Saturday, October 10, 2009
Creating discord and confusion
Denominations create implicit walls between God's people. If I am in this denomination, then I am clearly not in that denomination. I believe differently than you and again by implication that means that I think you are wrong about one or a myriad of issues. If I think you are correct about everything, I would be in your denomination instead of a different one. I used to be a big supporter of denominations. I thought it was a very useful way for people to know what a particular church believed. I knew I could avoid Methodist and Episcopalian churches because they were full of liberals. Presbyterian churches were full of baby sprinklers. Pentecostal churches were full of kooks speaking in tongues and handling snakes. I was able, at a glance, to eliminate from the pleasure of my fellowship an awful lot of people. I look back now and wonder how many brothers and sisters I never got to meet because they went to the "wrong" church. That was wrong of me and it is wrong now. We should seek genuine unity with one another.
We are called to be one Body, one people of God.
(Eric Carpenter has some great thoughts on this issue. See One Lord, one faith, one baptism-and unity)
Thursday, October 08, 2009
I am moving to Japan!
Japan wants to set just the right mood to get its people to make more babies. But forget dinner and candlelight: The government's plan depends heavily on large amounts of cash.
With a worried eye on declining birth rates and an aging population, Japan's new leaders propose offering new parents monthly payments totaling about $3,300 a year for every new child until the age of 15. Other initiatives include more state-supported day care, tuition waivers and other efforts designed to make parenthood more appealing.
That works out to over $23000 for my family!
On a more serious note, this is symptomatic of what we are experiencing all around the West and soon in America. Intentional childlessness is leading to a demographic imbalance with an ever increasing number of elderly dependent on a shrinking pool of younger workers. We want more and more from the government but we still want to retire at 65. Who is going to pay for all of this?
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Fellow laborers
I want to examine a couple of instances where we see the idea of “laborer” to describe Christian ministry and what those examples tell us in the bigger picture. In Phillipians 4, Paul writes:
I entreat Euodia and I entreat Syntyche to agree in the Lord. Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Phil 4:2-3)
Note the language Paul uses here. Labored side by side with me. Not labored under my supervision or under my direction, but labored with me (there is an interesting thought here regarding the rewards given the laborers in Matthew 20, but I don’t think it fits here). We are all working under the direction of Christ, side by side and with the same mission. At least that is how it is supposed to be.
Here is another example:
Now I urge you, brothers —you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints—be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such men. (1 Cor 16:15-18, emphasis added)
Who are they to be subject to? Those with education or titles? Or those who devoted themselves to the service of the saints and to every fellow workers and laborer? The answer is pretty clear. We have the order backwards. We recognize men as leaders and then expect them to demonstrate being a servant instead of recognizing as leaders those who have shown themselves to be servants. I think you are going to be better off being subject to a man with a true servant’s heart than a man with a doctorate in theology. Those two extremes are not mutually exclusive, you can be a theologian and also be a servant. You in fact must be both! I would say that in general a better sign of a mature brother in Christ is a servants heart, not an academic degree.
In Acts 20 Paul writes of his own hard work to provide for his own needs and in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul speaks of not making use of his right to be supported financially. Paul did not take from the church, he gave to the church. He didn’t see himself as a lord over the church, he saw himself as a fellow laborer. It is tragic to see widows and the poor and the disabled donating to the local church to pay the salary of an able bodied man who could and should be working himself so that he can support the less fortunate among the Body. There are some who cannot work to support themselves and those saints should be supported by the Body. There are those who can work to support themselves and their families, and they should do so.
If you get a group of workers together and most stand around watching one or two do all of the laboring, they are not “fellow laborers”. They are observers. We are in union with Christ but that doesn't mean we are in a union!
Anytime we see some laboring and others observing, we have a problem. Ministry is synonymous with service and serving others by nature is something that requires sacrifice, sacrifice of time or money or prestige. It seems that the faith is not one that calls us to exalt the service of some above others, nor to seek glory and attention for ourselves. We are all called to ministry, to labor shoulder to shoulder with fellow believers. It is not glamorous work, it is not work that will bring us acclaim in this world but it is Kingdom work that we all have the call and the duty to perform.
Was there something special about the tree?

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2: 15-17)
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths. (Genesis 3: 6-7)
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3: 22-24)
This topic came up yesterday and I have been giving it some thought. All purely speculative. Was there something in particular that was special about the tree? Did the fruit have some special quality unlike any other? Or was the tree simply put off limits and it was disobedience, not the fruit itself, that was the issue? Disobedience and sin is clearly the driver here but why was that tree off limits? Was it more desirable because it was truly special or was it desirable to the eye because it was forbidden?
Then there is the “other” tree, the Tree of Life. It appears here and then doesn’t appear again until Revelation (Rev 2:7; Rev 22: 2, 14, 19) It is not the tree that gives life, it is Christ. So what is up with that tree? Is it a literal tree? Is the fruit of that tree special or is what the tree represents that is special?
What is up with these two trees?
Monday, October 05, 2009
Help me out here
If a college touts itself as a "Christian college" but teaches Darwinian evolutionary theory as fact, what exactly makes them a "Christian college"? From Answers in Genesis...
Send Students to Calvin College to Be Indoctrinated in Evolution
Run with scissors, God is sovereign!

That attitude is a capitulation to the culture while hiding behind theology.
Here are some other logical actions that would stem from this sort of philosophy…
Throw your kids out of a moving car. Why? God is sovereign.
Drop your kids off at the local strip club after school. Why? God is sovereign.
Encourage your kids to run with sharp objects and swim immediately after eating. Why? God is sovereign.
Never gather with the church, never study the Word, never preach the Gospel, never love your neighbor, never pray. Why? God is sovereign.
The idea of sending kids off to public schools where God is denied under the guise of God’s sovereignty sounds very noble and pious. However I don’t see the piety of disobeying God while hiding behind sovereignty. That is the error of antinomianism. God is sovereign so I can do whatever I want with no repercussions. It is also the error of hyper-Calvinism. God is going to save every one of His elect so His command to preach the Gospel to all creatures is irrelevant. God’s sovereignty is one of the great truths of the Bible but it is one we need to handle with care. It has been misused over and over through the ages and that still happens today. God is sovereign indeed above all but a recognition of the sovereignty of God does not give us a free pass to act however we want even if our actions fly in the face of Scripture and common sense. Don’t make the mistake of thinking you can live however you want and do whatever you want and that you can pull out the “Sovereignty Card” at will.
If you truly believe that God is sovereign then you should desire to see your kids taught about Him when they rise up and when they lie down, when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way (Deu 6:7). They are not going to get that in a public school. If you truly believe that God is sovereign, then spend your days teaching your kids that God in His sovereignty has placed in your care. In your care, not a daycare and not the secular government. If you think God is “calling” you to send your kids into a public school where He is denied, you had better check your heart at the door because the heart is deceitful above all things (Jer 17:9). All manner of mischief is given a free pass because someone feels “called”. I recognize that some people wave the flag of homeschooling around like a prideful banner, and that is wrong and where I have done so I am wrong. It is at least as grave an error to try to score theological points at the expense of your children. If you choose to send your kids to school because you feel unqualified to teach them or finances prevent you from doing so or you just don’t want to, that is your business. I think it is wrong, but they are your kids. To use a profound and serious Biblical doctrine to hide behind that decision? That is something that calls for repentance.
A belief in the sovereignty of God is no excuse to abdicate your solemn responsibility as a Christian parent.
Ed Stetzer on the Gospel and social justice
I watched Ed Stetzer at Together for Adoption speak on the idea of adoption in the greater context of the Gospel and "social justice". Very interesting talk.
This is an important conversation. “Social Justice” is a term that has lost much of its meaning, kind of like “evangelical”. We too often have a visceral reaction to the words "Social Justice" because in modern parlance those words are often code for "liberal social positions couched in religious terms". That is not a vague fear but one that has been borne out too many times. Regardless, that is not a reason for us to abandon the idea of social justice but instead it should serve as a clarion call to urge those who are theologically orthodox to greater concern for the poor, orphans and widows and to call our brothers who have embraced social justice at the expense of the Gospel to recognize that social justice without the Gospel is eternally unjust.
It is hard at times to balance the Gospel and social justice. The Gospel must come before social justice and social justice is not the Gospel. On the other hand, if you are preaching a Gospel that doesn’t lead to a heart painfully aware of the need for social justice, for caring for the poor and hungry and homeless and orphans and widows you aren’t preaching Christ’s Gospel. Period. Again, the Gospel is preeminent. Gospel preaching and teaching should lead to social justice. You may emphasize one more than the other, but you cannot have one without the other. I think Ed Stetzer is largely right, that in our zeal to undo the loss of Gospel proclamation we have forgotten social justice. We cannot be so laser focused on doctrinal precision that we trip over the homeless on our way to the next theology conference. We cannot engage in justice without telling people about Jesus but we also cannot tell people about Jesus without engaging in His work.
Another perspective on homeschooling
I read a very witty and interesting piece on homeschooling by Andrew O'Hehir in Salon magazine, Confessions of a home-schooler. I don’t frequent Salon very often but I saw a link for this article and had to check it out. What is interesting is that this family is not a prototypical homeschool family, i.e. not Midwestern, religious, a bunch of kids, etc. They are a New York City family, his wife is described as a leftist feminist with anarchist leanings. At least among homeschoolers who are conservative Christians, there are lots of us. If you are on the secular Left, there isn’t much of a support system. I am pretty sure that we are not having a “Neo-Anarchist Home Education Convention” in Michigan next year.
Being a homeschooling family in secular society is a difficult task. When you tell people you homeschool, you are almost immediately put on the defensive as if you have to explain to someone else why you choose to educate your kids in the place and manner of y our choosing. As Mr. O’Hehir boldly points out, this is especially true among mothers who don’t homeschool.
At the risk of gross generalization, there's a hierarchy of responses when you drop the home-school bomb in conversation. Childless men don't much care; the question is too remote from their consciousness. Childless women are often curious and even intrigued; the question is hypothetical but possesses a certain allure as a thought experiment. As for men with children, they may or may not be sympathetic, but they don't experience the subject as a personal affront. Let's be honest: It's almost always mothers who react defensively when the subject comes up, as if our personal decision not to send our kids to public school contained an implicit judgment of whatever different choices they may have made.
I have found that to be true as well. Granted, in our circles we bring some of that on ourselves. It can be pretty easy to make Christians mothers who don’t homeschool feel like they are betraying their faith. On the other hand, in our community the pressure to be a typical American mom, working or otherwise, and also be a Christian mother can be overwhelming to the point of being impossible. I am not sure how a mother juggles the constant pressure to be super working mom and also be a faithful Christian mother and wife.
This was excellent stuff through and through, even from a guy who somewhat derisively describes fundamentalist Christian homeschoolers as Bible thumpers wearing denim jumpers. Frankly, there are an inordinate number of denim jumpers among my homeschooling sisters which is OK! As part of his article, he relives a conversation he had with a woman taken aback by his homeschooling of their kids and the questions he is asked, the answers he gave and the real answers he should have given. I think many homeschoolers tend to give short, quasi-apologetic answers. My wife is like that because she is a genuinely nice person and not confrontational (I am perhaps hyper-confrontational). How we choose to educate and raise our kids is not something to apologize for but too often that is how we respond.
I really liked the way he approached the idea of public education as an irrevocable social contract that we enter into by way of being American citizens and having children. If you have a baby in America you better plan on turning her over to the government to educate in short order and if you don’t, you better have a really good reason to explain yourself!
Other stuff is involved as well. Some people seem genuinely disturbed by our decision, on philosophical or political grounds, as if by keeping a couple of 5-year-olds out of kindergarten we have violated the social contract. Specifically, we have rejected the mainstream consensus that since education is a good thing, more of it -- more formal, more "academic," reaching ever deeper into early childhood and filling up more of the day and more of the year -- is better for society and better for all children. This is almost an article of faith in contemporary America, but it's also one that's debatable at best and remains largely unsupported by research data.
Another quote, this time on the underlying philosophy of public education.
Both Leslie and I went to public school and had the usual assortment of excellent, mediocre and bad teachers. We're not zealots with some animus against public education. We're glad it exists and relatively happy to pay taxes to sustain it. As I said earlier, though, we feel dubious about the ideology that seems dominant in public education these days, and especially about the idea that sending kids to school virtually all day for 10 months a year, beginning at age 3 or 4, is the healthiest mode of delivering it.
That is a great way of putting it. Homeschoolers by and large are not “anti-education”. But many of us do question whether this increasing grip that the state has on our kids from progressively earlier ages is the best way of delivering an education. I also think he really gets past the rhetoric and gets into the reality of what the system is all about.
The real purpose of all this formal schooling is to get the kids out of the house and train them to stand in line and follow instructions while mommy and daddy get back to their ultra-important lives as economic production units. If you break down the impressive-sounding, bureaucratically adumbrated federal list of kindergarten standards, a whole lot of it amounts to learning to count from 1 to 20, learning the alphabet and the months of the year, and learning to tell time.
All-day kindergarten is clearly a boon -- or more like a necessity -- for working families who have few other options, and where the alternative is likely to mean parking the kids on the sofa all day with Nintendo and Noggin.
Ding, ding, ding give the man a cigar! Besides being tax payer funded daycare, all day kindergarten is little more than a training ground to teach kids to conform to going to school. They learn mostly how to be in a school environment where they will spend the next dozen years. You go to school to learn how to go to school. Potential trouble makers are identified, “gifted” kids are likewise identified, little boys who squirm in their seats like little boys have for millennia are referred to a physician to be sedated with medication to make them compliant.
The article is an interesting one, and gives you a different perspective on homeschool and public school from someone who is not educating their kids at home for religious reasons.
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Together for Adoption
Friday, October 02, 2009
Getting outside of the box
My friend Josh is trying to find ways to make Sunday evening services more meaningful and less rote. I like the way he is thinking about this time and how it can/should fit into the life of the Body instead of being a "repeat" of Sunday morning that we do because it is tradition to do so. It can cause consternation to get beyond "the way we do things" but it also can yield amazing results. Check it out...
New for Together for the Gospel in 2010
- Eric Bancroft — Convincing Christianity: The Implications of a Robust Gospel in Marriage
- Tony Carter — Proclaiming the Comfort of the Gospel
- Kevin DeYoung — ‘Tis Mystery All, The Immortal Dies: Why the Gospel of Christ’s Suffering Is More Glorious Because God Does Not Suffer
- Greg Gilbert — What Is the Gospel?
- Brian Habig — Fears of the Minister
- Joshua Harris — Dug Down Deep: Helping Others Build Their Lives on Christ-Centered Doctrine
- Michael McKinley — Unity, not Uniformity: Diversity in the Body of Christ
- David Platt — An Unadjusted Gospel in an Unreached World: Connecting Gospel Theology with Urgent Missiology
Not sure which one I am going to register for, but I need to figure it out soon because the early bird registration savings end October 31st, so if I am going to save $50 I need to register this month. I think this is a good idea, although I am guessing a lot of guys are going to spend the break out session book shopping. Maybe Michael McKinley's session?