeal of Phineas and the radically cross-consumed vision of Paul! Don't let me coast and rust out! Please.





HT: Unashamed Workman

So, the problem with the "Mamas don't let your babies to grow up to be pastors" video (besides the "Silly Songs with Larry" feeling you get listening to it) is that it actually points to some things that make you say "ouch!" Well, that's not a problem. That's helpful.

I'm passing on this video courtesy of Tom Goodman at Get Anchored.

"Mommas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Pastors"



I'm gonna have to make a couple adjustments based on a thing or two that hit a little close to home. But the bit about not letting them buy "ole books" was blasphemy!

Dan Phillips over at Pyromaniacs has one very instructive response to a range of reasons and excuses for not being involved in a local church. The original post drawing the responses was "Why You Need to Be in a Church This Sunday." The advice he gives to respondents is: "move your 'but'." That's not a mis-spelling. To see what he means, check here.

At the Miami Pastors' Conference, one of the best things to experience is the genuine Christian fellowship and laughter. I laugh there and in Chicago at the New Life conference more than any place on earth. That's 'cause the bruthas are silly.

This past conference, Ken Jones, Michael Leach, and Anthony Carter grilled a young man about why he feels compelled to whoop. Now whoopin' is a staple of traditional African-American preaching. If you can't 'hoop, you can't preach. And don't let Leach fool ya; he's a 'hooper :-). Anyway, if you've never seen a preacher 'hoop, it's better to illustrate than describe. Here's a video for the uninitiated.

Now what's new to me in this video is the lady in the corner doing sign language for the hearing impaired. Ever seen a 'hoop signed??? She's smooth with it. Check her out as the preacher gets rolling!

I thought this was funny.... Laugh; it's Wednesday.

Trivia question: Who is the longest tenured African-American in the White House? A touching story from the Washington Post gives the answer.

One of the most frequent comments you're likely to hear following a Lord's Day service is "I enjoyed the service." Thankfully, we hear that a lot at FBC. It's good that people enjoy the service; enjoying the service is a lot better than not enjoying it. Could you imagine greeting people after the service and several folks walking by with, "I didn't enjoy that at all." "Wow. That was lousy." "Shoulda slept in and watched the game." "Woulda been better to go fishing."

It seems to me that singing and music have some distinct advantages when it comes to producing what is readily recognized as arms raised, eyes shut, tip-toe-standing enjoyment. First, we tend to sing a repertoire of songs, some of which are favorites. The repetition (though not too much) increases mastery and familiarity, and thereby helps the enjoyment. Second, the nature of music--with its harmony and melody--seem divinely created to arouse pleasure and joy. Even when we sing sad songs (the blues) there is an accompanying enjoyment. The sadness actually melts into an appreciation for that aspect of life and beauty. A third advantage of music and singing is its close relationship to entertainment in general. The goal of entertainment is to please the consumer, to excite and stir a lightness (usually) and subjective valuation. Because we love entertainment so much, and the basis of our enjoyment is largely subjective, and because singing and music in Christian services are of the same cloth, singing and music (assuming its at least average) are more easily enjoyable for most people.






To enjoy a sermon or prayer, it seems you really must enjoy:

Came across this comment at an otherwise interesting site: "the Church is looking at the Internet as a viable option for true Christian community." Church... internet... true Christian community. This gets the "You're kidding, right?" award for November.

Ligonier is making the video of the T4G conference available on-line for free Nov. 18-Dec. 5th. (HT: ThirstyTheologian)

Denny Burk and Ray Van Neste are asking for help to renew serious discussion about revising the ETS doctrinal statement. I'm not a member of the ETS, but from a distance this seems like a very worthwhile venture given how wide the doctrinal statement is currently. (HT: JT)

The Pyromaniacs are expanding my vocabulary. Today's word is "querulousness." Read here about how querulousness is the new honesty and why that's a bad thing.

Do you remember the "day off"? Had one of those lately? Colin points out 10 ways to ruin the day off.

Michael A. G. Haykin recently preached a chapel service at Southern called "Love for the Brothers," an argument for love as an essential mark of the church. I'm feeding my soul with that sermon today. Thank you brother Haykin! Much love!

This looks like a wonderful conference, "Commending Christ: The Pastor, the Church, and the Perishing." It's a focus on evangelism, something I've been trying to think about this year and to do more faithfully.

Piper's invitation letter deserved copying in full:

Dear friends in ministry,

As I preached my way through a series on the new birth recently, I was gripped in a new way with the place of gospel-telling in the way people are born again. The key text was 1 Peter 1:23–25: “You have been born again . . . through the living and abiding word of God. . . . And this word is the good news that was preached to you.”

The implications of this are massive. People are born again through hearing the gospel. The God-wrought, sovereign miracle that no human can bring about does not happen where the gospel is not heard and known.

And what is the gospel? Basically this: “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel. . . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:1–4).

Telling this old story is the means God has ordained for people to be born again. This strikes me as simply amazing. Words coming out of our mouths about events in history are the way God brings about the stupendous, supernatural miracle of the new birth.

So I have set my heart on thinking and praying and dreaming about the implications of these things with you at the Desiring God Conference for Pastors. What does this imply for our lives, our prayers, our priorities, our families, our church structures, our staffing, our worship services, our hearts?

We will gather this year under the theme Commending Christ: The Pastor, the Church, and the Perishing. The focus is on evangelism—telling the gospel.

I did not have to think long about who I wanted most to lead us in this thinking, namely, Mark Dever, Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church, in Washington, D. C. Mark inspires me with his personal engagement with unbelievers.

His new book The Gospel and Personal Evangelism puts his vision in writing. Just this morning, this book jolted me again (pp. 72–73): Telling my story (“testimony”) is not the same as telling Christ’s story. My story is not the gospel. Telling it is not evangelism. I am deeply thankful Mark will give the three keynote messages.

Meanwhile, I was listening (online) to Matt Chandler preach about the challenges of evangelizing church members who think they are saved but aren’t. I was moved by the insight and courage of what he said. Matt is the Lead Pastor at The Village Church in Highland Village, Texas. He has agreed to come and help us think about that issue in our churches—saving those who think they are saved.

Michael Oh is the president of Christ Bible Seminary and Institute in Nagoya, Japan. He has agreed to be bring global breadth to our theme from his strategic perspective in Japan, with its fewer than .25% Christians. When Don Carson heard that Michael was coming he wrote to me and said, “I'm so glad to hear that you have invited Michael Oh. . . . He is a remarkable young man, being used by God in ways that are wisely breaking all kinds of molds in Japan.”

In keeping with the theme of evangelism, I plan to do my biography this time on one of the most fruitful evangelists of all time, George Whitefield. Whitefield is long overdue for this kind of attention, and I am eager to immerse myself in his life and mind for my own soul and ministry. I pray that the overflow will be useful for you.

This conference is not mainly about technique or method. It is about becoming a certain kind of God-besotted lover of lost people. So I am eager to be together with you and to worship and pray and think and discuss these great matters. I hope you will come. The Great Room at the Minneapolis Convention center sounds like a mighty waterfall when 1400 pastors sing with all their hearts to the Savior they love.

The bookstore will be amazing. Conversation and prayer will be rich. Connecting with lovers of Truth strengthens the heart. We all be reminded that we plant and water, but God gives the growth (1 Cor. 3:6). And nothing done in his name is in vain (1 Cor. 15:58).

With affection and joy,


I would commend the conference and Piper's new book on the new birth, Finally Alive, when it's released.

Like a lot of people, I was struck by a comment that bro. John Piper made during a video interview commenting on the then-upcoming election. He listed abortion as one of the complicating factors for him during the election, an issue we all know he cares passionately about and is defining in his voting choices.

But what struck me was the comment in response to the oft heard concern that if we don't end abortion in the U.S. then God will judge the country. Piper replied, "abortion is the judgment of God against the country."

Now, that changes everything, doesn't it?

Romans 1:18 reads, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and the wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...." In verses 24, 26, and 28, Paul states that "God gave them over" to the sinful desires of their hearts, to shameful lusts, and "to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done." This wrath is being revealed against all godlessness and wickedness, and this wrath being revealed is the continuation in the wickedness and sin that suppresses the truth; it is God giving the unregenerate and unrepentant over to the very sins in which they delight (v. 32).

If the continuation of abortion in the U.S. and other places is God's righteous wrath being revealed from heaven, the question for me isn't which president or which judges are appointed. Not in the first place. Those things matter. But if I take seriously the truth that God's wrath is being revealed in the practice of abortion itself, the question becomes, "How do we turn back God's wrath?"

Presidential elections and the appointment of judges don't do that. Don't get me wrong. Those are necessary and important strategies in the fight. But they are secondary at best if what needs to be satisfied is the wrath of God.

If we take seriously the idea that God's wrath is being revealed in the continuance of abortion itself (and one might add, as Paul does: idolatry, homosexuality, envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice, people who are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant, and boastful, disobedient to parents, the senseless, faithless, heartless, and ruthless), our primary strategy and activity and hopes must be expressed in a faithful ministry of intercession and gospel proclamation.

It seems to me that every time the nation Israel went off the rails, the holy men of old did two things: They prayed and they preached. They prayed and they preached.

Consider how often Moses interceded on behalf of the people when their sin rose up before the Lord (for example, Num. 11:1-2; 12; 14; 16; 21:4-9). Moses deserves to be known as "Moses the Intercessor," and we should make diligent study of his life of intercessory prayer. Or consider Ezra's prayer for the people because of their sinful intermarriage with pagan nations leading to unfaithfulness (Ezra 9). When the people faced God's hot displeasure and wrath, the godly gave themselves to intercession in recognition of the fact that only God can relent of His wrath, and only His satisfaction makes such relenting possible.

Which brings us to preaching. Of all the things we must do, preaching the gospel and sharing the gospel and writing about the gospel and praying the gospel on behalf of those perishing in God's wrath must be primary. The gospel is that message of how God himself satisfies His righteous demands and wrath by the atoning sacrifice of His Son for the sins of men. Christ Jesus propitiates the Father. He satisfies the Father's wrath. And the Father raised Christ from the dead as proof that His satisfaction was met and sacrifice accepted. Now those in Christ Jesus by repentance and faith "wait for His Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead--Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath" (1 Thes. 1:10).

Indeed, "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation"(Rom. 5:9-11).

Never again ought a Christian act as though the appointment of a human official will stay the wrath and judgment of God. Never again ought we to act as though another mediator may turn away the Father's righteous anger toward sin. I don't say that we should abandon the work of appointing officials who will protect life. But have we not in some measure been acting as though some appointments could delay or stay God's wrath against ungodliness and wickedness?

I think we have. And, forgive me for presuming, but I think we need to repent.

And we need to begin the work of broken-hearted intercession and the proclamation of the Lord Jesus Christ who on Calvary's cross bore the wrath of God for all who will turn to Him in faith, fleeing the coming destruction and running to Christ our Refuge and Strength and Strong Tower and Ark of safety. We haven't nearly begun the Church-wide work of prayer and preaching that is needed to see the worldwide repentance and faith necessary to stay the coming and present wrath of God "against all the godlessness and the wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness."

I've read in a couple places Christians vowing to oppose Obama during his entire presidency. Forgive me, but I think that's misplaced energy. We need the bulk of our energy invested in beseeching the Lord of Glory to relent of His destruction upon the nation and to extend the work of His Spirit in the conversion of wicked men, including all those up to the president who have a hand in supporting this slaughter.

Our work is primarily prayer and preaching, intercession and gospel proclamation. Those alone will turn back the wrath of God. Let's get started.

People are rarely more aware of eternity than when they're on their deathbeds. This makes hospital visitation and visiting those who are sick a most important aspect of the Christian ministry. Yet, many pastors, sometimes myself included, would rather not be engaged in this vital work. We find ourselves awkward, unsure of what to say, hesitant about saying the wrong things--all of which are the after shocks of having our self-reliance exposed. If you're paying attention, hospital visitation is sanctifying in that way.

Yesterday, I had a wonderful evangelistic lunch with a young man who has been coming to church regularly. He is a transparent man with no guile. He mentioned that he sometimes reads the Bible and finds parts difficult to understand. This morning I'm reminded of two comments Grudem makes about the Scripture's clarity:

The New Testament writers frequently state that the ability to understand Scripture rightly is more a moral and spiritual than an intellectual ability: "The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts (literally 'things') of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor. 2:14; cf. 1:18-3:4; 2 Cor. 2:14-16; 4:3-4, 6; Heb. 5:14; James 1:5-6; 2 Peter 3:5; cf. Mark 4:11-12; John 7:17; 8:43). Thus, although the New Testament authors affirm that the Bible in itself is written clearly, they also affirm that it will not be understood rightly by those who are unwilling to receive its teachings. Scripture is able to be understood by all unbelievers who will read it sincerely seeking salvation, and by believers who will read it while seeking God's help in understanding it. This is because in both cases the Holy Spirit is at work overcoming the effects of sin, which otherwise will make the truth appear to be foolish (1 Cor. 1:18-25; 2:14; James 1:5-6, 22-25).

In order the summarize this biblical material, we can affirm that the Bible is written in such a way that all things necessary for our salvation and for our Christian life and growth are very clearly set forth in Scripture. Although theologians have sometimes defined the clarity of Scripture more narrowly (by saying, for example, only that Scripture is clear in teaching the way of salvation), the texts cited above apply to many different aspects of biblical teaching and do not seem to support any such limitation on the areas to which Scripture can be said to speak clearly. It seems more faithful to those biblical texts to define the clarity of Scripture as follows: The clarity of Scripture means that the Bible is written in such a way that its teachings are able to be understood by all who will read it seeking God's help and being willing to follow it. Once we have stated this, however, we must also recognize that many people, even God's people, do in fact misunderstand Scripture. (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, pp. 51-52).

After our really good lunch meeting, I returned to a pre-marital counseling session with a young couple, the young lady being a very young Christian. What joy it was for to hear her excitedly exclaim, "Everything I am called to do as a wife is so clearly written right here in Scripture! I didn't know that. This is all so new to me but it is all so very clear!"

Then in our evening devotions last night (John 8:21-39), my oldest daughter asked why the people didn't understand Jesus when it seemed so clear to her.

It all reminded me of Matthew 11:25-26 and 13:11-17, 34-35.

That's what you do in the Caribbean for about six months out of the year. You live with the prospect of violent winds and rains blowing over your family, home, and country. Though tracking models are helpful, they don't finally predict where the storms will go or what damage they may do.

This past weekend, Hurricane Paloma took a direct line for Grand Cayman. But on its approach, it tacked a bit east and instead rendered a direct hit to one of our sister islands, Cayman Brac. In God's matchless kindness, there was no loss of life. But about 90% of the buildings on the island were seriously damaged or destroyed. Most accounts suggest that this is the worst storm to hit the Brac since the 1932 storm which took life and property. Churches, government, and relief agencies are in high gear clearing the damage, evacuating victims, and restoring essential services. Pray for those in authority over us and those who serve in times of disaster and day-to-day.

How are Christians to think of such things? How are we to respond in the face of devastation? Those are the questions asked by many left dumbfounded by the storm and other major events in the life of the island. There was the recent scandal of a five-year-old girl sexually abused by two men. And there was the gruesome murder of a very popular women's rights advocate that shook everyone in the country. Over the past few weeks I've contemplated these things and the Lord keeps drawing me back to His words in Luke 13:1-9.

Two Disasters

In verses 1 and 4 Jesus responds to two major disasters. The Galileans were slain by Pilate and had their blood mixed with sacrifices. The tower of Siloam fell and killed eighteen people. In the former event, you have unspeakable moral evil perpetrated against others made in the image of God. In the latter, a seemingly random catastrophe not the moral fault of anyone in particular.

Jesus anticipates the question: Whose sin caused these things? And His response is direct and surprising. Of all the things the Son of God could have said:
1. A divine treatise on suffering;
2. A theological explanation of the Fall and its relation to natural catastrophe;
3. A treatise on how God appoints the times and seasons of men, giving and taking life according to His own inscrutable will...

He looks squarely at His audience and says "I tell you, No! But unless you repent, you too will all perish." Whether the evil is a gross moral sort, or whether the destruction seems to us random and unexplained, the message is the same: repent.

Why this one statement? Why repent or perish?

Well, I don't think Jesus means that the failure to repent is a sin that will cause in a one-to-one fashion a calamity to befall his audience. He's just finished saying that that is not the case with the slaughter of the Galileans or the tower in Siloam. So, he's not offering a cosmic retribution plan, or some kind of karma-repentance system.

And I don't think He is necessarily pointing to any individual sins in the life of the people before Him. Undoubtedly there are individual sins for them to turn from, but again there is not a 1-to-1 correlation here.

And I don't think He is saying that the exact same things will come upon His hearers, as though their failure to repent when they heard the news of the tower means they will one day find themselves in a tower that collapses and kills them. If that were the case, we'd expect that we all would have died a long time ago for our failure to repent when we learned of some gruesome event in the news or through friends.

Well, what does the Son of God our Savior mean?

What are we to learn and understand when calamity comes? How are we to interpret hurricanes, accidents on Russian nuclear submarines, the AIDS pandemic in Africa, persecution of Christians in Orissa and elsewhere, or the people of Cuba being struck by three sizable hurricanes in as many months?

First, our future may not be different from theirs. That is, suddenly, like a thief in the night, the unsuspecting and falsely assured may be overrun with the flooding judgment of God. We may be marrying and giving in marriage, we may be celebrating as though tomorrow is promised, we may be continuing in life thinking we have no need of God, when God shows up in a disaster.

Second, I think this repentance is a repentance from a general way of life, a routine-loving practical atheism. We journey through life making plans, making decisions, and taking actions as though the world will continue and God need not be consulted. We take for granted that catastrophes will not happen; we presume upon God their our lives will be "normal." And our "normal" lives are so often lived without a conscious and abiding awareness of God and our dependence upon Him. I think Jesus is calling the people to turn out of that old way of self-reliant idolatry into a life of faith. A life where in all our ways we trust and acknowledge Him, and He directs our paths. A life of walking by faith, not by sight. It's a complete and consuming turning.

Third, Jesus is calling us to a life of fruitfulness. That's the point of the parable in verses 6-9. See the landowner's patience and forbearance with the unfruitful tree as the farmer intercedes. So it is with all those on whom calamity has not yet fallen. God has been gracious and patient. Intercession on their behalf has been given, and the Father extends yet more time. Yet not without limit. Verse 9: "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down." One day the Father's patience will have reached its full, and then comes His righteous judgment--suddenly, like a thief in the night. So, before the dawn of that day, all men everywhere are called to bring forth fruit worthy of repentance, to enter as branches into union with the Vine and bear fruit that remains. A life disconnected from the Source of all life, disconnected from Christ the King, is a fruitless life not worthy of the soil its planted in (v. 7). So, repent and enter into fruitful life with and in Christ.

The calamities we see around us are inbreaking calls to repentance and a life lived more fully aware of God and His mercy. Luther pointed out that the Christian life is a life of continuing repentance, continuing turning to God. And one means God uses to issue that call is calamity. And if we heed such troublesome events, then we'll find daily reminders to turn afresh to God with a full heart.

Some thoughts on how to turn calamity into a more consciously-dependent and joyful walk with God.

1. Let the news of terrible events cause you to stop. I'm really troubled with my hard heart in the face of such news. If you're like me, you may say, "Oh, that's a shame," or "Oh, my Lord" when you hear of disastrous news. But then you may move on with your life moments after uttering such words. There may be little feeling, or fleeting feeling, attached to your recognition of the disaster. I need to stop and meditate upon the pain, loss, suffering, and agony of a husband who just learned his wife is the brutally murdered and charred remains found by the police. I need to stop and try to feel and understand what it must be like to have winds rip the roof off your house, rains pour in from above, and five feet of sea water rust through below. What must it feel like to come out into the sunshine the morning after the hurricane and see your entire country tossed like so much litter all around you? For calamity to work repentance and fruit in our lives, we have to first feel them. So, we have to stop and ponder.

Obviously, we can't stop at every event, else we be emotionally paralyzed. But there are enough around us each day to consider and benefit from spiritually. So we really stop at any of them?

2. Let the disaster humble us. It's a cliche but it's true: "There but for the grace of God go you or I." There's nothing like a threatening hurricane to prove the truth of this. Often we pray the Lord would turn the storm. And often He does. And when the storm passes we're then aware that it turned toward another country, another people. Our sense of relief is mixed with pity and sorrow for others. There but for the grace of God. But if we're to benefit, we have to move beyond the cliche and humble ourselves before the Sovereign Ruler of the universe. We must search ourselves for self-reliance, willful pride, practical atheism. We must commit to God our lives and plans afresh. We must banish the thought of entering into the day or living throughout the day without the Lord's leading, ruling, guiding, providing, protecting, securing, blessing, strength, and joy. If we stop long enough, calamities may break the back of our pride and send us afresh to God in joyful dependence.

3. Let the disaster point us to Christ Jesus, His work and grace. There is no suffering that Christ has not tasted. He is not an unsympathetic High Priest. Rather, He is the Great High Priest who has entered into our flesh, taken up our lives, been tempted in every way as we have yet without sin, and tasted death for every man. Have we been touched by murder? So has the Father as He watched His Son--yes, gave His Son!--to be murdered by sinful men. Have we been touched by homelessness? Christ Jesus, the one who upholds all creation by the power of His word, entered His creation with no place to lay His head, even though foxes and birds did. He lived a vagabond life, His family on the run from a king who would kill babies, and He dodging the murderous plots of religious men until His time had come. And what abandonment and suffering as He bore the Father's wrath in the place of sinners on Calvary's cross. Can there be a greater disaster than the Son of God's execution? But then He rose! He defeated death and the grave, the Father accepted His sacrifice on our behalf, and we through faith have been united with Him in death and in resurrected life. The disaster was the signal event pointing to His triumph! When Jesus say "repent" to questioners inquiring about indescribable disaster, He is preparing them and us to see God's redemptive triumph in the "disaster" of the cross. He's preparing us to recognize in His sacrifice our need to turn from the old life of sin and enter into eternal life of love with Him.

4. Let the disaster cause you to tell others the Good News. The gospel isn't' meant to be bottled in our hearts and minds and placed in a wine cellar for select use on special occasions. The gospel is meant to be poured in earthen jars and offered to all the thirsty. What will we do when we stop long enough to feel the pain of tragedy around us? What will we do when that tragedy humbles us and brings us to God in repentant dependence? What shall we do when we look upon our Savior the resurrected Lamb and His work for us? God be merciful to us if we don't explode in gospel love onto those around us! This good news of Jesus Christ crucified for sins and raised to life should cause an explosion that leaves gospel debris all over our neighborhoods, workplaces, family and friends. We are to go serve as ambassadors and relief workers--not for the Red Cross or Samaritan's Purse, as wonderful as those groups are. We're to go serve as ambassadors for Christ, bringing relief from the King of kings and announcing a kingdom whose foundations cannot be shaken, against which the gates of Hades will not prevail, and into which the repentant and believing may have abundant entrance.

For several weeks, it's been all presidential politics, community organization to fight violence against women, and a host of other earthbound things. And though we haven't known it and wouldn't have asked for it, we've needed a reminder to turn to God. May the Lord help us to repent at calamity, appropriate the good news with a fresh soft heart, and give to everyone we meet.

Eric Redmond's thoughts here.

When history was made with the election of America's first African-American president?

I was in an elders' meeting until about 11:45pm and missed all the election night activities. I think perhaps my time was better spent than most. But for those like me who missed the presidential acceptance speech, a video of the full speech is here?

So where were you when Sen. Barack Obama became President-Elect of the United States?