Two wonderful quotes to make you think.

“to balance orthodoxy (right beliefs) and orthopathy (right affections) and orthopraxy (right actions). . . these are the three movements of the healthy, growing spiritual life. This balanced path of growth—changing the mind and heart in order to change the outward actions—keeps us from the deadly trap of self-deception in which we believe, but do not grow, in Christ.” (Bruce Demarest, Satisfy your Soul (Colorado Springs: NavPres, 1999), p. 29.)

The deepest kind of transformation takes place in us when we become so deeply impressed with God and His purposes in and through our lives that our will, our volition, becomes engaged in the process of change and growth. (Richard Averbeck)

Saturday morning reading.

Over the past couple of weeks my reading focus has been on theological issues and the book of Romans. So this morning for my Saturday morning reading, a change of pass.

I received a free copy of a book in the mail this week. You know the kind of book I’m referring to–the perfect 21th century North American short attention span book. A small hardback book that seems to have more pictures and pages than words.

Well this one is worth the read.

Making Ripples by Mike Breaux

Basically Mike Breaux using his journey to encourage others to make a difference. I found it enjoyable, encouraging and motivational.

Two points.

First, the author reminds us that we are living in the “whatever” generation. That is, people have been taught and too many believe that they came from nothing, are going back to nothing, “So basically everything in between is just kind of, well, nothing.”

“If that is true, then there is no destiny; there is no purpose. And if there is no purpose, there is no truth. If there’s no truth, then there’s no right, there’s no wrong, and we all just kind of show up accidental-like and we float around on a breeze all the way through our lives. We make up the rules as we go.” (p. 18)

This leads to a “whatever” mentality to life.

And that’s where the second point comes in.

If we live among people whose world view is “whatever” and they face difficulties, their world view doesn’t have answer. But we do.

We should live our lives with the view to “wherever.”

This reminds me of the card that George Murray gives out regularly at missions conferences and that serves as the motto for the air force airlift wing.

Anything, Anywhere, Anytime–A great motto for a disciples of Jesus Christ

Breaux goes on to tell stories of people who have surrendered their lives to Christ and allow Him to use them to make an impact–Make Ripples in other peoples lives, with the intent that they to will make ripples. (Reminds me of the movie, “Pay it forward”)

Great reminder that everyday we come in contact with people. Am I making positive ripples? Am I encouraging those who need to be encouraged? Am I sharing the grace and love of God?

A passion for God, should naturally lead to a passion for people–lost, hurting, needy people.

Let’s go make ripples! And let’s share the stories of ripples made to continue to encourage each other that God is still working and moving and doing wonderful things.

Through Surrender
No short cuts
No formula
No bypass

Through Surrender
Not solo
Not easy
Not by effort but with discipline

Through Surrender
No pride
No fear
No blame

Through Surrender
Not fake
Not instantaneous
Not for me alone but for others

Through Surrender
Captured by His Glory
Amazed by His Grace
Grateful for His Goodness

Through Surrender
Compelled by His Love
Empowered by His Spirit
Engaged by His Word

Through Surrender
Astonished at His Greatness
Satisfied in His All-Sufficiency
Yielded to His Sovereignty

Through Surrender change my heart

©Stephen C. Kilgore

Thinking Theologically–Part 2, (this could be like the Rocky movies, many many sequels)

In Romans 1:18-32 Paul moves from declaring that in the Gospel the righteousness of God is revealed, to declaring that the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness.

There are a number of theological and practical issues raised in this passage, but none more important than the role of God’s self-revelation and man suppression of truth (1:18).

Thinking theologically always starts with thinking about God. Every area of theology is impacted by our view of God and our view of man. Getting our theology of God right is the first step toward orthodoxy. And this passage shows that it is the first step to orthopraxy as well.

Paul states that God has revealed Himself plainly. That God has show Himself through His creative work. He has shown that He is powerful (eternal power) and divine (divine nature) (1:19-20). But not only has he revealed that He is the powerful creator, Paul states that God has revealed His righteous standards–his requirements and consequences (1:32). That is, God has revealed Himself in the grandeur of creation and in the conscience of man.

But in between those two passages we see what man has done with God. Not only suppressed the truth, but foolishly exchanged the natural for the unnatural–rather than worship of God man has turned to idolatry and immorality and all forms of wickedness.

And it started with what man thought of God.

It is interesting that this is not only true in a “pagan” culture where people actually make images of physical things into idols, but also in a sophisticated culture were we replace God with a myriad of idols–personal image, popularity, prestige, power, possessions, people, leading to passions out of control.

But it all starts with God. Is He the all-powerful creator, ruler of all? If He is, then he sets the standard. Or better, He is the standard.

But our correct view of God not only affects our actions but our belief system. And vice versus, our belief system affects our actions. So getting our view of God correct is a priority.

As here in Romans 1, so also throughout the Old Testament, our understanding of God starts with an eternal all-powerful creator who is distinct from creation but involved with His creation. These basic truths require us to acknowledge that He is in charge. He sets the rule. He sets the consequences.

And while He doesn’t seem to mind being questioned (on His rules and consequences), He will not be ignored. God must always be at the center. He is the starting point.

We live in the age of busyness. A couple of years ago I made the observation that when I first entered ministry when I would ask someone, “How are you doing?” They would politely respond, “Fine.” Now when I ask someone, “How are you doing?” People are more likely to respond, “Busy.” And I find myself, too often, responding the same way.

Our society, and unfortunately we as Christians also, have made “busyness” a virtue. Somehow we have accept the notion that the one who is busy or better, harried is somehow more important. Busyness, while not equal to productivity, has become a value. We don’t want to appear to be “lazy.” We even have aphorisms that teach us, “If you want to get something done, find a busy person.”

I admit, it is easy for me to say “yes” to too many activities. So how do you decide?What is it that invigorates you?

What is it that drains you?

We’ve begun to have the discussion in our home.

When trying to plan the use of our time and which activities we involve ourselves in, it is not always about right versus wrong, but about better or best. And when the event is a choice (not required by one of our commitments) how do we decide?

One way we look at those choices related to “draining or invigorating.” Different personalities are invigorated by different kinds of involvements.

Some people are energized by time with people, others are drained.

Some people are energized by activity, others drained.

Some people are energized by solitude, other drained (or go crazy).

Some people are energized by physical activity, other well, as Winston Churchill is infamously quoted as say, “When I have the urge to exercise, I roll over until it passes.”

Knowing what energizes us is not the only means of determining what activities we should be involved in–values, missions statement, time for personal growth are better–but it does help.

What is hard is when those around us are energized by different things and can’t understand how we may see a certain activity as draining.

I’ve very glad my wife and I have a similar perspective.

Questions about thinking theologically

Do we know how to think theologically?

Do we know how to teach others to think theologically?

What’s the difference between indoctrination and teaching?

In an ever changing society how to each teach so that people are able to engage society with boldness yet humility, with clarity and integrity, honesty and thoughtfulness?

During the second half of the 19th century and into the first half of the 20th century as the modernist controversy was being waged, people crossed denominational lines and banded together to help people understand what “The Fundamentals” were. This lead to essays (90 of them from my count) that were send to 3 million pastors and teachers between 1915 and 1920, leading to the publication of a 4 volume set by R A Torrey entitled, “The Fundamentals.”

These essays dealt primarily with 5 fundamentals:

1. The inerrancy of the Scripture (the autographs)

2. The deity of Jesus Christ

3. The virgin birth (Jesus true humanity)

4. The substitutionary death of Christ (atonement)

5. The body resurrection and second coming of Christ.

This list was not intended to be the sum total of theology, but key issues that were being challenged in day. As with most of our theology, it is not developed in a vacuum but in response to a challenge the church is facing at the time. And while these 5 issues had been addressed and developed into doctrinal statements prior to the modernist controversy, the controversy caused them to be re-explained.

Are they the only essentials? No, I don’t think so. There is no mention of the nature of God in this list–that was not at issue. Today, there are a number of areas being challenged (see my current/developing list).

To answer the question of essentials or fundamentals, we need to ask a number of other questions, or rather look at the issue form a variety of angles:

1. What is necessary for salvation? That is, what must a person know and believe to be saved?

Most would agree this should be a short list. But is that the sum total of the essentials?

2. What is necessary for orthodoxy? That is, what must be believed (agreed to) in order not be be considered a heretic? What does Scripture delineate as priority?

Over which items of theology will I separate from other believers (personally or as a church)? Realizing that throughout the history of the church individuals, churches and denominations have separated or divided over a multitude of issues, many I think are insignificant.

What areas of commonality are required for me to have fellowship, true biblical communion with other believers?

Over what areas am I willing to die (absolutes)?

3. What is distinctive about my believe system? That is, not only what do I take as foundational or essential, but what issue do I have conviction about that makes my system cohesive and therefore a system not just a set of beliefs. How do I evaluate my system on an ongoing basis?

4. How honest am I with my convictions and beliefs? Can I distinguish the essential and non-essential based on degrees of certainty? Are there things in my theological system that I hold as true with absolute certainty? Are there issues I believe and hold to be true, but due to the amount of information or clarity within the Bible, with a lesser degree of certainty? How does that affect my convictions? And do I understand the strengths and weaknesses of my convictions when they are less than certain?

To answer these questions requires personal study of Scripture. Personal conviction. The question isn’t just “what does my church believe” but what do I believe.

Thought?

John 3:16 Simplicity and depth.

My family has the opportunity this summer to travel with a group of teens from our church to the Dominican Republic for ministry.

One of the elements of training, along with a global mission perspective and cultural sensitivity, will be to train each students to share their faith. One of the simple tools uses it the “one-verse” method using Romans 6:23.

But as I was reading a blog this morning, the author (see below) talk about the depth simplicity and depth of John 3:16. And since one of the goals of Fluency is to help equip and encourage people to think biblically, theologically and to communicate those truths practically into culture and particularly in relational contexts–I wanted to pass on this reminder of the simplicity and depth of God’s Word.

What follows is from one of the blogs I’ve started reading, The Scriptorium.

John 3:16’s Systematic Theology

Fred Sanders
Theology
05.14.2007

You can wave it on a banner at a ball game or print it underneath your In-N-Out cup; John 3:16 is one of the most famous verses in the Bible. No matter how often I see it, no matter what kind of knuckle-head has stuck it to their bumper, no matter how isolated it is from its context, it always gets me. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” This verse has everything.

Start with the little word “so.” It’s actually the first word in the sentence in the original Greek of John 3:16. It’s a great big pointer word. Its primary meaning isn’t “so much,” but “in this way,” or “thus.” The verse doesn’t say “God loves the world so much that he sent his Son,” rather it says “Look at this, this right here is the way God loved the world: he sent his Son.” God loved like this! As a pointer-word, “so” directs your attention like an index finger toward a thing so unparalleled and singular that all we can do it look and learn. And it points to a past action, an event already accomplished. Think how much we lose when we unconsciously dumb this verse down to “How much God loves the world” (present tense, emphasizing magnitude) rather than what it wants to show us: Here is how God loved the world!

If you do follow the pointing word to the recommended object of attention, you see vast expanses of doctrine opening up in front of you. God is in action here: He loves, he gives, he saves the perishing. J. Sidlow Baxter wrote a whole book on this verse, published under the title The Best Word Ever (and released in America as God So Loved). Baxter noted that this Best Word Ever contains at least ten vocabulary words which could practically stock a Christian understanding with everything it needs: (1) God (2) Loved (3) the World (4) Gave/Gave Over (5) Son (6) whoever (7) Believe/have faith (8) Perish (9) To Have/ Possess (10) Life. It would be worthwhile to expound on the biblical meaning of each of those words, but I would like to do something else: show how John 3:16 carries an entire systematic theology within itself, implicitly.

Consider the doctrinal loci in a traditional order:

The Doctrine of Revelation: According to John 3:16, God has made this love known to us in a mighty act of salvation which we should pay attention to. In John 3, Jesus has just told Nicodemus that he has heavenly things to declare, because he is the one who has descended from heaven and gives testimony about what he knows for certain and has seen. One of the heavenly things made known in John 3:16 is that God has an only Son, which is big news. And he has made this known especially in Scripture, which brings us to…

The Doctrine of Scripture: Jesus is arguing from Scripture, citing the book of Numbers (”as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up”), affirming the unity of Old and New Testaments, and implying with regard to the Old Testament its historical veracity and its openness to typological interpretation. There’s something here to offend everybody, so take your pick. To top it off, have you ever noticed that it’s not clear who is the speaker in John 3:16? Translations all offer their best guess about where the quotation marks should begin and end in this conversation with Nicodemus. Jesus may well be the speaker, but the narrator of the Gospel may also be intruding his voice here (as he does elsewhere). You may object that it doesn’t matter who is speaking, and you may be right. But the only way you’re right is if the voice of God sounds forth equally in the words of Jesus as in the words of his apostolic evangelist, if “what the Scriptures say, God says.”

The Doctrine of God: The message of the verse is about the universal love of God for the cosmos, which only makes sense with a strong doctrine of creation in place (insert an implied doctrine of creation here). This God is an intervener, a wonder-worker, a healer of his chosen people. He is a judge whose wrath threatens destruction, and a savior whose love brings life that has no limit short of eternity. Eternity is his. He is also the kind of God who has a unique Son, meaning he is God the Father –not “father” with relation to a world which is his offspring, but Father with relation to a Son who is unique, only-begotten (whether the word “monogenes” is best rendered that way or not), and so intimate to the Father’s being that he is give-able. Like all the best Christian theology, John 3:16’s doctrine of God leads inexorably to…

The Doctrine of Christ: In systematic theology, it is traditional to divide the doctrine of Christology into two major sections: 1. On the Person of Christ, and 2. On the Work of Christ. John 3:16 includes both. It teaches that Christ is the unique Son of God (that is his person) and that he is given for the life of the world (that is his work).

The Doctrine of Sin: Within 3:16 itself, a very dark shadow is cast by the “giving” of the Son which is parallel to the lifting up of the bronze serpent in the wilderness. What human situation is presupposed by this giving and this lifting up? If this is the solution, what must be the problem? And the following verses make the nature of sin an explicit subject of description: “This is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” Sin is a particular kind of culpable ignorance, a suppressing of the truth by those who know better because they know where the light is and what it will show.

The Doctrine of Salvation: In this verse, it’s wall to wall soteriology. The Father and the Son have worked out the way of salvation, and it is a plan wherein people will be saved by looking up. Just as the serpent in the wilderness was lifted up, Jesus Christ will be lifted up and we will look to him and be rescued. Somewhere in the tension between the universal scope of “the world” and the particular results among “whosoever,” salvation reaches the chosen. It reaches them by faith in the Son, and it has the character of life. Look how God loved!

The Doctrine of The Church: If the previous doctrine was too easy to find because it is so pervasive, this one is hidden or absent. I just can’t find much ecclesiology in John 3:16. If you find some, send it to me. No fair importing the ecclesiology of the whole book of John.

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: The only way to find pneumatology in John 3:16 is to dig in your heels and swear that it’s hidden in the word “believe.” Doctrinally speaking, I would in fact insist that saving faith is only possible where the Holy Spirit is at work within the believer. But exegetically, even I am willing to rein in my interpretive acrobatics at this point. It cannot be insignificant, however, that John 3:16 is prefaced by Jesus’ admonition that “what is born of the flesh is flesh, but what is born of the Spirit is spirit,” and that ending the section we have the remarkable statement: “He whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.”

The Doctrine of Final Things: Eschatology is here in John 3:16’s stark alternative between perishing and having eternal life. These are final and irreconcilable. Another kind of eschatology is recognized in the past tense of the verbs “loved” and “sent,” which show that God has already acted decisively and finally to bring about salvation. Between those accomplished past tenses of God’s determinative action on the one hand, and on the other hand the future tense of the life which believers will have and which those who perish will not have, we have the present moment when Jesus is telling Nicodemus that he must be born again.

Daniel 9 is best know for the prophetic picture it paints. But one of the most amazing, convicting aspects of the chapter is Daniel’s prayer.

In response to the study of God’s Word as revealed through Jeremiah (verse 2), Daniel begins to entreat God to do what He said He would do. He acknowledges the sin of his people–specifically identifying that that they sinned against God by not obeying the law or listening to the prophets. Without making excuses or complaining he confesses and acknowledges God’s right to judge.

After the confession he turns to his request.

The tone of the request is urgent, bold, direct and passionate. Probably more urgent, bold, direct and passionate than I have ever prayed. But the boldness is not so much about the circumstance but God’s reputation. He calls on God to fulfill His Word and restore His people to His city for His own names sake.

Daniel’s main concern was God’s own reputation.

That ought to be the focus of all our prayers. Whether we are praying for someone’s healing, protection, strength through a difficult situation–whatever, the focus ought to be–God’s own reputation. How can God receive more glory, be more highly esteemed through the situation?

So, may the prayers we prayer be first and foremost entreating God to make Himself look good. That His name and His reputation be exalted.

You can read the passage below (you might what to read the whole chapter).

Daniel 9:17-19

17 Now therefore, O our God,

listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy,

and for your own sake, O Lord,

make your face to shine upon your sanctuary, which is desolate.

18 O my God,

incline your ear and hear.

Open your eyes and see our desolations, and the city that is called

by your name.

For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness,

but because of your great mercy.

19 O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not,

for your own sake,

O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name.” (ESV)

(I was going to title this, The Church, Theology and the ETS President’s conversion to RCC, but it grew)

Over the last several months (more intensely this past month) I have been doing some reading and study (not nearly enough of either) and have become more concerned over not only the biblical illiteracy that I see but theological illiteracy. And then Sunday night I read that Dr. Francis J. Beckwith, the current president of ETS had just converted (or in his case converted back) to the Roman Catholic Church (you can read it in his own words and the ETS response)

So, rather than simply being concerned, I decided to try to start cataloging some of the areas I am concerned with:

1. the average attendee knowledge about God—some are functional Open Theists, others so rigid in their focus on sovereignty that they question even a challenge to pray

We often challenge people to live for the glory of God, but do they really know who He is?

2. the challenge we face on the authenticity and authority of the Bible—in the face of modern yet recycled attacks from the Da Vinci Code, Misquoting Jesus, the Jesus tomb, et. al.

How will we enable individuals and particularly our youth to develop a trust in the Word of God and the ability to withstand the “attacks” they will face?

3. issues related to the atonement and evangelicals moving away from substitutionary atonement

Several recent articles and books (some from a philosophical perspective, others from a more theological perspective) are denying penal substitution. How do we communicate the central accomplishments of the cross?

4. science and the Bible—it seems in some areas of science we are undiscerning (reproductive technologies for examples) and accept what doctors and scientist state, but in other areas (creation issues for examples) we don’t even want to engage in discussion

How do we engage wisely in the discussion between science and faith? Should creation issues be elevated to core doctrines (some are using this as a litmus test for orthodoxy, even salvation and spirituality)? How can we help people understand the issues, think biblically and know what is absolute or fundamental and what is not? How do we equip our children with truth not to win arguments but to share the gospel? How do we as a church engage in difficult issues without attacking people?

5. a lack of a reasoned biblical world view, the ability to think biblically, to understand when I am thinking culturally, traditionally and perhaps not biblically—and with that, the willingness to be biblical even when it goes against tradition or even political lines

This is tied to number 4, how do we balance teaching truth and teaching people how to think? How do we equip people, particularly young people, to withstand the attacks of the “new atheists” and developed sound world views that will enable them to deal with constant change?

6. a tie to tradition and individualism that keeps us from valuing relationship (not to say anything about the need for a culture of change or the challenge to keep 20 and 30 something’s)

How do we move people from a deep-seated American individualism to a biblical focus on community, the body? Does our programming conflict with what we communicate is a value?

7. our ability to interact, engage and challenge a postmodern world and emerging/emergent church (where traditional apologetics don’t apply)

Are we willing to ask the difficult questions? Can we engage a culture in which 72% don’t believe in absolute truth and where 94% of college students believe there are no moral absolutes? A world in which our belief in a singular means of salvation labels us intolerant and hateful rather than loving? We must be willing to evaluate our preunderstanding, understand where traditional apologetics and “church as normal” may not be appropriate. Be willing to refine our ability to speak to the emerging culture, but also not so align ourselves with culture that we make the same mistakes the emergent church says the modernist church has.

8. And that’s without saying anything about the ability to dichotomize or compartmentalize our lives to the degree that some have knowledge without change or how character development at the heart level is easily replaced by a focus on external, behavior modification or behavior containment.

How do we challenge those who teach to not simply dispense information, but actively engage people in thinking, processing truths of Scripture in a way that heart issues are addressed and applications are lived out? How do we speak truthfully about social evils without becoming legalistic? How do we challenge people to self-examination—so that we are aware when we become desensitized to sin, comfortable with exposure to something that is not beneficial or that doesn’t build us up (1 Cor 6:12; 10 23)?

I realize we can never force people to change, but we can change our methodology so as to hopefully challenge people’s thinking and therefore to real change. (This is convicting)

To this list, I would probably also add the redemptive-movement / complementarian hermeneutic (though not extensive yet), the passionate attack by egalitarians on those of us who “still believe” in biblical roles for men and women, and the politicalization (if that is a word) of the church.

I’m sure there are a number of other issues that you would add, and I would value your input and additions to this list. But not only your additions, but suggestions and help in addressing these issues. I have so much to learn and in many of these areas feel woefully inadequate.

We have work to do.

So to keep the conversation going (to borrow a common phrase)

What do you think the top 3 issues are?

Where would you start?

How would you start?

An old say states, “Confession is good for the soul.”

Well, revenge is sweet. Or at least that must be what I (we) think.

When a car speeds by me or cuts me off–I know I would “delight” to see them pulled over by a policyman.

But how do we avoid seeking vengeance? I think that one of the key points of Psalm 37.

Psalm 37 open with a series of 15 commands, the first two are a challenge to not become fearful or envious of evildoers in light of the temporal nature of their existence.

David go on to challenge his readers to trust God–He is truthworthy even when evildoers abound, and a series of other commands directed at the readers relationship with God.

In the middle of the series of command, verse 4

Delight yourself in the Lord,

and he will give you the desires of your heart. (ESV)

The promise is based on the command. This is not a blank promise to give us everything we want, but to reward us when we delight in the Lord.

We have any number of instincts, but very few desires. Desire is what you determine in your mind and settle in your heart and set yourself towards as good, and that is the thing God will fulfill if you delight in Him—that is the condition. (Oswald Chambers, Biblical Ethics. Hants, UK: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1996, c1947.)

When God becomes our consuming focus–the center of our affection–in whom we place our trust and hope, in whom we are overcome in love—then He gives us the desires of our hearts, which in reality will be: more of Him, more evidence of him, more ability to glorify Him, more ways to enjoy him and make Him known.

The more we are passionately impressed with God—the more our desires, our passions are His.

Psalm 37