Nothing New

"Fire and brimstone" preaching wasn't popular in the Old Testament days either.

"'Do not preach' - thus they preach -
'one should not preach of such things;
disgrace will not overtake us.'" (Micah 2:6)

Let's just say the prophets weren't shy about warning other nations of God's impending judgment. It doesn't always have to be horrible news, of course. There is much about God's grace for those who repent, but there is also very much about God's wrath. More than I'm comfortable with, to be honest. It simply isn't a taboo subject for them, though I'm increasingly more convinced that God doesn't tell them to preach as such simply because "it was more effective back then" or something. People don't like to hear about their sin, but this is where the gospel starts, does it not? Law before grace.

I hate talking about my own sin. I hate when others know about my sin. I just hate it. It's not comfortable; it's embarrassing; it's humiliating. But it needs to happen. Sometimes we can feel good about getting the respectable sins out. Like "I thought better of myself than I should have in this situation" or "I desired that thing covetously." What about the deepest parts of your soul that you don't want anyone to know about? What about the kind of sins that you're afraid of people knowing about because even if they're your best friend, you're sure they'll abandon you for it? Those hurt. The conviction there is not fun.

And then comes the Christmas news, the good tidings of great joy. In that darkness and sin and sickness Jesus Christ enters on the scene, and he takes personal responsibility for everything. The good news is that when there was nothing worth being excited about, when there was every reason to be afraid and be weighed down with guilt, it is then that Jesus Christ steps between you and God's wrath. It is then that he comes with hope of justification and freedom and salvation.

Angry with Love

First off, I want to apologize for recently dropping off the face of the blogging earth. I know I had been doing this daily and then suddenly stopped, but I should be back in business for a while, given that I'm now officially on Christmas break from school. The reason I stopped was due to finals until Friday; since then I've been having so much great fellowship with Christians who are back home that I simply haven't set aside time for blogging! It's a great situation actually. There's clearly a bond that we have, and it's founded on Biblical truth. We've been spreading God's gospel together at Westfield mall and constantly sharing meals and encouragement with each other. I love it.

Today's reading comes from Jonah! Slap me if I've already blogged about this, but not too hard because I think it deserves to be said again if I have. If you haven't read Jonah, you should do so. It's short enough to read all of it in like 5 minutes. Since most who read this blog will probably already know the gist of the story of Jonah, I'm just going to skip that part. After Jonah finally turns from his sin of directly running from God's will to obeying it by preaching a message of repentance to Nineveh, Nineveh actually heeds Jonah's words and repents, all the way up to the king! Because of this, God relents of the disaster that He meant to give them.

And Jonah gets angry! Listen to this crazy complaint from Jonah 4: "¹But Jonah was greatly displeased and became angry. ²He prayed to the LORD, "O LORD, is this not what I said when I was still at home? That is why I was so quick to flee to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. ³Now, O LORD, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live." Whoa! Isn't this crazy? God is so amazingly merciful that he gets on a prophet's nerves! And that is good news for me. Really good news.

Noise in God's Ears

Some verses in the Bible just scare me plain and simple. I have the privilege of leading worship before Almighty God in High Point, as well as in RUF, the Stanford college fellowship I'm involved with. So when I come across warnings specifically dealing with public assembly and such, like this one from Amos 5, it hits me right between the eyes:

²¹I hate, I despise your feasts,
and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies.
²²Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and grain offerings,
I will not accept them;
and the peace offerings of your fattened animals,
I will not look upon them.
²³Take away from me the noise of your songs;
to the melody of your harps I will not listen.
²⁴But let justice roll down like waters,
and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.

The point is that if we come to God in praise and live the rest of the week scorning his name in what we do the rest of the week, God is not pleased. In fact, he hates such assembling, and the sound of our voices is annoying to Him. It would be better if we didn't sing and instead came before Him with fear, trembling, and repentance, pleading for forgiveness. It would be better if we would go show our devotion to Him, rather than hypocritically singing it. So here is my encouragement for you: "let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth" (1 John 3:18).

Amos 3:6

This verse, I struggle with, because it seems so uncaring towards those who actually have to endure the suffering of the disaster coming to the city. Nevertheless, the Bible is clear:

Is a trumpet blown in the city,
and the people are not afraid?
Does disaster come to a city,
unless the LORD has not done it?

Now, I don't know about you, but I immediately thought of things like 9-11, the Columbine shootings, the recent shootings in Colorado and Nebraska. What is our response to such things in light of this verse? What should our message be?

One thing we certainly do not do is automatically pronounce judgment on the people killed! They were not killed because they were "worse people" than us. As Jesus says of those on whom the tower of Siloam in Luke 13:4-5:

Do you think that they were worse offenders than the others…? No, I tell you...

So people do not necessarily suffer this "irregular" harm because they're worse than you or me or the other people in the city. So that's certainly not how we approach their suffering. Second, we need to "weep with those who weep" (Rom 12:15). We should have compassion and sympathy for those who have experienced loss. Finally, our message is Christ's, and it comes at the end of Luke 13:5:

…unless you repent, you will likewise perish.

The question is "are you ready?" You don't know when you're going to die, so be ready for it! How do we prepare for such an event? The fearful thing about death is not that I don't know what happens afterwards, but that I know exactly what happens afterwards:

It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment. (Heb. 9:27)

But this is only a fearful thing for one whose conscience has not been cleansed by Christ's blood. His sacrifice is central to our answer to death. Do we know the eternal state of those who have died? Why would we look into that? We can only examine ourselves. That is the exhortation we present to those questioning why crazy things like this happen.

Christmas in the City '07

Yesterday was Christmas in the City for High Point. We had a good time singing carols to some elderly folks, passing out cookies, and then spending time at Pier 39, Union Square, and Ghirardelli Square in San Francisco. Here are a couple things that popped up as favorites in addition to the obvious hanging-out-with-friends aspect of the event: talking to the elderly people after singing and passing out tracts! I was encouraged by this.

Praise God that I and a number of the students (most notably my sister) had a chance to pass out some million-dollar-bill tracts as well as big-money tracts. There seemed to be an unusual abundance of people that weren't interested in taking the tracts from me, so that was discouraging. However, there were always those times when someone came up to me asking for more. I got to meet a guy from Australia who had an Australian version of the million-dollar-bill tracts, and one lady was offering to buy two more off me for a dollar so all her kids could have one! I talked to two police officers for about 15 seconds; literally all I got out was, "Good evening, officers", "Did you get one of these", "I'm spreading the Christian gospel", and "What do you think happens when we die?"

This was the first Christmas in the City I've gone to where I've had more of an evangelistic mindset than a self-centered one. It was a great blessing to work towards fulfilling the great Commission. Talking to the students was encouraging, as well, just to know that they're even willing to process spiritual things! Damien especially was a treat as he had so many questions and I didn't have to try hard to carry on spiritual conversations with him.

There were negative aspects, as well, but I know the Lord is faithful and good. Pray that He will tear the sin out of our lives.

Thrice Holy

This Christmas time I have been burdened about a way to communicate the majesty of the incarnation. I want to do this not only for the benefit of others, but also because I am so susceptible to just saying, "Yea, I get it. Can we talk about something new?" I was convicted of this as I was reading the four sections in my daily reading. I got through the last passage and thought to myself, "Well, that was nice, but there really isn't anything much to write about today." At that point, I knew my heart was wrong. I'm reading my own personal copy of the Word of God to mankind! I had lost sight of the significance of this daily routine that I've gotten myself into. The exact same thing happens at Christmas every year. So I got thinking, based on the fourth chapter of Revelation, which was the last portion of the reading. Here's what I decided: I think that in order to understand how truly amazing the incarnation is, we must understand how glorious and holy God is. That is where this text from Revelation comes in. I'll just post verse 8, but it would certainly behoove you to read the whole chapter:

And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say,

"Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty,
who was and is and is to come!"

Did you catch that? I'll point you to what caught my attention: "Day and night they never cease." These amazing creatures never tire of proclaiming God's holiness. And that to the choir of all choirs! These creatures are in awe of God and they never tire of declaring his praise. Surely the only reason we ever would tire is because God has been removed from the center of our focus.

So what's the difference between us and them? Why do we tire of hearing of the glory of the incarnation, or praising the Lord for His holiness, or standing in wonder at His majesty? The simple answer is that we do not understand it. No one on earth does. Not me; not you; not the newly repentant sinner; not the aged and experienced veteran of the faith. There isn't a soul on earth who grasps the majesty of God. Realizing this is part of what will magnify His glory in your eyes. If you, as an insignificant speck, grasped the majesty of God, I would have to submit that He would not be all that majestic. Can your mind contain the glory of God; or your heart, the fullness of praise He deserves? You cannot do it.

The word awesome is far overused now, which is why I have tended toward words like majestic and glorious; nevertheless, if you can set aside all the puny subjects - like TV shows, good food, and people - that have somehow taken hold of this adjective, then I will say to you: God is awesome. He alone deserves our awe. Stand in wonder at the sight of God's work in the world and in your life. Fear him for the sacrifice He made in becoming man!

The awe of the incarnation comes in realizing that God - Whose glory we cannot grasp, Who overwhelms to the point death all who would look on His true form, the God Who is thrice holy - that this God steps down from His throne and takes on the human flesh that He created, subjects Himself to disobedient ingrates, and suffers under the wrath of the Father. That is truly awesome.

Those Whom I Love

I think it is always vital to keep in mind this precious saying of Christ when dealing with what can at times feel like the "harsh" message of repentance found all over the Bible: "Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline" (Rev. 3:19). That's one for the noggin right there. In Christ's zeal for purity and hatred of hypocrisy, He comes through with this precious line of hope. In his exhortation He is for us, if we are His children. This can be awfully confusing when we consider that the church He currently reproves is the one He calls lukewarm! After all, what are we saying? Will You reject those You have received, Lord? Will You vomit up those You clutch tightly in Your hand? I don't think so.

About a year ago, and from a rather unfortunate source, I was pointed to this nevertheless great truth. Paul, in his shipwreck on His way to Rome, is visited by an angel, and promised that all of those on board will survive:

Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, "Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you." So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told. (Acts 17:22-26)

So Paul has God's good faith promise that those who are with Paul will all be alive at the end of the day. So what in the world is Paul doing telling the centurion 5 verses later that "Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved" (Acts 17:31)??? Paul had an understanding of the relationship between the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. He was no fatalist! You could say that God used this exhortation from Paul as a means to grant His promise.

So don't take Christ's warnings lightly! If you remain lukewarm, He will indeed spit you out of His mouth. But seriously, what Christian redeemed by the blood of Christ from the depths of sin and granted eternal bliss in glorious communion with the Holy Trinity can stay lukewarm in light of his Father's rebuke? Would this even make sense? For those who are Christians, you ought to be encouraged in a sense by the Lord's rebuke. Better to be rebuked by Him than forgotten! Indeed, if you aren't receiving the Lord's chastisement, you aren't a true child (Heb 12:8).

And what is our response to Christ's chastisement? Zealous repentance (Rev 3:19). Pretty consistent, eh?

This Sermon Wouldn't Preach

Not these days, anyways. It's too… extremist. It's a sermon on wisdom. Here's the central passage from Job:

Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to turn away from evil is understanding. (Job 28:28)

Trying to figure out what it means to fear God? I'll let this supporting passage give you a subtle hint:

But when they had grazed, they became full,
they were filled, and their heart was lifted up;
therefore they forgot me.
So I am to them like a lion;
like a leopard I will lurk beside the way.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs;
I will tear open their breast,
and there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild beast would rip them open. (Hosea 12:6-8).

Don't let your comfort help you forget God this Christmas (or ever!). Let it remind you of His goodness!

Assurance

This topic has been on my mind a significant amount lately. Yesterday I read through a website article that seeks to give those who have "invited Jesus into their lives" the assurance that they really are saved. Other articles on the website seem so much more solid that it really confuses me how they could drop the ball on a subject like this. I also watched a sermon from a church that, from my miniscule amount of knowledge, had seemed solid. The preacher did a 10 minute altar call at the end of his sermon, and then they baptized the new "converts" right there on the spot! Want to guess what the test was for regeneration? "Have you accepted Jesus as your personal Savior?" A "yes" gets you dunked and what fool would slip and say "no" at that point? I was dumbfounded that this church could call itself Baptist.

In answering someone's question of whether or not they should have assurance of their salvation, I don't think it is wise to come back with trite answers like "well if you weren't saved you wouldn't be worrying about it, so yes!" In fact, I don't know that it is wise to say yes ever, because that isn't our job. Only the Holy Spirit can grant assurance through the promises found in Scripture. The website was always completely affirming and sought to dispel all doubts about whether a person is saved or not without applying any Biblical tests. I came across one such test today in my reading through John: "By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples" (John 15:8). How do we prove to be a disciple of Christ? By bearing much fruit.

Instead of telling someone, "Look at all these promises. If you asked Jesus to save you, then of course you are saved," we need to be saying, "Here's how you become a Christian, and here are the things the Bible says should be true of you once you have become a Christian. Examine yourself. I can't do it for you!" More than likely, the loss of assurance stems from the fact that they either lack a desire for God or they are entertaining some sin in their life. Let's encourage people to bear fruits in keeping with repentance! We cannot just assume people are in the faith because they call Jesus "Lord." We already know what Jesus' response to many of those people will be (Matt. 7:21-23).

Revelation 2:1-17

The next section of reading I had in Revelation was of the first 3 letters to the seven churches. These are the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, and Pergamum. I picked up on a few themes that resonated with me and they are as follows:

The Lord loves pure doctrine. He praises Ephesus for theirs and rebukes Pergamum for their lack. This is because right doctrine leads to right conduct (orthodoxy begets orthopraxy). The Ephesians spotted false teaching and evil practices a mile away. They hated the deeds of the Nicolatians, followers of Nicolas who essentially taught that Christians have a license to sin. Christ hates their deeds too. The church in Pergamum, however, struggled with false teachings and even had some who followed the teaching of the Nicolatians.

The Lord does not love mechanical orthodoxy. This was the fault of the church in Ephesus. Despite their endurance, their intolerance for moral misconduct, and their watchful eye for erring teaching, the Ephesians had abandoned their love of Christ. This was such a serious error that the Lord threatened to remove the church! I often have to check myself and see if my devotion to discernment has exiled my love of Jesus. It is quite an easy thing to do for the church who is determined about being truly committed to the Bible.

Endurance is an essential part of the Christian life. At the end of each letter so far, Jesus expresses some wonderful truth about the fate of "the one who conquers" (vv. 7, 11, 17). They will "eat of the tree of life" (v. 7), they "will not be hurt by the second death" (v. 11), and they will get some "hidden manna" and a stone with a secret name on it that only they know. I think the first two things are pretty straightforward. Eating of the tree of life is representative of everlasting life, and escaping the second death is escaping God's wrath toward evil. I can't figure out what the hidden manna refers to, but I believe that the image of the white stone is reflective of a heightened level of intimacy with Christ. That sounds good to me! In addition, each church is praised for it's endurance and encouraged to continue. So endure! Whatever trial you might be facing, whether it be temptation or ridicule or the death of a close one, endure. It's most certainly worth it, and Christ smiles on you for it! He understands your hardship and is with you in it. Let that strengthen you.

The proper response to sin is repentance. In both cases when Jesus has something against the church (Ephesus and Pergamum), He commands them to repent. It's that simple, but don't get me wrong, simple does not mean easy. Realize where you've gone wrong. Apologize for it. Hate it. Move on. This is not some complicated process of needing to figure out what sort of repressed feelings are at work and how we need to get in touch with our inner self by meditating on the… NO! You're struggling with a sin? Repent. Love what God loves and hate what God hates. Have nothing to do with that sin anymore. Don't give it any pathways into your life. Don't put yourself in a position to be tempted by it. I can't count the number of times when I asked myself why I struggled so much with a particular sin. Then the question came up of what I was doing to actively combat it and… I had no answer. As John Piper says, "Make war!!"

Morning Cloud

Sometimes I roll out of bed to go to my morning classes, look up at the sky as I walk out the door toward my bike, and see that it is completely overcast. An hour later I walk out of the classroom and it is completely sunny out, with hardly a trace of cloud anywhere! Sometimes it's frustrating because I can't figure out what the day is going to give me. Once I start mentally preparing for overcast and possibly rain, but then it ends up being wonderfully sunny and warm out; this forces me to change my mindset toward the day. The weather is fickle, you could say. The morning cloud does not give a true picture of what the day will really be like. This is exactly the charge that the LORD brings against Ephraim and Judah in Hosea 6. They are fickle, and their sacrifices do not reflect their heart:

"Your love is like a morning cloud, like the dew that goes early away" (4b).

God desires a love that is settled on Him, not one that is constantly looking for the next best thing to come around. You could say He is looking for marriage, not recreational dating. He desires a commitment and that from the heart, not just in word and outer appearance: "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice" (6a). We're striving here for a love that lasts.

Sometimes I wonder if I have that kind of love. There have been times in the past where I was simply not enticed by the prospect of reading God's Word, or when I deliberately defy his clear commands. How it hurts to even think of such a time! I think there is a comfort in knowing that I am not and can never be worthy enough to keep God from destroying me. That might sound strange, but it simply entails that it must be God Himself who is empowering me to have a continued faithfulness - a fact clearly attested to by the rest of Scripture. That is a freeing concept! I can obey my master with a full heart; my failings and defiance are washed away and never held against me because of the blood of Christ.

Job and Revelation

Today's reading presented quite a lot to write about. There's Job who loves the word of God and wants to appear before Him to argue his case, that he is righteous, yet admits near the end of the chapter that God does whatever He wants and this fact terrifies him. Then we have Hosea, whom God commands to marry a prostitute. So far Hosea has had three children by this woman and God gets to choose all their names, including a daughter named No Mercy and a son named Not My People. Flipping to John 14 we have the first part of a discourse by Jesus on the Father. And finally, there's the first eight verses of Revelation, which are quite rich in discussion about Jesus, the Father, a few words about the Holy Spirit, and what the reason for writing down apocalyptic literature is. So for this entry I suppose I have a question and some thoughts.

The question: In reading Job, the language indicates that Job was actually afraid of God. And by actually afraid I mean as opposed to this "reverent awe" I often hear about. Job uses the word terrified twice and dread once to explain his response to God's presence in Job 23:15-16. So, should we be afraid of God? Job seems to be, can we assume that this kind of fear is what is prescribed for our lives? People in the scriptures do crazy things when God shows up, and even when it's just an appearance of angels, they seem to have to remind them to not be afraid, because that is the natural response. Does this kind of fear have any place in a Christian's relationship to God?

The thoughts: I like Revelation. There are some things that are difficult to understand about it, but the things that I do understand are quite glorious. For one, this book promises a blessing to "the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy" and also to "those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near" (1:3). That's a cool thing, but first I want to clear something up. Some people have said "Hey, look! You're blessed if you just read it! This is the only book like that!" I have to confess that when I finally read the verse that they based such a thought on more closely (i.e. just now!), I concluded that that interpretation was a bit of a stretch. Although for many years I totally bought the former interpretation, it did seem a little bit too superstitious.

The word they often don't mention or don't emphasize enough is "aloud." The person who proclaims this message will be blessed, basically. That makes a bit more sense, because in that way they are being an active servant of God. That's something you can be blessed for! Secondly, "those who hear it, and who keep what is written" are blessed. That also makes more sense, because it's a blessing resulting from hearing and then obeying God's commands, not just passively taking in information. I think John when he was giving this blessing was probably referring to the setting in which Scripture was read aloud publicly. I'm going to guess this was a more common practice in the first century church than it is today, because Paul tells Timothy to "devote [himself] to the public reading of scripture" (1 Tim 4:13). Given that at least the first part of revelation is a compilation of seven letters to seven different churches, John was probably imparting a blessing upon the person who had the privilege of reading the letter publicly before the church.

So, since most of us have probably not been entrusted with the job of reading Revelation publicly, we get to be the hearers and doers instead! That's how we get our blessing. Don't fool yourself into thinking that if you just read through Revelation and your life doesn't change that you've nevertheless been magically blessed. I'm not convinced it works that way. In fact, it might be just the opposite.

Keep Yourselves in the Love of God

I read the very last section of Jude today which is subtitled in the ESV "A Call to Persevere." I think it would behoove us to consider the delicate tension between human responsibility and Divine ordinance with respect to the perseverance of the saints. The title of this post comes from the first part of Jude 21. Jude clearly presents this keeping as a part of our responsibility. Notice that he says "keep yourselves", which is active, rather than something like "be kept", which is passive. We need to be active in persevering to the end.

That said, we also need to keep in mind the fact that the Bible is clear we are kept by God. In Jude 1, the greeting is to those who are "kept for Jesus Christ." The ESV has a little note that says the word "for" could also be translated "by" so that it would read "kept by Jesus Christ." Furthermore, in verse 24 Jude praises God "who is able to keep you" (24). So this idea of keeping is a theme in Jude and the responsibility seems to go both ways. Understanding such a thing is quite difficult. More recently I believe I've been able to make some sense out of it at least, but it takes far too long to really explain.

There's a danger of leaning too far one way or the other. For example, you could be fatalistic and use God's grace as a license for sin. After all, if you have God's promise that He will keep you to the end, doesn't that mean you can get away with whatever you want? Not exactly. Jude has been clear already that only ungodly men marked out for destruction are the ones who "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality" (4).

Then you could lean the other direction and declare that it is completely up to you to keep yourself saved. This is not the case either, because then you would be getting credit for your salvation. After all, you were good enough to remain in God's favor, weren't you? But Jude ascribes all the glory to God in verse 25. So what do we do? We must keep them in tension. Paul says it wonderfully: "work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Phil. 2:12-13).

We have the privilege of fighting a valiant fight, but if we're not fighting, we're not in the army. So fight the spiritual fight - against sin, against falling away, against false teaching, against "every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God" (2 Cor. 10:5) - and hold on to the hope that all those who are enlisted by the Lord will see victory. There are no casualties in God's army. He is able to keep you.

A Typo in the Bible?!

What's wrong with this sentence?

"One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close to Jesus" (John 13:24).

Mickey has already written on this topic here, but I thought I'd mention it to you since it was in my reading for today as well. He seems to think it is deliberate. I might agree, given that it happens with the same Greek word in two different books (Mickey notes the issue in Mark).

Eager to Write to You

Today's installment comes from the short book of Jude, verse 3: "Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints."

It's important to note that Jude is motivated by good news. In verse 2, he says to his readers, "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you." This context must be kept in mind when thinking about the book of Jude. And it's not as if Jude is just giving lip service to these things. He wants these aspects "multiplied" to his readers. He is serious about Christians being full of mercy, peace, and love. Furthermore, he is "very eager to write about our common salvation." He deeply desires to rejoice with his readers that their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life!

But another thing compels him to write about something other than this joyous truth. The faith that makes up the foundation of their salvation is under attack. The mercy, peace, and love that Christians are supposed to have is being compromised. As verse 4 says, certain people "pervert the grace of our God into sensuality." In light of this attack on the grace of God, Jude's prescription is that we "contend for the faith" (3). The NASB actually has "contend earnestly." We need an active counterattack, defending the truth and combating falsehood.

I'm sure many of the so-called "judgmental", "divisive" preachers of our day (here I have in mind men of God like Bobby, Derek, MacArthur, Piper, etc.) and days past (Jonathan Edwards anybody?) have identified with Jude. The preaching of the hard truths of the gospel must be done, although unpopular, because our faith is under attack, and that from within! We're not talking atheists here. We're talking about people who claim to be a part of the Christian church who are tearing it down from the inside out!

I don't think anyone wants to have to be the Discernment Nazi, because they would much rather everyone believe and rejoice together in the truth with one mind! But the fact is that such discernment is necessary because there are some who have "crept in unnoticed" (4). It takes work sometimes to see who these people are, and we always need our antennas up for their false teachings or bad methods. We need to be diligent Bereans in our discernment levels. Only once we have taken the good and thrown out the bad can we truly proclaim with boldness a message of grace from an exceedingly merciful, kind, and good God.

Wash Your Feet

Continuing my daily reading through John, I came across this verse. It's nothing new, but I think it is a good and necessary reminder: "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean" (John 13:10). Jesus is washing the disciples feet and has moved from talking about physical washing to a spiritual cleanliness. As Christians, we are totally clean. No sin is held against us. We have already laid our foundation of repentance and faith and need not lay that foundation again (Heb 6:1).

That is not to say that sin doesn't worm its way into our lives in a very real way, for "we all stumble in many ways" (James 3:2). Jesus was symbolizing the constant putting off of sin that needs to happen in the believers life. This is sanctification. Our feet will get dirty; that is certain, which is why we need to be constantly uprooting sin in our life. It cannot be allowed to cake in to our skin. It cannot be ignored, cannot be "gotten used to."

I've been convicted, challenged, and blessed by the 8-part sermon series that Pastor Mike Fabarez of Compass Bible Church in Aliso Viejo, CA just completed a few weeks ago on battling sin. We need to take drastic steps to hunt it down, rather than passively accept its existence. So, how's it going with you? Are there any sins you need to have washed off your feet, Christian? If you are not allowing Christ to wash you, then "you have no share with [him]" (John 12:8). But isn't it amazing that the Lord of glory would willingly stoop to do such a thing for us? Praise God for His grace!

Isaiah: True Witness of True God

I've been continuing to engage in regular dialogue with a Jehovah's Witness, and now more recently his wife as well. They come visit my house at 10am on various Saturdays, sometimes by appointment, other times just to see if I'm home. The focus of our conversation is generally focused on the Trinity, as I am more concerned about their view of Christ than of anything else. The gospel, after all, centers around Him, and without the true Christ, there is no true God, true salvation, or true life. I find it interesting that even my pagan professor of last year realized John intention in collecting all the "I am" statements of Christ and compiling them, while skirting most parables, etc. This is a reference to the I AM self-identification of God in the Old Testament. Unfortunately, the New World Translation (JW version of the Bible) has so mangled the translation of the tense that no Jehovah's Witness can see the obvious connection.

I just thought I'd share a few verses that glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as Yahweh incarnate. The incarnation is quite probably the most glorious miracle ever performed by God, greater even than converting sinners (which, if you know anything about your own sinfulness, is saying something).

I was reading through the daily reading bookmarks that we just handed out in High Point, and came across this verse in John 12: "Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory and spoke of him" (v. 41). The context makes it clear that the pronoun "him" is referring to Jesus Christ. "These things" refers to two quotations from the book of Isaiah that John quotes in the verses immediately preceding verse 41. The first quotation is from Isaiah 53:1. We know that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus Christ, but it is the second quotation that I really want to focus on. The verse in John 12 tells us that Isaiah speaks Isaiah 6:10 because he "saw [Jesus'] glory." If we go to the context of Isaiah 6, the vision Isaiah has just seen is a vision of "the King, the LORD of hosts" (v. 5):

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

"Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts;
the whole earth is full of his glory!"

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Do we realize what's going on here? Jesus the Christ does indeed make appearances in the Old Testament, and this is one right here! This is the glory of Jesus, not of an angel, but of Yahweh! How much more glorious does this make the incarnation, not to mention sacrifice, of Christ? He had been on His throne in His temple, and stepped down, becoming a... pooping baby?! Stand in awe of your God this Christmas (and always!); He loves you with a love we will never grasp.

Velvet Elvis Discussion with David Wilson

This is my response to a short book (and I'm only half kidding!) sent to me by David Wilson, a personal friend of mine, in response to my critique of Velvet Elvis. Thanks, David, for giving me permission to post this publicly.

Disclaimer:
I do not speak for Rob Bell. This Critique is also not to convince Evan of the quality of the book. Neither is this an attack on Evan's personage, Evan is a close-personal friend of mine. Also I do not think that Evan is wronging Mr. Rob Bell by his review. He has done exactly what Rob Bell has asked, to look at the book critically and to take from it what he may. Now to my critique of this Review.

I appreciate the disclaimer. And sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this.

I will start by talking about the first part of Evan's review the so-called "Peeves". Firstly I want to partially agree with Evan on this that Rob Bell likes title that catch the attention of the passer-by. This is something you will see Bell do many times which having sometimes shocking sometimes strange statements such as a book called Velvet Elvis, not however for sheer shock value however but to challenge assumptions. Now for my first Critique. Evan said "Repainting Christianity is like repainting the Mona Lisa. All you get out of the deal is a fake (or a different painting altogether...)" here is my challenge to this, Bell is not suggesting that Christianity is something that needs to be repainted, as in saying that it is not good and needs to be fixed. What he is saying, at least to me, is this if we claim to believe in an infinite omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God, as finite, sometimes (maybe even oftentimes) foolish, unseeing creations. How can we say that we have figured it all out? What Bell I feel is saying is that we need to take what we have learned from the theologians of the past and now continue to seek deeper understanding of who God is in that. I feel he captures that when he says "times change, God doesn't but times do. We learn and grow, and the world around us shifts, and the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, innovating, letting go of whatever has gotten in the way of Jesus and Embracing whatever will help us be more and more the people god wants us to be."(Bell, 11) He is not saying that Christianity is wrong or flawed. Christianity is perfect, Christians aren't and thereby need to be watched, listened to and when necessary corrected. Paul shows us this in his criticism of Peter. We are called to challenge what we are taught "I know your works, your toil and your patient endurance, and how you cannot bear with those who are evil, but have tested those who call themselves apostles and are not, and found them to be false."(Rev 2:2 ESV) Here we se Christ commending a church for challenging what they were taught against the scriptures, Bell is calling us to do that, to take what men have said and put it to the test against what God has said.

Notice, however, that Bell claims "the Christian faith is alive only when it is listening, morphing, etc." I'm sure he fits in Jude 3: "contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" somewhere in his theology. I'm just not sure where or how. Or maybe he's just doesn't use words very precisely, which would be intensely frustrating, because then you would never really know what he's trying to say.

I am going to just go ahead and skip the rest of the comments about my "peeve" section. My peeves aren't the issue, so I'll just jump over that.

Now I move on past Evan's peeves, Evan claims that Velvet Elvis is "dangerous, poisonous, and ungodly". I can hardly think of a statement more harmful to the community of believers, I then can be considered dangerous, poisonous and harmful because I to agree with Bell on the mass majority of his writings. I feel this goes to an extreme and is inappropriate merely on the basis of saying that Bell's book, which has many people to Christ, is the work of the devil.

I would like to know about these people who were led to Christ by this book. I'm not talking about people who didn't go to church but now they do, I'm talking about genuine, committed converts. Who was converted in reading this book?

I will now combat Evan's 6 Reasons You Should Not Spend Money on Velvet Elvis

1. Bell does not take Doctrine Seriously.
Evan disapproval of the trampoline analogy is understandable. And I agree to an extent that the analogy is a bad one. However I think it does have merit in it. When I first read that passage I was upset by it, not to Evan's extent perhaps but I did see the flaw, Bell removes the pivotal support of the trampoline. The firm, unmoving base. I think that there are gray area's in Christianity, that is that there are areas of theology that do not need to be agreed upon by all believer to gain entrance into heaven. I wish Bell had used something other than the trinity however to show that. I believe that the trinity is an imperative to the faith. And moreover I know Bell would agree with me on that from knowing his own theology.

That's fine if Bell himself agrees with you when he isn't writing books, but it's certainly not the message he's sending here. The simple fact of the matter is that he used the Trinity. He used the virgin birth. These are not what we'd call "non-essentials." He's treading on dangerous ground. His point about the Trinity not being fully known or articulated until the 4^th century was the best point he could make. However, I don't think that this fits the analogy of a spring at all. It's not like the understanding fluctuated with the times, it simply developed with more and more revelation. (Sort of like a brick wall might with more and more bricks?) People before that probably did not understand the full nature of God in the same way, but that doesn't imply that they denied it. There are hints at plurality in the Old Testament as well, so we can't rule out all understanding.

However we do need to be flexible, it's okay if someone doesn't go to the same denomination as me, or read the same translation of the bible, what Bell is doing there is challenging us to consider, I feel as I feel he does later when he talks about what if the virgin birth meant something different than we think, and what I take from this portion is this. We need to decide what are imperative and what are not imperatives to the gospel, and then with the nonimperatives say that I don't have to agree with this but it doesn't jeopardize their salvation. As to Bell not saying this is legalism I think he shows that in the comparison to "brickianity" where he sites the pastor saying that if you don't believe in a literal seven day creation that it is the same thing as saying that Jesus never died on the cross.

We must realize, however, that Bell says nothing about what you're "taking away," right? I mean, he doesn't talk about any imperatives to the gospel whatsoever. He says you don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to become a Christian and start living life like Jesus. This is patently false. It is so obviously false that the fact that he put that in there makes me question which Jesus he's following. Hard words, I'm sure, but you certainly do have to know some doctrine to be saved. Like I said to Amanda: you gotta know you're a sinner! You gotta know you've broken God's law. This is all doctrine. You have to know that Christ died for the sins of sinners. Oops. More doctrine!

I agree with him that God is too big to be boxed in.

Can you also explain to me what that phrase means exactly?

2. Rob Bell claims that no one can ever tell you what the Bible is really saying.
Bell speaks of the mystery of God that God is too great for us to understand. Not that we can never know what the bible is saying but that there is always more to learn. Did you know that Augustine wrote 6 commentaries on Genesis? He couldn't stop seeing more of God each time. And you're correct that he does say that we come from a specific perspective of scripture, of course we do. God shapes our lives and moves us so that each of us can gain some insight that is unique on scripture. A holocaust survivor has a different perspective on the verse Romans 8:28 than someone raised in the lap of luxuries. Look up sermons on the book of Romans, than read commentaries on it and you will see different perspectives on everything contained within. What Bell I feel is challenging there is that God is to big for any one man to comprehend or any group of men, and so is his word, not that we can't come to a proper understanding of it but merely not a full understanding of it.

I don't remember any of this being in Velvet Elvis.

By the way as to Evans comment "I penciled in a note there, which says: "You mean your version of what Jesus believed about them?" it is a rule in writing that when you are writing that you don't have to and probably shouldn't say "in my opinion" because it weakens your essay and is redundant since you are writing it so it will always be your opinion. You are not supposed to qualify statements.

You seem to have missed the point of my comment. I said that because Rob Bell was being hypocritical. He got angry at someone's comment. Their comment was that "As long as you teach the Bible, I'm OK with you." He got mad and faulted them for saying such a thing because he knew they were only talking about their interpretation. He provided no other reason to fault this person's comment. He then proceeded to give us his opinion. If we applied his logic to himself, we could equally reject his opinion, simply because it was his!

3. Rob Bell uses unnecessarily confusing, unbiblical language.
Bell writes in the poetic form, I like this idea and find beauty in his statements I don't see Evan explain how they are confusing and feel that this point would be better suited to his peeves due to the fact that while confusing to him it is not to many people.

He uses phrases like "God is the ultimate reality." Please explain what that means, and give me good reason to believe that you're interpreting it correctly, because I have no idea what it means, nor am I convinced that it has any real meaning at all.

Moreover I would argue this many Christian writers use language which is unintelligible to non-Christians. Words such as sanctification, redemption, edify, and many other theological terms which we use can merely distance ourselves from those we wish to reach. What Evan finds confusing and unintelligible in this book may just be a breath of fresh air for those uneducated in theological terminology.

We have our own Frisbee lingo at Stanford when we play Ultimate. The first thing we do when we get new people coming in is teach them the language, so they can understand. I think the same should be done for non-Christians interested in Christianity, which seems like the audience he's going for.

Rob Bell believes that the church should "surrender its desire to convert people"
Bell follows a scriptural basis laid down by Christ in Matthew 5:16 which says "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."(ESV) Bell feels that your witness is more valuable by works not speech and that we should focus on doing God's word not just on conversions.

Your witness (speech) should be validated by your life (works). Bell is not saying this, though. He's saying "stop speaking the gospel altogether." Stop wanting to convert people. Uh… wrong. That's what we're all about. The desire of my heart should be to see those around me saved (Rom 10:1). Why do we become "all things to all people"? "So that by all means [we] might save some" (1 Cor 9:22)! Matthew 5:16 is not in conflict with these goals, but Rob Bells position is.

I feel sometime we can get so caught up with getting as many people as possible to repent that we do things for the wrong reasons not to follow Christ but to gain numbers, this explains to me why crusades have a 92% backslide rate of people who accept Christ but do not follow through with that commitment.

Well if they didn't follow through then I guess they never repented! People who repent don't "unrepent." People who put their faith in Christ don't "unput" their faith in Christ. Otherwise, it was never genuine faith or repentance to begin with (1 John 2:19).

However, I agree with Evan that there is a need for both. I do not feel that Bell's perspective makes the book not worth reading. I will agree that this is an area where Bell falls short in my opinion.

Any book that tells you to stop evangelizing the lost does not deserve to touch human hands. Can you tell I'm mad at Rob Bell? Anybody who takes him at his word will see that this is destructive to the church. We don't need less evangelism; we need more evangelism done the right way.

4. Rob Bell promotes man-centered theology.
Bell does not say that man is not sinful; he does not claim man may survive without grace. He disagrees with that. But what he does say is that "God has an incredibly high view of people" that is not saying that men are basically good and have no need of grace. But that God choose us, set us apart for a purpose and knows that we can accomplish it through Him.

Key phrase that you're sneaking in: "through Him."

We are His creations He would be a bad creator if he had no faith that his creation's could not fulfill what he had called us to do.

Really? Alrighty then. Let's see what man does and does not do.

• Our hearts are deceitful and desperately sick (Jer 17:9).
• We are full of evil (Mark 7:21-23).
• We love darkness rather than light (John 3:19).
• We are unrighteous, do not understand, do not seek for God (Rom 3:10-12).
• We are helpless and ungodly (Rom 5:6).
• We are dead in our trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1).
• We are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3).
• We cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14).

In fact he wouldn't have called us to do it.

Apparently, there are none who seek after God (Rom 3:10-12), and yet God tells us to seek Him (Psalm 105:4). Huh? God works in us to do the seeking. Like I said, God has a high view of Himself and His own ability to work in clay pots glorious wonders (like repentance from sin and faith in Christ).

Thinking only on our sin leads to self hate and shame, feeling that I can say from experience lead to anything but God. Has not sin been defeated by Christ? We focus on "…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." Philippians 4:8 (ESV) not on our sin but on God's grace.

If we never think about how utterly wretched we are, we will never appreciate God's grace the way it was meant to be appreciated. It is a true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, commendable, excellent thing to ponder your sin in light of God's holiness. This should drive you to be all the more amazed at and appreciative of God's grace. The problem is people never think about their sin at all, so God's grace (which is all they think about) doesn't end up being all that spectacular. We need balance, not lopsidedness.

5. Rob Bell treats temporal issues as more important than eternal ones. Who needs the gospel more, the unsaved or the saved? The saved have received it, believed it and now try to live it.

So once you're saved, you don't need the gospel?

The unsaved need to hear and believe. It is why Christ hasn't come back yet. The main benefits do come to those who believe it is true,

Then where is the disagreement? Rob Bell said that the gospel is a benefit for those who don't believe because they are the ones who get the awesome neighbors, not because they can believe it and be saved.

but who needs it more?

This question is really confusing to me, to be honest. Everyone needs the gospel! Just because you've taken advantage of it doesn't mean you no longer need it just as much as the unbeliever.

I would say the unbelieving. Saying that the unsaved need the good news, that it is especially good for them isn't an eternal perspective?

I suggest you go back and read the chapter a little more carefully. Rob Bell is not talking about non-Christians getting saved. He's talking about non-Christians getting nicer neighbors.

If giving the good news, showing it isn't for those who need Christ so that they might receive it isn't eternal than what is?

I didn't say anything of the sort! Of course the gospel is for those who don't believe! However, the main benefits of the gospel come to those who DO believe it. Those who don't believe it receive happy things only in this life and not in the next.

Secondly we do need to be pillars of truth it is true all the verses you quoted are obviously true. But if we look to Christ we see him being a pillar of truth in what? In peoples homes, at parties, Christ entered into the worlds medium without compromising his truth. Why can't we?

I never said we couldn't. I didn't say "don't go to parties." I said that the church does not need to learn how to throw better parties before it has something worthwhile to share with the world. Rob Bell says otherwise.

Yes it's tough to deal with persecution, yes we need to deal with persecution. But we see in scripture not rage, not ignoring the ways in which the world lives but attempting to show God through them. Like Paul in Athens, we stand in the ways of the world without compromising what we believe and what we preach. Not wildly, ignorant of dangers, and not in inappropriate places but where we may be seen as a light in the Darkness.

I think that "showing the love of God" and "the gospel" are two different things. The gospel is the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. This is not culturally determined, and does not need to change with culture. The expression of it does not need to change with culture. The fact is that humans have broken God's law, and therefore they are condemned. But God offers a cancellation of their debt to those who will repent and put their trust in Jesus Christ, who died and paid the fine. How is this not clear? What about this needs to be changed? In order to be understood by culture, nothing needs to be changed. Yet I rarely hear this message. In fact, Rob Bell himself denigrates it.

My Closing Remarks
Evan's criticism of the book Velvet Elvis was biblically based and well presented.

Now I'm really confused! If it was "biblically based and well presented" then why did you take so much exception to it?

He portrays this book, as he perceives it, as unedifying and unworthy of effort to understand.

Incorrect. It is not unworthy of effort to understand. The danger is when you understand it correctly and take it seriously. To be honest, I don't think you really grasped the gravity of what he was saying, but I suppose I could be wrong on that one…

In all honesty after recommending this book to Evan, I realized that it would not be a book he would like.

Got that right… ^_^

I would like to agree with Evan on one thing though. This book is dangerous, it is dangerous in the sense that it makes us decide what is most important to us. It is dangerous because it makes us think and challenge, it is dangerous because if it were not it would not be worth reading.

Well then we actually don't agree (on this point) because that's not how I used the word 'dangerous.'

I would challenge this. Don't take what I am telling you at face value, and for that matter don't take what Evan is telling you at face value.

I think you means don't just accept uncritically what we have to say. I think this is a good example of what I mean by imprecise language. To take what someone is telling you "at face value" means to not read anything in to what they said. However, from the context, it was fairly clear what you meant.

Read the book for yourself and decide.

Yea… sorry bro, but I have to stick to my original recommendation. There are plenty of other books out there that are infinitely clearer and more edifying than this one (ok, well maybe not infinitely, but you get the idea). Don't waste your money on it.

We are just men flawed, unrighteous, imperfect. We don't have all the answers and these articles do not say all there is to be said of Velvet Elvis or Rob Bell.

They certainly don't!

It was good hearing from you, David. I'm sorry we disagree about this. I suspect a lot of it might be talking past each other, but perhaps it would be more worthwhile to go into Rob Bell's theology in general, rather than just this book. You often refer to personal knowledge about his theology that I can't argue with. Perhaps we can continue the conversation? (How's that for trying to be relevant! I'm even using emergent language!)

Velvet Elvis Conversation

I've had the privilege of having a more extended discussion with one Amanda K on the topic of Velvet Elvis. The comments preceding this post can be found at the original Velvet Elvis review.

I appreciate that you put [out there] what your personal qualms were regarding the book. My point was just that if you couldn't hold them in and present the book as objectively as possible, then I wondered how much they ruled what you read. That's all.

Alright, but the only reason you'd want to bring in the fact that my opinions were involved is for explanatory power in showing why I made a mistake. But that's a pointless endeavor to make before you've even proven I made any mistake at all! First you move prove that I made a mistake, then you can attempt to offer an explanation as to why I might have made that mistake. But before you've proven I made a mistake, proving why I would have done so is irrelevant.

Doublespeak... I'm not arguing back because it is pointless and has nothing to do with the actual book.

Fair enough!

1. For Rob Bell saying you don't have to know anything, I think that's interpretation again isn't it?

Maybe it is, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Here's the quote again: "You don't have to know anything about the springs to pursue living 'the way.'" -Velvet Elvis, 34. It is clear from the context that he means the "springs" are the doctrines and "the way" is Christianity. That is my only 'interpretation' and it is certainly warranted by the context. Let me restate the sentence with the definitions of his words inserted: "You don't have to know anything about Christian doctrine to pursue living the Christian life." I'd say that's pretty straightforward.

"I interpret that more loosely, choosing to take it with a grain of salt and believing he means you don't have to know everything, rather than you don't have to know anything. You take it more literally. OK."

"Literally," I suspect, is a loaded term. I take his sentence at face value. Perhaps he does mean what you're saying, but that's not what the sentence I quoted means. "You don't have to know anything" doesn't mean "you don't have to know everything" just because we want it to. If he means the latter, and said the former, then he is an incredibly sloppy writer. By the way, biting the bullet on this one and admitting him a sloppy writer does not prove that he meant the latter.

Science. Not an evolutionist, no. I didn't mean to bring science into this as a huge point or something, I'm just saying we have to test our faith. Science and fossils and land formations, etc say the Great Flood never happened. So do I ignore evidence and continue believing it happened? Or do I think, "Ok maybe it was metaphorical" or figure out some other way to explain it? Or maybe I keep searching for scientific evidence to show it DID really happen, etc.

If the Flood never happened, then Jesus was not God, and the New Testament writers were not under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This is not a leap of logic. Jesus believed in a literal worldwide flood (Matt 24:38-9), and Peter believed in it (2 Pet 2:5). God cannot be wrong. So if they were wrong, then they are not from God. What I am stressing here is that doctrine is quite necessary, contrary to what Bell claims. Surely he would point out that my Christianity is "weaker" because his would be able to stand even if the flood were proved wrong. If his Christianity is still standing while the flood does not exist, then He is serving a lying God! I do not believe he's doing this, but he certainly seems to open the door to the possibility, which is dangerous enough for me to call it out.

My point is, be willing to question. The feel of your entire post was that you will not even listen to what someone else is saying. You'll pretend (maybe not even on purpose) to because that's the Christian thing to do, but you're not really considering what they're saying. Looking at your replies to all these comments sort of just affirms that. But I dunno, could just be my interpretation…

Amanda, I've been studying this for a while now (though not long at all compared to some), and I have to admit, I've come to have strong convictions about certain points of truth that I have discovered (for example, the Flood). So, if I am not given rock solid reasons to question what I've been convinced of, then I simply am not going to budge. This is not something I can be faulted for. It's not as if I ignore what people say. I consider what they say, and often times I quickly evaluate that it is not of substance or not worth considering. For example, I did this with Rob Bell's book. You cannot (and should not) have some sort of crisis of faith every time anyone offers anything new. Yes, ask questions, but to what end? For the sake of asking questions? Surely not. I asked many hard questions of myself and of God. The point of that was to get answers! Now I believe I have arrived at a knowledge of certain truths and of the Truth Himself. It takes something more substantial than a mere suggestion to start the whole process over again.

2. Speaking of interpretations...
My interpretation of that comment is you're sort of a [*****].
(PS God still loves me, just as much as He loves you in fact, even though I said that)

I was reading through Colossians recently. Consider this a loving rebuke: "But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander and obscene talk from your mouth" (Col 3: 8). You also might consider this one: "If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless" (James 1:26). I don't make many requests as to the character of those posting, but I've really never had any issues. It's too bad the first one had to come from a Christian. I want your religion to be full of value and significance, but we all destroy that when we use unwholesome words (Eph 4:29).

OK but seriously... Yes, I'm interpreting your post. And maybe I'm doing it incorrectly. Who cares, it's an interpretation. And your review is on your interpretation of the book. I think your interpretation is wrong. But it's an interpretation. Interpretation=opinion. How can there truly be right or wrong interpretation? Unless you're missing the point of what the source is saying. Which I think you did with this book. You've gotten so lost in the details you've failed to see the whole POINT. That's what I've *interpreted* from what you've said.

What would you say the point of this book was?

O please, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt (or common sense, whichever is your poison). If you're reading the label with your whole life brought into it (oh no! Sugar! Bad memories! Repress! Repress!) then you're beyond professional help.
"The point was that he was being hypocritical."
OK that's your interpretation. But does he need to say that since it's his book, he'll be offering his interpretation, so please ladies and gentlemen, realize this is what HE thinks? Does he really need to say that? I think it's a given.

Of course it's a given that people are expressing their own opinions. But he faulted someone's opinion merely on the basis that it was their opinion. It made him sick because it belonged to them. He did not say "they believed x, and here's why x is wrong. And they believed y, and here's why y is wrong." He just said that their comment about him teaching the Bible made him sick simply because he knew it was just their opinion of the Bible. Well of course it's your opinion of what the Bible teaches, but that's irrelevant. What's relevant is whose opinion is right.

3. I agree that people will read into it their own stories and lives and feel validated. But I feel like we can trust God to turn them to (real) truth at some point along the path. When people turn to God, it has very very little to do with our part in it, and a WHOLE LOT more to do with what God does in their heart. I mean are we realy that much of control freaks?

Ok, I'm going to interpret what you just said, and you can tell me if it's accurate. "I agree that people will read into Rob Bell's book their own stories and lives and thereby inject foreign meaning into his words, and therefore feel as if he is validating their opinion. But God can change anyone's heart. He is in control and so you ought not fault anyone who is making it easier for people to lie to themselves about what God teaches us to do." I don't know if you realize this, but that is hyper-Calvinism. You are denying the responsibility of the prophet to make the word of God clear. This is clear even from your original comment, without considering my interpretation. In the same vein we could say "I agree that Joel Osteen preaches a false gospel, but God is in control and will bring around who He wishes in His own time, so you can't fault Joel for his sincerity." Huh? If the dude is off the track, he needs to get on it. That's what God wants, end of story! I'm in no wise denying God's sovereignty. I consider myself heavily reformed in my theology, but this does not toss out human responsibility, which seems to be what you just did. If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), let me know.

4. Evangelism... Maybe I've had horrible luck with evangelists, because every time someone has come up to me to tell me about Jesus, they were pushy and intrusive. So I dunno, maybe it's just a weird fluke having multiple experiences like that. Because I know people who believe in handing out trac(k?)s and all that but they are very nice people, not pushy or intrusive.

If you call yourself a Christian, why did they have to be pushy and intrusive? It seems to me you would have been excited to meet another believer! Nevertheless, perhaps their activities were unwarranted. I agree, those can get really annoying, and even bring reproach to the gospel. Tract is the word you're looking for. I tract a bit myself, and I do my best not to be the "annoying salesperson." If people don't want it, they don't have to have it. I always seem to run out giving them to people who take them willingly anyways.

Evangelism isn't the only way to help people come to know God. I mean evangelism in the sense of walking up to strangers and talking about God, PS. There are multiple ways. Based on our gifts, I think. Disagree with that if you wish, argue back all you like, that's one point you won't move me from.

I agree that contact evangelism isn't the only way to do evangelism, but it is quite a blessing when it gets done. You do find people who are interested in engaging you and those are some of the most exciting times. Especially when you realized that your hard work preparing is paying off!

I'm choosing not to respond to the agenda part. You aren't understanding what I'm saying so I'm not going to waste my energy and time when you're already so set in this.

I suppose I'm not! Understanding you, that is. Perhaps you mean that you hate it when people ditch unbelieving friends just because they've given up on any hope of converting them. I think the solution is not to eliminate hope of conversion as a motivation for friendship, but to never let go of that hope, and to always be friends, not forsaking the community.

5. The point isn't that man is so fantastic, God couldn't help but love him. The point is that we suck and we know it and God knows it, but He chose to love us. God loves us. Maybe it's my interpretation again, but when I'm loved, I feel valued, whether or not I really have any value at all. Does that make more sense? I know we're worthless dirtbags. But God loves us. His love is what gives us value, not that we deserve it on our own merit.

That makes perfect sense, and I agree! Especially with your last sentence. We're worthless in that we are not attractive to God for salvation.

6. OK I read through that part in the book where Bell talks about neighbors and all that. My interpretation (wink, wink) of his point is that when we become such loving neighbors, it transforms the people around us. They want to join. I feel like he is saying we show God's love to them. We represent God. And maybe they'll come around. Maybe they won't. But they still receive the love either way.

Great! And are these benefits better than the ones received by the believers?

OK you asked for this... In interacting with you on this, I feel as though you've turned God's grace into a rule. Like, "accept it or face the consequences." Which is true. But that presentation distorts the message behind it. As face value it's true, but under the surface is where I feel like it's... skewed I suppose.

What do you mean by turning God's grace into a rule?

But to each his own. I applaud you for the passion you have for Christianity and for the effort you put forth to express God's love to a hurting world.

I appreciate that!

Where did I get that Bells wants us to show God's grace?
Well. He wrote a whole book on loving people and living out Christianity. I think the time alone it takes to do that means he wants it. But I'm inferring.

Alright, fair enough. I would simply argue that he doesn't do a super job (that being an understatement).

You know, I think this whole conversation comes down to our interpretations (again!). I mean I genuinely feel like neither of us is going to be swayed. So........ God bless. haha but really. Have a great week (:

It is possible to come to a conclusion about who has the right interpretation!!

O PS as for putting your personal stuff into it all, it was throughout your post and your replies. It's the way you say things, and how it honestly is in sort of a demeaning manner. I don't feel like I could talk to you about my weaknesses or what I'm going through or things I struggle with, because you would look at it and just tell me I'm dumb or something for struggling with those things rather than helping me through them. That's what I get from the post and your replies. I trust Julie's friendship with you to be proof enough you're not really like that in person. This is just the feel I get from your writing.

I admit that there is a different dynamic when we're talking about (and in) private versus public forums. Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt!

California Christian Apologetics Conference (IX)

Well we've made it! I actually got through a whole series! I hope you didn't get too sick of these and that they were encouraging to you and your walk as you seek to obey 1 Pet 3:15. The last session was, as with most conferences, a Q&A session with the all the speakers. For this one I think I'll just post my raw notes and insert some comments here and there. Do enjoy!

Since there will be food in heaven, will we have to go to the bathroom?

• Bill Craig: If the resurrection body has perfect metabolism, there won't be any waste!!
  
• Greg Koukl: Who ever answers that question deserves an applause!
  
• Shawn Hayes: That was totally a made up joke question! (i.e., it was not on a card; Shawn, the host, made it up on the spot)
  

Do you believe the Holy Spirit can use passages that jump out at you?

• Greg Koukl: There is no legitimate way for God to bless the abuse of His text.
  
  • However, it seems clear that HS uses certain verses real to us. When we understand it in truth, the verse applies to our experience, then that certainly is the HS working!
    
  • We can't think that He's changing the meaning for the reader.
    

Based on Rom 1:18-20, is it necessary to try to convince anyone that God exists?

• Greg Koukl: Since we suppress the truth, the awareness is not always at the front of our minds.
  
  • We're simply using apologetics to bring out something that people already know. I count it as a great ally that I can use the knowledge that people already have when I'm arguing.
    
• Doug Beaumont: Apologetics is about affecting the intellect and not necessarily the will, but when people have their intellect changed, their will has a hard time hanging on to that. It shows people what their real problem is: "I know it's true but I still don't want to believe it!"
  

Is all sin equal?

• Bill Craig: I don't think we're committed to that. Distinguishing between "mortal sins" and venial sins. It would be crazy if we were committed to the view that torturing and murdering a child was no worse than j-walking.
  
• Harold Felder: Every sin, although less serious, is enough to send you to hell
  
• If you don't know you're committing it, are you still held accountable?
  
  • Harold Felder: yes, because there are provisions in the OT for atoning for sins you didn't know you committed.
    
  • Neil Mammen: No sin is necessary, but any sin is sufficient (to go to hell).
    

Breaking down the cultural walls of Islam?

• Leeroy Lamar: Show them the love of Christ excessively! They don't experience love.
  

There are many interpretations of the Bible, so how can you say yours is correct?

• Harold Felder: Let's just make sure we understand that there is only one [correct] interpretation.
  
• Greg Koukl: The question seems to put all interpretations on par, but this is not warranted.
  
  • The person who has the best reasons gets to interpret any verse. It's not a crapshoot!
    

Please expound on the belief or disbelief of once saved always saved.

• Doug Beaumont: We could have a whole other conference on this! The belief is that once you are saved, you can never become out of that state. Different views held by different Christians.
  
• Neil Mammen: This is a theological issue, not an apologetics issue.
  

The idea on this one was that we shouldn't discuss internal issues with outsiders. I was actually disappointed that they didn't just answer this question. It's not that hard. You can't lose your salvation. As I heard Greg Koukl say once, "If the cross cancels sin, how can sin subsequently cancel the cross?" Or something like that…

What is the quickest and simplest way to defend my faith with an atheist in a short time?

• Richard Howe: I would prefer to convert atheist to theism first.
  
  • The Kalam argument is so quick and simple.
    
• Sean McDowell: Jesus never had one quick argument that he used with everyone. He tailored the message to his audience. Sometime the gospel has enough power in itself!
  
• Bill Craig: "I don't see any good reason to believe that Atheism is true."
  
• Greg Koukl: The atheist has to be committed to 4 big bangs
  
  • (1) Universe out of nothing, (2) life from non-life, (3) consciousness out of matter, (4) morality from nowhere!
    
  • Any reasonable person not committed to unbelief in God would be able to realize that this is absurd.
    

What is Kharma?

• Origin is Hinduism. The word means "action." Every action is going to have consequence. In a New Age worldview, a spin is put on it: when you die, you will go somewhere and come back, and will have to keep doing that to live out your karma. What you did in previous lives determines your future lives. Past actions and previous lives determine your present life and future lives. The idea is to escape this, you have to stop doing bad actions so that you don't have to keep coming back and suffering.
  
  • Another use: "My car broke down this week, it is bad karma because of what I did last year."
    
• Neil Mammen: If you don't let karma carry out, you'd mess it up for the person, so you'd never see a Hindu orphanage. Bumper sticker: "My karma ran over your dogma!"
  

Natural Desires

Tonight has been a strange night for me. Generally I come up with an idea that I fancy as fairly relevant and useful for people to hear, but quickly forget about it as I am too busy to seriously consider letting anyone know what I'm thinking. Tonight, however, I have actually been taking the time to write down my thoughts, and I thought this one was blog appropriate.

I was pondering an encounter I had with some gentlemen on a train from San Fran. I had handed them some tracts on my way to sit down, but was sitting close enough and couldn't help but overhear their conversation. Let's just say the gist of it had to do with lots of money, and lots of women. My heart was breaking, and I mentioned that I sort of wanted to talk to them, so Julie Logan, activator that she is, would let me do none other than talk to these 4 guys. And that I did.

They were actually quite receptive and eager to talk with even me, a stranger. I began to preach the gospel to them, starting of course with the law in order to bring about the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20b). As we got to lust, however, these seemingly upstanding and successful gentlemen had some serious objections, one of which I fumbled over in a deceptively composed sort of way. My pride, I believe, wanted to show him that I could take him on head to head with every objection I could come up with. Surely I couldn't admit that I was actually not ready to give a defense (1 Pet 3:15)! Looking back, perhaps that's what I should have done, but nevertheless I believe God used that interaction for His kingdom.


So what was the objection? I forget exactly how it was worded, but it was something along the lines of "God gave me sexual desires, so it's unreasonable for anyone to ask me to postpone fulfilling them when I feel like fulfilling them." A sort of "Why would God torture me like this" kind of objection. I recently thought of an analogy in response to this argument, something that might shed light on the human condition.

First of all, let's just lay the groundwork that we know God is not some sick distant being constantly tempting us and laughing at our plight as we fall in our struggles to please Him. He does not ever tempt anyone to sin (James 1:13). Suppose we have someone who is given to anger, ought he resist unleashing said anger? I would say yes and no. You see, it is not so much the anger that is the issue as is the motivation, the target, and the fruit of his anger. That is, we need to ask three simple questions:

1) Why is he angry?
2) Who/what is the recipient of his anger?
3) What is his anger driving him to do?

We would be hard pressed to make the Biblical case that ALL anger is completely wrong, because Paul implied that you could be angry without sinning (Eph 4:26; Ps 4:4) and because God Himself is angry every day (Ps 7:11). However, just because God created man with the capacity to feel anger, this does not automatically make every misuse of that capacity God's fault! God is not held accountable for the sinful actions any human being decides to commit with one of the gifts given to them. So if someone goes into fits of anger (which is sin, Gal 5:20), it is their sin that condemns them for twisting and abusing God's gift for the sake petty, personal issues rather than eternal, kingdom issues.

In the same way, God has made humans male and female, and made them so that a man would be joined to his wife. The sexual desires the man has are meant for only her (and vice versa). If those desires are directed at anyone else, they become sinful, not because God is a killjoy, but because they are being used in such a way that sends messages such as "God doesn't have the best in mind for me" or "God is out of touch with my needs" or some other utterly irreverent thought. Ultimately this names God a liar, because He has told us clearly what the guidelines are for having that kind of a physical relationship. It also reveals that you are not finding supreme joy in God. God has created us to find our ultimate joy in Him.

So in conclusion, it isn't that God has given us desires that he doesn't want us to fulfill, but that we have twisted those desires in our sinfulness to serve our own purposes and not those for which God has given them to us. We attempt to derive our joy from the gifts, not realizing that the gifts were always meant to direct us to the Giver. If we truly derive our ultimate satisfaction from Christ, then the other issues start to fade into insignificance in light of His worth and His glory.

California Christian Apologetics Conference (VIII)

For the fifth and final plenary session of the California Christian Apologetics Conference we had William Lane Craig. For an introduction, let's just say he's smart. Really, really smart. His workshops were like blow your mind complicated, according to my mom, who attended his session on "The Argument for God's Existence from the Beginning of the Universe" aka "The Cosmological Argument for God's Existence." This lecture was, I would argue, the most important of all those given, because it places Christian apologetics in a proper context and perspective. It was titled Christian Apologetics – Who Needs It? I have to admit that the way he approached the subject was quite surprising and confusing to me, but after he finished, I had to be convinced of his argument.

And his first main point was – remember that this is at a conference devoted to apologetics – that apologetics is not necessary. Bill, are you off your rocker? Why do you people goad me into dropping 40 Washingtons and then laugh as we walk out the door as you taunt "It's all for naught!" Anticipating this sort of reaction, he clarified: apologetics is useful, even if it isn't necessary. For example, it's not necessary to know how to type in order to use a computer, but it's useful! But Apologetics is not necessary in order to know rationally that Christianity is true.

How do we know that apologetics is not necessary? Scripture says that Christ can be justified by the inner witness of the Holy Spirit (1 John 2:27, 5:6-10), and the testimony is greater! This witness is self-authenticating and unmistakable for the one who really has it. Someone experiencing the Holy Spirit needs no evidence that it is indeed the Holy Spirit in him. In certain contexts, this witness with imply certain truths such as that God exists, that I am redeemed, and that Christ died for me. Furthermore, this experience is not just subjective assurance, but also objective knowledge about God and Christianity. Arguments that are incompatible with this experience are overwhelmed by this experience. This truth allows a Christian believer who is uninformed to still be rationally justified in believing Christianity, because it is on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit.

If this argument from Scripture is not enough to convince one of the truth of the effective witness of the Holy Spirit (which it should be, if you believe God's Word is authoritative), there are by contrast powerful arguments against Christian evidentialism (against the argument that people need evidence to be rationally justified in believing Christianity). The Christian evidentialist would deny the right to Christian faith to the one who lacks time, ability, and resources necessary to accept said faith. Are we supposed to say to someone that they must read 4 Lee Strobel books before they should become a Christian? Absolutely not! Today is the day of salvation. Anyone who comes to Christ in humble repentance and faith can enter, because the Spirit testifies to them of the truth of Christianity.

Christian Evidentialism would also imply that those who have been presented with more cogent arguments against Christian theism would be justified in rejecting God and accepting atheism. This is the best evidence I got, and I just followed the evidence, so God can't be angry with me. Does that hold any water? Of course not. This view would create an intellectual elite, a priesthood of philosophers and historians who would dictate to the masses what they ought and ought not to believe concerning Christian matters. In Christian Evidentialism, faith is subjected to the vacillations of human reason. Faith in Christ is then rational in one generation and place, and irrational in another. But with the witness of the spirit, faith in Christ becomes rational in all places at all times.

So we conclude that Apologetics is not necessary, but it does not follow that it is useless! A person who is warranted both by faith and apologetics is simply doubly warranted in his Christian beliefs!

The argument could provide support for the believer when he goes through periods of doubt when the Spirit's witness is not as clear to him. The question then is: does apologetics indeed provide a sufficiently rational basis for Christian belief. The answer? If the arguments are sound, they provide a rational basis, and belief in Christianity is thereby warranted by k';j ;v[ [[[[v apologetics and the Spirit. Apologetics is then not necessary, but it is sufficient.

Bill then went on to argue for three ways in which Apologetics is indeed useful. First, with respect to shaping culture, "Apologetics is useful and may be necessary in order for the gospel to be heard in Western society today." Because of the specifics of historical Western philosophy, Western Individuals do not consider theological knowledge to be possible! Reason and religion are therefore at odds with each other, and the physical sciences are the only sources of truth. For the secularized person, you may as well tell someone to believe in leprechauns. What if someone walked up to you and invited you to believe in Krishna? It just wouldn't be a consideration. The same goes often for the gospel on college campuses. He argued that now is our opportune time to take back lost ground. It is the worst time to be lazy and let Christianity be considered by the masses to be only a harmless delusion! Christianity is experiencing a veritable Renaissance as to philosophical arguments for the existence of God.

He warned also of a danger to rational arguments. People may think that our postmodern society does not accept rational argumentation. But that is completely false. Consistent postmodernism is an unlivable worldview. Nobody is postmodern when it comes to reading the labels on bottles of aspirin. People are only relativistic in matters of religion and ethics. That's not postmodernism, that's just modernism - if you can't verify it with your senses, it's just personal expression. Postmodernism is a crafty deception of Satan. If we follow this suicidal plan of action (of laying down our old arguments and just telling a narrative), the church will face radical consequences. Something in me worried for emergent church people when Bill mentioned this warning. The fact is, if you approach an issue rationally, people will respond in kind, and of course, we always exemplify the biblical virtues of humility, compassion, and respect. One part of 1 Pet 3:15 that I often leave out is the part about "but with gentleness and respect." I have to be honest. That's not my favorite part of the verse, because it means I don't get to dance intellectual circles around them and shoot them down and then walk away smugly knowing that I've destroyed another doubter. That's what my flesh wants to do, but that is not what God wants me to do…

Takeaway point: We need to preserve a culture in which the gospel is an option for intellectual people.

The second way in which apologetics is useful is in the strengthening of believers. He told us a story of Anne Kimmal, a woman he met who doesn't prepare for her talks, but just shares her struggles; and she is totally effective! As he was talking to her he was wondering if all this school and degrees and preparing and notes were just barking up the wrong tree or something. But here's the catch: someday, those people who have been brought to God through Anne Kimmal are going to need to hear what you have to say. This is the beauty of the body of Christ. Each member has a different function. Bill shared stories in which people were prevented from falling away from the faith via apologetics. Apologetics can be the means by which God has providentially ordained that you maintain your faith. And that makes apologetics VERY important. Christian youth need doctrine and Christian apologetics, not just Bible stories that make them feel good about themselves. This is a war. It's a crime to send soldiers out with rubber swords and plastic armor. The time for playing games has long since passed.''

The third way in which apologetics is useful is in evangelizing unbelievers. Christians do not evangelize often because they are afraid they won't be able to answer questions. Of course, he immediately anticipated the common objection that "nobody comes to Christ through arguments," and wasted no time in refuting such a dismissive attitude toward apologetics in evangelism as unbiblical. The apostles always argued for the truth of the gospel! Those who make this objection are simply subject to faulty generalizations. The question is not: "Is apologetics effective," but "Why bother with the minority with whom apologetics is effective?" Like a missionary who is called to some tiny people group, so is the apologist called to the intellectuals, though a small group, and this people group, though small, is extremely influential, which makes them all the more important to reach. The conclusion that apologetics is ineffective is simply false. Biblically and practically. Lee Strobel lost count of how many people came to Christ because of his books! W.L. Craig's dissertation helped to convert a woman who lost faith. A man in Russia converted because of reading of the book on the radio. A woman converted because she heard a debate on the historical Jesus. Salim al Islam, who could have been killed for converting, was converted with apologetics instrumental in that conversion.

Takeaway point: Apologetics + gospel + testimony + humility can certainly be successful!

So the lecture start far differently than you might have expected given that it was an apologetics conference, and it ended far differently than you might have expected given his opening statements about apologetics being unnecessary. It was a great encouragement to me to keep apologetics in its proper context, yet also an encouragement to know that my labor and passion in this area are not in vain.

Closing line? "I am unapologetically enthusiastic about Christian apologetics!"