theology IS life

We have moved...

2012-01-21T11:43:00.001-08:00

As the angel said at the empty tomb, "Why do you seek the living among the dead?"

QICQA #4

2009-07-06T20:03:00.001-07:00

I just finished helping my wonderful wife peel apples for apple crisp. This brought back to mind a question that has plagued me for decades:

Why do we contort our faces to help us concentrate?

And furthermore, how does such an unattractive treatment of the human face actually produce the desired effect of increased concentration and dexterity? I found it nearly impossible to peel an apple without my jaw jutting out in what must have been a most unattractive bulldoggish grimace.

p.s. while I'm on the subject of QICQA's, I must confess my disappointment at the apparent lack of interest in the last QICQA. Not one of my four readers spoke up. At least that one was a question with some theological import.

Roundup: Back in Action

2009-06-28T19:47:00.001-07:00

Anyone who has a blog knows that the longer you wait between posts, the harder it is to write a post. I'm determining to overcome the inertia right now with a general roundup post that gets me up to date.

South Africa was really wonderful. I met many dear people and renewed many friendships from seminary. It was also pretty tiring – three, 3-day conferences in a row with two Sundays included. I taught for 11 or 12 days straight, including travel days. The trip home was epic – started in Cape Town on the morning of June 4, arrived home in L.A. around noon the 5^th. Door-to-door, it was 32 hours. I was rather brain-dead.

Upon arrival in the U.S., my laptop promptly crashed. After some anxious moments over the course of a week, our heroic IT staff at GCC/TMS installed a new hard drive and retrieved all the data from the old one! They also gave me a loaner (on Sunday, no less) so that I would have something to use for my summer class beginning on Monday. I love those guys…

So, I arrived home on Friday, and I started teaching summer school on Monday. Theology 1, my bread-and-butter class in the M.Div. program. I'm now finished teaching (the class was 3 weeks long), but I'm working on several ideas that will enhance the class for fall – a whole new approach to the attributes of God, and a slightly modified way of tackling the sovereignty of God and problem of evil. Can't wait to get back to that in a couple weeks.

In the middle of all that, I attended the Resolved Conference, one of my favorite events of the year. It's like summer camp for big people. So encouraging and challenging – Piper's sessions on sin and the glory of God were really helpful to me, not just as a believer, but as a theology professor. I also had the unique privilege of serving the band, Enfield, as a kind of chaplain. I had devotions with them before the sessions—their own call to worship, if you will. It was a blessing. Oh, and you should get the CD.

Finally, I taught in Crossroads today. They asked me to do an adaptation of my seminar from the Shepherd's Conference, on theology of worship. It was a challenge, but it was so valuable to take the principles that I have brought to church leaders and explore the congregational perspective. This will help me greatly as I develop my class on theology of worship for next spring at TMS.

And that brings us up to date. I have two more weeks at home, including two days of seminars with D.Min. students at TMS, then on July 10 I leave for the Grand Canyon and a 7-day rafting trip. More on that, and an update on Dark Dog, coming in the days ahead.

Moving Quickly

2009-05-25T00:44:00.000-07:00

This is a placeholder post. I am alive and well in Pretoria, South Africa. I arrived last Wednesday evening, did a little sightseeing for two days while trying to adjust to the time difference. Taught once Saturday and got a tour of one of the townships with a church planter. Preached 3 times yesterday, and the Shepherds Conference series starts today: three, 3-day conferences in a row, in three different cities - Johannesburg, Polokwane, and Cape Town. And I'll preach twice on Sunday morning between conferences 2 and 3. There will be a few free hours here and there, but I may not have time to post anything substantive, and I don't know if I'll have internet. It's an exciting time - please pray for me, all 4 of you, and I'll update here or on Twitter when I can.

QICQA #3

2009-05-18T08:30:00.000-07:00

This one really gets me: why do animals play?

There's something to know about the Creator here. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but I'm utterly fascinated by the pervasive sense of play in the animal kingdom.

Illustrations from Gardening

2009-05-16T17:30:00.001-07:00

(Long Post Alert – get coffee before proceeding)

Today I fought the third (and final, I hope) battle of the Great Crabgrass War of '09. Rehabilitating the mostly undeveloped border of my back yard has been quite an arduous task. On the one hand, there's a part of me that enjoys the manual labor of spading the ground, pulling the weeds, and installing irrigation (this is SoCal – nothing desirable grows without sprinkers). On the other hand, there were some frustrating challenges – like several patches where crabgrass had mostly taken over the soil, and I had quite a mess to deal with.

As I was digging, pulling, sifting, raking, and listening to music (mostly Big Daddy Weave and the new Newsboys album), I meditated on the manifold analogies between defeating this stubborn, insidious weed and battling sin in my life. Here's a taste:

Crabgrass always starts small, and creeps in from some other part of the ground. Several years ago I completely re-did my back yard: dug out tree roots, plowed up the whole thing, leveled it, installed new sprinkler systems, prepared the soil, and put down fresh sod. There was nothing but beautiful, consistent, soft Marathon #1 from wall to wall, except for the border strip that would be a flower/veggie garden someday. On that day you would never have guessed that a few years later I would be engaged in an epic battle against a strong and well-established intruder. But here he is – having come in from deep in the topsoil that retained root fragments. Some of it actually came through the joints in the concrete block wall that defines my property's boundary. This is strong, stubborn stuff, now that it has had time to establish itself. The analogy with sin is pretty straightforward, isn't it? Seemingly small sins of pride, anger, lust, envy – you name it – can become entrenched patterns while I am distracted with other things and not tending to my heart.
Crabgrass digs in deeply and reaches out quickly to establish many different root systems. Given enough time, crabgrass becomes a network of reaching tendrils and redundant root systems. It seems to seek out sources of water and nutrients by sending thick roots under the surface (they're even sharp on the end) and tough vine-like branches along the surface of the ground. As the roots grow horizontally, they send up shoots to the surface. As the vines reach along the surface, they send down new root systems every 10 inches or so. It is nothing to be trifled with. You can't just grab it anywhere and give it a yank – you'll just be deceiving yourself into thinking you're actually dealing with the problem. Which leads to the next lesson…
To get rid of crabgrass, you have to dig until you find the biggest root. It would have been fairly easy to take a weed-whacker and cut everything off right at the surface. I would have had clean-looking flowerbeds immediately. But that wouldn't stop the process described above. The roots would just send up new shoots, and in a couple weeks the system would be stronger than ever. I had to dig up every square inch of that patch (about 40 square feet) to a dept of about 9 inches. I had to sift through the soil, breaking up the clods as I went. As I did this, I found the multitude of little intertwined roots, but I also found huge, pencil-thick main roots that were giving strength and stability to the system. Dealing with sin is not too different from this. You can't trivialize individual offenses against God – you have to go for the heart motive – what am I seeking instead of being satisfied with Jesus? What am I worshiping instead of giving God his proper place in my life? I have to deal with those things, love Jesus instead of them, and the root of sin will be destroyed.
When eliminating the weed, you must retain the good soil that gets caught in its roots. I could have eliminated the crabgrass patch by shoveling all the dirt out of the garden – just throw it all in the dumpster. But that's counterproductive – a waste of good topsoil. So I had to break up the clods around the roots as I was pulling them out so that the nutrient-rich soil would remain behind to provide a bed for growing flowers and vegetables. I think this is sometimes an overlooked principle in spiritual growth. God has given us so many good things that we pervert into sin. Sanctification is not about eliminating the good things so that we won't pervert them; it's about receiving them as gifts of God and seeking to enjoy them to his glory. Food, drink, sex, words, music, power, talents – all can be cultivated as gifts of grace, or perverted into ugly weeds that choke out their intended purpose.
Finally, once you've done the initial job of digging out a patch of crabgrass, you must be vigilant to guard against a recurrence. You see, you never really totally eliminate crabgrass. It can begin again from a small root that is left behind, or it can creep in again, even through the concrete walls you've erected. But – and here's the key – the sooner you deal with it, the less painful it will be for you, and the less disruptive it will be for your garden. Better to pull tiny shoots than dig ugly roots. The parallels with sin are obvious, and this post is already way too long.

It's been a slightly strange Saturday. I wish I was as intent on eliminating sin in my life as I was in seeking to eradicate the crabgrass from my garden. So, what's growing in your garden these days?

Return of Dark Dog

2009-05-12T13:05:00.001-07:00

I think Dark Dog has been on vacation since last week when I revealed him to the world. Or maybe he's been on an assassination mission. Either way, he's been working out. He actually had me alarmed for a minute or two today as I went outside to read peacefully on the patio. I got the good camera and snapped this. Keep in mind that the wall is about 6 feet high. Click on the pic to get the full effect of the wildly demented look in his eyes.
Did anybody see The Omen? Didn't Satan's pooch look like this? I know it was a rottweiler in the movie, but this guy is remarkably similar in overall spookiness.

Just thought I'd share that with y'all.

God IS Love?

2009-05-08T13:29:00.001-07:00

So much ink has been spilled in speculating about what it means to say that God is love. In the last few decades it has become fashionable to make "God is love" into a metaphysical statement about God – that love is the substance of God. I'm not sure anyone really knows what that assertion means. Besides, I'm still convinced that Clark Pinnock was on to something when he said that in order to speak biblically about God's nature, we must speak in terms of person, not substance. So on the question of substance I tend to stop with a moderately qualified claim that God is spirit.

However, there's still the question of whether love is God's primary attribute. Passages like Exod 34:6-7 tempt me to agree with those who say that love is the primary attribute of God (I posted on that a long time ago). But, after further consideration of many other passages on the love of God, including and especially 1 John 4, I now think it is better to continue to say that God does not have a primary attribute, even love. Rather, I will say that love is God's fundamental stance toward himself, humankind, and all of creation. In other words, love is not the basic attribute of God, but it is his basic attitude.

This comports nicely with a way of doing theology that I am beginning to call "First Person Theology." My affirmation of each of God's attributes (or any other doctrine) constitutes not just an affirmation of who God is in himself (the First Person), but it must also reveal an understanding of who he is toward me (speaking doctrine in first person). In fact, it may be the latter of these two categories that is usually the more important. I'm still thinking about this, but I consider the little epiphany above to be a methodological step in the right direction.

All Thumbs (Green Ones)

2009-05-07T18:16:00.000-07:00

As it turns out, I'm not the most talented gardener. I'm a bit rusty - haven't had a garden in 12 years, and I've never done herbs before. So when my cilantro took off and started growing about a half inch a day, I was naively excited (with a shade of arrogance, I'm sure). But today my curiosity got the best of me, and I just had to look it up. What I learned is that my cilantro isn't supposed to look like this:
This is called bolting and going to seed. (Come to think of it, that describes pretty well how the aging process makes me feel sometimes.) So my cilantro got freaked out by the sun and is trying to reproduce itself before it dies from the heat. The silver lining is that I can harvest the seeds - because cilantro seeds are also called coriander! Cool.

On a more positive note, I have my first actual tomato:

More substantive post coming soon...

Behind the Wall

2009-05-02T07:36:00.000-07:00

Apparently we have new residents occupying one of the houses behind us. I can't say we have new neighbors, because here in southern CA we separate ourselves from each other with 7-foot-high block walls. I hate that. Anyway, my sweet dog Nikki alerted us to the presence of a new dog nearby. Now, Nikki doesn't bark unless she's playing with us (the only way you'd ever know she's upset is that a line of fur stands up along the ridge of her back), but she's always intrigued by a new dog and the chance to make a new friend and sniff a new, um, smell. She's the most unassuming dog you've ever met:
The dog behind the wall (sounds like a horror movie title, doesn't it?) made some noticeable commotion every time it sensed Nikki nearby. Because I'm the curious sort, I thought I would peek over the wall and see what was beyond. As I said, the wall is taller than I am, and I didn't want to bring out a stepladder - and look like a burglar if the mystery dog's owner happened to be there. So I held my phone over the top of the wall and snapped a picture. This is what I got:
Doesn't look so bad, right? I mean, at least its tail is wagging (I think), and that's probably a friendly bark. Well, that's not the end of the story. A week or so later, the dog behind the wall took on a more sinister sound. It started jumping up and trying to peek over our wall. As it got better at jumping, I began to see a nose appear above the wall for about .12 seconds every 5 seconds or so. And something made my blood run cold. The dog wasn't white any more. Using the my ingenious high-tech spying method, I obtained the following picture:

Now, let us consider the possibilities. 1) Dark Dog killed and ate White Dog - it certainly sounds vicious enough; 2) White Dog ran away when Dark Dog showed up and began bullying her; 3) The residents of the house thought that White Dog was not mean enough for them, so they got Dark Dog (note that this could be combined with #1); or 4) White Dog actually became Dark Dog after having an emotionally traumatic and physically transforming experience involving radiation or noxious chemicals.

None of these options make me feel good. But I'm gonna keep an eye on things, because Dark Dog Behind the Wall seems to be gaining strength in his leaping muscles - his whole head now appears above the wall. So if I don't show up for something someday, please come check my back yard for little pieces of me and my unassuming dog Nikki.

QICQA Newsflash!

2009-04-30T11:43:00.000-07:00

Someone may be close to answering the deep question I recently asked about dancing.

Apparently the key clue to the mystery came from dancing parrots. Go figure.

A smidge anticlimactic, I must admit...

What Does Worship Do?

2009-04-28T20:38:00.000-07:00

Since my last post I've come through a rather nasty cold-and-flu-season episode (not the swine flu, but bad enough in its own right), and then turned my attention to William Dyrness's book A Primer on Christian Worship. This is a deceptively short book that condenses a great deal and makes it somewhat more accessible to a lay audience. In that sense, I suppose the name "Primer" fits, but it's a stretch.

I have much to think about as I begin the last chapter (including a number of criticisms that I'll save for another time), and I'm only going to mention one point in this post since the last three were longer than I'm comfortable with. The question at hand is in the title of this post, and it's not as easy to answer as you may think. Does (corporate) worship simply provide an opportunity for us to praise God and listen to the Word preached? Or is there something more? Dyrness, along with much of the Christian tradition, believes that worship should transform us in the presence of God as we rehearse the story of redemption. I'll quote a chunk:

At the end of the day, worship has a single role to play in the lives of believers: to retell, re-present, and thus refresh the story of God's love and call. The great dramatic climax pictured in Revelation is the scene in which people of every tongue and nation bow before the Lamb that was slain (Rev 7:9) Everything in worship is subordinated to this end and leads to this goal. Similarly, everything we do in worship, our prayers, and our response in faith and devotion has a single goal: to allow us to indwell this story and make it our own. In other words, these practices are effective when they encourage and sustain the relationships with God, creation, and each other that the Gospel makes possible. Likewise, we, nourished and renewed by the narrative of worship, have a single calling: to tell and live out this great story, to remind ourselves and those around us again and again that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

I am challenged and moved by this vision of worship as a corporate activity that enlivens the gospel to us, nourishes and strengthens us in Christ's presence by the Spirit's power, and sends us into the world as freshly gospelled people of God, energized by his love and forgiveness and bearing that message into the darkness. Is this what worship is supposed to do? As a descendent of the revivalist side of the Western evangelical heritage, I am more than a little disturbed by the realization that the vast majority of Christian history is basically on Dyrness's side here. I'm not sure what to do with that. But I'm thinking...

On Gadgets and Godliness (3)

2009-04-19T22:03:00.001-07:00

This is one of those posts I don't want to write. Not because I have nothing to say on the topic, but because once I've committed these thoughts to writing, I'm going to have to live a little differently. It's like the sermon on humility that you don't want to preach, but you know that it's going to be good for you to do so. Besides, this is a good example of why I do this – it's (obviously) not to draw a crowd but to work through things in my own thinking.

A preliminary note: this is not primarily a discussion of frugality or stewardship, but that is a related benefit of rethinking your use of technology. We spend huge amounts of money on technology, and discovering that, particularly in a time of economic difficulty, can have its financial benefits. This is already happening around the country, as Peggy Noonan and USA Today noted in recent days. (This week's cover article in TIME magazine is all about "the new frugality.") But the following comments are not mainly about that. There are other factors in this discussion that are important to the Christian, and I want to account for them.

Having just read Strauch's little book Love or Die, I think I can center my thoughts around the two great commandments – to love God fully and our neighbor as ourselves. As followers of Christ, our lives are to be characterized in every aspect by love for God and others. Let's put our technological choices to that test. I already dealt with such sophisticated gadgets as dishwashers in the last post, so I'm going to talk about social networking and entertainment this time.

I don't know the full history of online social networking, but my awareness of it begins with Xanga, then MySpace, then Facebook, which is when I joined the movement. Then after a while I unjoined, for reasons I've already detailed. But now there's Twitter, which in the worst case is pure narcissism, although I don't see how it's any worse in its potential than Facebook, although Twitter is easier to manage. The question is, do these things help me to love the Lord and others more (or more effectively)? I think it's possible to answer affirmatively. In my case, I've chosen the combination of blog and Twitter. The former helps me distill questions of significance for my own thinking and present them for the 3 or 4 people that may stumble across them on the internet in case they may be edified.

Twitter is indeed a potential pitfall, like Facebook. There are even apps like Tweet Deck to integrate data from both Facebook and Twitter ("never miss an important tweet again!" they say. Like anything called a "tweet" could really be important). If you follow lots of people, you can spend a great deal of time on relatively meaningless stuff – just like on Facebook. These things must be used intentionally. I chose Twitter over Facebook because it's easier to focus on people that matter most to me. I avoid following anyone for mere entertainment, or just because I know them. I follow Rick Holland because he's my pastor and I pray for him; Al Mohler because he's so stinkin' smart; a few others because I want to pray for their ministries or because they are close friends and they don't inundate me with meaningless trivia. When my new small group ministry starts soon, I'll follow all of them that care to Tweet so that we can share the little things in life with each other. But I don't use a mobile Twitter application on my phone. On the other hand, I have the Twitter widget on my blog sidebar, so everyone in my massive readership can see what's happening in my life if they care to. I hope that's not narcissism, but at least I'm not pushing it on people indiscriminately (as on Facebook and Twitter itself) – if they want to see it, they have to go look at it.

So, technology can help to provide meaningful connections between us, enabling us to love one another more consistently in an increasingly fast-paced culture. But none of this can ever substitute for face-to-face contact. The more we connect online, the more important it is for us to share actual time together, eating and drinking, serving and worshiping, living life together. The electronic connection is only for filling in gaps, or even to keep a little fun in our friendships. In order to get to this point, I had to cancel my Facebook account and limit myself on Twitter to following only those with whom I have real interpersonal relationships, plus a handful of others.

Finally, a brief note about entertainment, because I've rambled on long enough. This is the area where technology has had the most detrimental effect on most of us. I look at all the gadgets in my entertainment center, and I think about how much that blasted TV is turned on. I've done the math: I could cancel my cable subscription and Tivo and use the money for a monthly family night out – even a night at the movies! Or I could keep cable and just be careful to make sure that our use of it is mostly a family activity. Either way, if we just got rid of Tivo, we would be forced to back off of our "on demand" mentality a bit. We'll make the final decision after some prayer, and hopefully God will grant us grace to use our gadgets for godliness. For anyone who has read this far, I hope you'll do the same.

On Gadgets and Godliness (2)

2009-04-16T08:30:00.000-07:00

So, how should we think about the various technological innovations available to us? This is nothing like a comprehensive approach, just some guiding questions.

As I stroll through my little Southern California home looking for gadgetry, I think first of the kitchen. Fridge, range, microwave, mixer, toaster, bread machine, blender, and dishwasher. And that's just what I can see without opening cabinets. As I walk through my study and the bedrooms in the house, I find three computers and an astonishing assortment of devices related to hairstyling (I have 3 daughters and a wife). Daughter #2 has a sewing machine, #3 has an electric guitar and amp. We have a home phone and 4 cell phones. Our environment is made comfortable with central heating and air conditioning units and assorted fans. I have two aging Hondas, a lawnmower, and an amateurish assortment of power tools in the garage, all accessible by means of an electric door opener. But the central room in my house, the family room, speaks volumes. Except for the large sectional sofa, the biggest piece of furniture in the room (maybe even in the house) is – gulp – the entertainment center. It holds an LCD TV, Tivo DVR unit, cable box, receiver, CD/DVD player, and WiFi router. We have video on demand, music on demand, and information of all kinds – on demand. And we're average at best by today's standards.

Now, I have a certain amount of angst about all this, but I will keep that in the family for now. What I want to do here is ask a series of questions that might help us be more measured and kingdom-oriented in our decisions about technology. Before adopting a new piece of technology (including software applications), I plan to ask the following questions about it:

Will it save time? More importantly, will I actually use it in such a way that I will have a net gain in time available?
What does it eliminate? Remember Postman's point: there are costs to technological innovation.
Will this deprive me of participation in creation or community?
In what ways might this promote self-centeredness in me?
Will this help me serve/minister to others?
Am I seeking happiness or status in this?
How will the patterns of my life change after I've adopted this?

How about a couple examples? First, our dishwasher just broke for the severalth time. Should we buy a new one? No brainer, right? I mean, we're talking basic household equipment. Well, consider this: we had a medium-size crowd at our house for Resurrection Sunday (a.k.a. Easter) dinner. We got out grandma's good crystal and set quite a table, which resulted in the need for an epic cleanup session. After our guests left, I marshaled the forces and all five of us pitched in. The result? The whole thing was done in about 20 minutes (loading the dishwasher would have taken at least 15) – wash, dry, put away, store leftovers, all of it; we had a rather enjoyable time as a family, talking and joking during the work; we used less energy than the 96-minute dishwasher cycle would have consumed. So we gained family time and saved money. A modest new dishwasher would cost about $700 or so, maybe more with installation. We'd spend more money operating it, and we'd miss out on the family time. It won't advance our ability to minister to others and would not contribute to healthy patterns in our family or ministry. It isn't looking so attractive after all. Sure, there'll be times we miss it, but we judge that the benefit is not worth the total cost.

I need to give an example that's a little more painful: I would love to have an iPhone. My public mocking of all things iPhone (and Mac, for that matter) is really cloaked admiration. I could afford an iPhone, so should I get one? As I run down the list of questions above, I realize that it won't really save me any time; in fact, it will keep me more connected to things that take up my time (email, Twitter, internet in general); it will divert attention from other things as I go surfing for the next killer app; it will totally appeal to my flesh since I'll be a part of the "in" crowd; it will not likely enhance my ministry to others; and so on. In the end, it's not worth it to me. I'll stick with my Blackjack II with no data plan because it serves my needs – I can make calls, send text messages, and I can carry my Outlook calendar with me. These things are family and ministry oriented and will in fact save me some time if I am disciplined in my usage of them.

And then there's the entertainment center with the gear it holds and meaning it portends. I need to take a break before I talk about that.

On Gadgets and Godliness (1)

2009-04-15T15:14:00.001-07:00

I warned my readers (all three of you) that I would be coming back to the issue of technology and its effects. To recap, I read an address to religious leaders by Neil Postman on technology. This was followed rapidly by the book Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology. I carried the questions and consternations produced by these fine works with me to the books Worldliness, edited by C.J. Mahaney, and Culture Shift by Al Mohler.

Postman's essay is brief but important. He makes five points: 1) technology isn't pure benefit; it always has a cost: "The question, 'What will a new technology do?' is no more important than the question, 'What will a new technology undo?' Indeed, the latter question is more important, precisely because it is asked so infrequently." 2) In the implementation of any new technology, there are winners who receive its benefits, and there are losers who do not or cannot. 3) "Embedded in every technology there is a powerful idea….Every technology has a philosophy which is given expression in how the technology makes people use their minds, in what it makes us do with our bodies, in how it codifies the world, in which of our senses it amplifies, in which of our emotional and intellectual tendencies it disregards." So, for instance, in the computer age, people are treated as data. 4) "Technological change is not additive, it is ecological." In other words, technology doesn't just add something to culture, it colors all of the culture. Postman cites as examples the development of standardized tests and how they have affected education, and how TV has changed the very nature of our country's political sphere. 5) We tend to view technology as somehow a part of the God-given order of the universe. So when, for example, the internet is accepted as a part of the way life should be, we tend to stop asking tough questions about our use of it.

I take Postman's conclusion to point #5 as my starting point in my search for a Christian way of thinking about technology: "The best way to view technology is as a strange intruder, to remember that technology is not part of God's plan but a product of human creativity and hubris, and that its capacity for good or evil rests entirely on human awareness of what it does for us and to us." Now let's take that statement, understand it in light of the providence of God, and table it for now.

Enter Eric Brende and his research-assistant-turned-wife, Mary. Eric wrote his master's thesis on technology and human leisure. In order to think fundamentally about the effect of technology on culture, he and his new wife went to live with an Amish-like community for 18 months. See my synopsis in my last post. No electricity, no motorized machines, only simple, horse-drawn farm implements, hand tools, and human ingenuity. The Brendes found that they didn't need much more than that. The most striking factoid in the book, for me, was his time study during harvest season where he discovered that even at the busiest time of the year he worked less than ten hours per day. And it was very often alongside community members – they planted, cultivated, harvested, and constructed together. They celebrated together. They shared life together. And no one really missed having a car, a TV, or even a gas stove. The life that is saturated with technology tends to revolve around that technology. Machines from the car to the computer have provided the infrastructure for the devastation of family and community. Notice I don't claim that the machines have caused these things – we're responsible before God. Just like "guns don't kill people – people kill people."

Now, on to the more convicting stuff. The other two books have helped me give specifically Christian shape to my thinking about this topic. Mohler's book contains a particularly compelling chapter entitled, "Are We Raising a Nation of Wimps?" where he talks about how kids are coddled in our culture. They don't emerge from childhood prepared for adulthood because they've been coddled by their parents and teachers instead of challenged with opportunities to do hard things, fail, and try again. They are not held accountable to a standard and rewarded or penalized accordingly. They're wimps. Now think about all the gadgetry that accompanies childhood these days: TV, internet, video games, cell phones, music players, etc. Can we deny that our children's lives are shaped at least in part by their electronic stuff? Add to this point the excellent discussions of worldliness in Mahaney's book – isn't technology one of the ways we are tempted to "love the world and the things in the world?" Why do I feel like I'm out of step if I'm not twittering or facebooking or stuffing more cool apps into my iPhone? What's happening here?

So is this the old "TV is evil, so throw yours away" speech? No, I don't think so, but I would congratulate you if you did. Nor am I going on a campaign to return the world to an agrarian society. That's not the world we live in. But I think it's important to ask questions and think carefully before adopting technology. I'll outline my initial stab at this in my next post.

Twas the Night Before Easter

2009-04-11T19:16:00.000-07:00

A little catch-up from the week:

I did quite a bit of gardening - soil spading, irrigation, and planting. I've heard a saying that "that which does not kill us makes us stronger." I think it's probably true (it seems to be for Jack Bauer anyway), but I just hope my back knows that saying. Speaking of gardening, I just emerged victorious from the third battle in the Great Crabgrass War of '09. The second battle, a few days ago, nearly did me in. My personal holiness was stretched to the breaking point. Maybe just a teensy bit beyond. It was still a theological experience, though - a good case of the problem of evil: if God is all-good and all-powerful, why did he create (and why does he sustain the existence of) crabgrass? I must confess I was tempted to doubt the goodness of God once or twice.

I smoked my first turkey. A real turkey - that's not a brand of cigar, I don't do that. I found what looked like the best recipe - an absurdly detailed set of instructions for the perfect smoked turkey and followed them as closely as possible. Actually turned out pretty doggone tasty. Between gardening (I snipped some fresh thyme for the inside of the bird) and smoker cooking, I think I have my summer hobbies all ready to go.

I read Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology by Eric Brende. A guy goes and lives with an Amish-like community for 18 months and writes his masters thesis (at M.I.T.!) on the experience. His research question, essentially, was "how much technology is really needed to provide for human leisure?" He and his new wife lived as subsistence farmers without electricity and motorized machinery of all kinds. They discovered they had much MORE time for personal, family, and communal enrichment than they ever did in their technology-saturated urban lives. I am truly rocked to the core by the questions I've brought away from this read. How has technology shaped my relationships with my family, other people, and God? How has it affected my family's development? What have I automated that I shouldn't have? Brende shows how technology often does the opposite of what we suppose it will do (farmers often go bankrupt because they can't earn enough money to make the payments on their big machines), and it takes us away from other people instead of bringing us closer together as we think it will. I'm sure this will come up again here in the near future. Meanwhile, pray for my wife. She's afraid I'm going to drag her off to live with the Amish. I've reassured her that I'm not thinking any such thing. But this is the kind of book that you really have to ponder carefully and then do something about it. More later.

And now it's the night before the very best day of the year. I can't wait for Resurrection Sunday worship. God is real, God is good, Jesus is alive. Ultimately, what you do with that makes all the difference.

Omnipresence Leads to Christ

2009-04-08T13:14:00.000-07:00

In my study of divine omnipresence the last few days I ran across the following quote, which provides a nice capstone to my study of this doctrine (for now).

When you wish to do something evil, you withdraw from the public into your house where no enemy may see you; from those places of your house which are open and visible to the eyes of men you remove yourself into your room; even in your room you fear some witness from another direction; you withdraw into your heart, there you meditate: (but) he is more inward than your heart….From yourself, where will you flee? Will you not follow yourself wherever you shall flee? But since there is One more inward even than yourself, there is no place where you may flee from God angry but to God reconciled. There is no place at all where you may flee. Will you flee from him? Flee unto him!

The part that really gripped me was "there is no place where you may flee from God angry but to God reconciled." God's omnipresence is experienced basically as his presence to bless or to judge. If you are in the latter, there is only one place to go - the former - and that leads you to Christ! Whether a sinning child of God or an outright enemy of God, you can't escape the disciplining/judging presence of God, because you can't escape God at all. The only place you can go to avoid his judging presence is his blessing presence. Isn't that beautiful?

And now, a note particularly for seminary students, on research - here's the saga of how I found this quotation that proved so valuable in the preaching moment. This is a quote I found first in Grudem's systematic theology, which he found as an undocumented quote in Bavinck's Doctrine of God. Well, of course I can't live with an undocumented quotation! And neither should you. So I found the quote in the old version of Bavinck, then found it in the new edition/translation of Bavinck, which I have. Score. The new edition provides the attribution of the quote, which is found in Augustine's Expositions on the Psalms. So I went to the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series and found the passage in volume 8 in Augustine's exposition of Ps 75. But even this wasn't a gimme: Augustine lists it as Ps 74, which is its number in the Latin Vulgate - which the editor of the new Bavinck also used, but the editor of NPNF1 did not (correcting it to the modern English canon but mercifully footnoting it), causing me extensive confusion. But after a little reading I found the actual quote by Augustine, and I was able to compare the three different translations of Augustine (old Bavinck, new Bavinck, and NPNF1), adding significant punch to the quote itself, and making it more usable for preaching, teaching, and blogging. So the moral of the story is - never settle for an undocumented quote!

It was actually more tiring to write that than to do the research. I'm gonna take a power nap...

Omni – Present. No, Really

2009-04-05T22:51:00.001-07:00

In pursuit of the inner logic of the way we think about the nature and attributes of God, I'm finding the doctrine of divine omnipresence an interesting case study. Here are a few tidbits:

John Miley was very concerned to conceive of God's transcendence as grounded in his infinite personhood. First, he discusses how God's omniscience and omnipotence are an implication of this infinite personhood. Then he takes omnipresence to be an implication of these two: "There is an infinite plenitude of personal agency in the omniscience and omnipotence of God." You see, if we understand the essence of God as some kind of spatial reality that fills the dimensional universe, then we will be unable to avoid seeing God as confined to the universe and spatially divisible (a part of God is here and another part of him is in Mumbai, etc.). Or, more drastically, we will drift toward pantheism or Deism. So Miley thinks of omnipresence as the reality that God knows everything in the universe and can do anything that he wants to do in any of the circumstances he knows.

The problem with this is that it is inadequate to encompass all that the Bible says about God's relationship to the spatial universe. He dwells with mankind. He is in our midst. The psalmist can say "God is here with me."

Miley's construal of omnipresence is a good illustration of a real problem that strikes quite close to home for me: theologians are famous for taking what we can understand that's in Scripture and muddying it with what we can't understand that's not in Scripture. Here's how Thomas Watson dealt with these obfuscations of divine omnipresence a half century earlier than Miley: "Metaphysical refinements are not scriptural doctrines, when they give to the terms chosen by the Holy Spirit an acceptation out of their general and proper use, and make them the signs of a perfectly distinct class of ideas; if indeed all distinctness of idea is not lost in the attempt." Which is a 200-year-old British way of saying, "God knew what he was doing when he revealed his transcendent nature through poetry, prophecy, and narrative – now don't mess it up with your abstract metaphysical speculations."

Indeed, when this warning is not heeded, we have finely nuanced and more-or-less opaque statements like this one from W.G.T. Shedd: "Divine omnipresence means the presence of all things to God, rather than God's presence to all things. They are in his presence, but he is not in their presence." Now, I understand what Shedd is going for here, but I keep coming back to this question: would David have agreed with Shedd? In view of Ps 139, I have to doubt it. Biblical doctrine should be stated in biblical language, as much as possible. "Metaphysical refinements," as much as they may seem necessary at times, should be developed with great care and biblical sensitivity.

Parking Lot – On Worship

2009-04-01T09:35:00.001-07:00

I keep a "parking lot" pad with me most of the time - a steno pad on which I can scribble stuff that I will otherwise forget. This includes prayer requests, notes for my calendar, things I want to remember to say at meetings, and also little thoughts that occur to me while living life.

From time to time I need to clear the parking lot of those notes in the last category. Here are the leftovers after I've dealt with all the other stuff from the last couple weeks:

Why is preaching different when experienced in person? If I hear a sermon live, it tends to affect me differently than if I download it and listen at some other time. The difference seems to lie in the fact that when the church is gathered together for worship, the experience adds up to more than just the sum of the assembled individuals. This means the praying, singing, reciting/reading, and preaching are all different than when experienced individually. This is a difference we should take seriously as we shepherd a flock.
We should bring back responsive readings into our worship services. The congregational participation should go way beyond singing songs. We are too passive in our worship - we tend to be spectators or consumers. It's absurdly easy for me to be disingenuous when I sing a hymn. I can sing a whole song and not think about a single word. And so can you. How is this not hypocrisy? We need to be more interactive in our worship services - confessions, prayers, readings - like (dare I say it) the traditional liturgies of the church.
There is a fallacy built into many arguments about worship music, and that is the idea that more sophisticated music is naturally more suited to worship and more glorifying to God. Therefore a Bach chorale is inherently better than Tomlin's "How Great is Our God" because the latter is "more primitive." As I was reading Jubilate II by Donald Hustad a few weeks ago, I realized that it's OK for worship music to be simpler (primitive). In fact, I will argue that it's better, because a) people can sing it, and 2) they will be less likely to be trying to impress someone. Along these lines, a guy recently said to me (something like), "I think people tend to overemphasize the art in worship music." What makes that comment compelling is that he's a regular performer at the Metropolitan Opera. He loves sophisticated, artistic music. But in worship, he simply wants to join with the saints in offering a sacrifice of praise to an awesome and gracious God. Of course, I could balance this with all sorts of qualifications, but I'm not going to. It's something we should wrestle with.

QICQA #2

2009-03-30T08:20:00.000-07:00

Now, not all of the questions I ask are obviously theological. But most of them, when considered carefully, yield some opportunity for theological reflection. Here's one in that category:

Why do we dance?

Think about it. Almost everybody does (however clumsily), and those who don't are considered weird or somehow deficient as human beings. But I think we've been made for this somehow. At the very least, I don't think you can attribute dance to the Fall. In my opinion, this is part of the mystery of creativity. Think of the incredible variety of dance forms (ballroom, tap, ballet, folk, disco, hip hop, and my personal favorite, krumping) and occasions on which they're used (social occasions and as performance art). But here's what really gets me: I have no real experience with dance, yet when I see a dance performance, it affects me. How can that be? Creativity is a part of God's amazing design for humanness, and it is quite mysterious - to me, at least. I wonder how we'll express creativity in heaven. Will we dance?

(p.s. of course I'm excluding grossly sexual expressions of dancing from my fascination. Unlike others from my tradition who tend to see almost all dance as inherently sexual, I rather think that these are perversions that are in the minority anyway. Yet in principle, even these are a part of the mystery of dance.)

Materialism and Worship

2009-03-28T11:15:00.001-07:00

This month's issue of Worship Leader Magazine takes as its theme the economic downturn and how the worship leaders can minister to a congregation in light of it. Some of it resonated with my recent thinking on worship.

But the lead article, by Todd Johnson of Fuller's Brehm Center, asks a question I don't think I've ever considered. He begins by reflecting on the materialism of Christmas, an ostensibly religious occasion:

Each year our celebration of Christmas casts an ever-darkening shadow on an increasingly diminished manger, all but eclipsing any star that might lead seekers to find God's Anointed One. This leads me to ask tentatively and fearfully about how well our worship confronts the materialism of our age, and even if our worship doesn't in some way contribute to it. Our American currency reads "In God We Trust," could it be that our worship implies "In Money We Trust"?

Hmm. Good question. How has living in perhaps the most materialistic society on earth affected our worship?

I'm a little afraid of peeking under the surface of this question, because I know how much I like a soft pew, climate control, a good mix on a high-tech sound system, a well-blended choir and orchestra, and a band that can shred the latest (good) worship songs without being self-centered. But how much of this is necessary to true worship? Please don't make me answer that. Our materialistic bent makes us think that we have to have a lot of money to worship well. After all, "we want to offer God our best," right? Shame on us if we think God is impressed with a hot mix and tight harmonies.

Also—and more to the point of Johnson's article—we tend to think that God is a capitalist; that we're doing well with God if we're doing well in the stock market. Actually, I don't like how Johnson summarizes capitalism's driving forces as "competition and greed" (I'd rather say "choice and opportunity"), but his point is well taken. Our worship in all its aspects must express that our hope is not in a robust economic system but in a living Savior who has conquered death and a sovereign God who lovingly conducts his symphony of providence toward its glorious conclusion. That kind of hope transcends circumstances and produces joyful constancy, even when your portfolio has tanked and your job has evaporated. Does our worship offer and express this kind of hope?

Resolution

2009-03-24T15:01:00.000-07:00

Had forgotten about my stack of cards that contain Jonathan Edwards' resolutions. Here's the one the came up first today:

#56. Resolved, never to give over, nor in the least to slacken my fight with my corruptions, however unsuccessful I may be.

The more I learn, the more I am convinced that the basics are the simplest, profoundest, and most difficult aspects of the Christian life. And that's why they should constantly occupy our attention.

High Wire Act

2009-03-23T15:42:00.000-07:00

An extraordinarily messy desk (research, tax prep, travel residue, etc.), a pile of non-trivial emails to deal with, and mild jet lag have made my day busy but a little scattered. As I've bounced around the office clearing away the underbrush, I hit a few websites that I visit infrequently.

Along the way I found this. Comparing high wire performer Philippe Petit with President Obama. Interesting.

Selected Notes

2009-03-22T16:56:00.000-07:00

Here are a few moments from the worship symposium that were key for me. Some of these will undoubtedly come up again in the near future for further reflection.

Speaking of the Lord's Supper, and how many evangelical worshipers are unsure just what significance it has. Ed Phillips from Candler School of Theology encapsulated the popular misconception of this key ordinance poignantly yet humorously: "It doesn't do you any good, but if you do it wrong, it can kill you!"
A simple question that was a real noggin-scratcher for me: How are the various church experiences intended to fit together, particularly as they are conceived as worship experiences? Speaking here of the Sunday morning service, Sunday School, Sunday evening service, and a home Bible study. They all seem to be instinctively patterned after what we tend to call the "main service" on Sunday morning. But should it be this way, and why?
Contemporary students tend to learn by sympathetic identification. Therefore, some are exploring the use of case studies as a way of teaching. What are the possibilities for this approach, and what are its potential weaknesses?
"The purpose of art is to lend our minds to each other." I think this was Reggie Kidd from RTS Orlando. Talking about the artistic moments in a worship service and how they cannot be reduced to propositional interpretation. There's a reason why we sing parts of our worship rather than just reciting it all.
Beauty is objective because it is rooted in God. Beauty is our sensory perception of the glory of God. It is the glory of God breaking through to our senses. This opens a new vista of questions for me: Should worship be beautiful? What makes it beautiful?
What are we to make of the broad silence in the NT regarding the specifics of corporate Christian worship? This question is the next project I will tackle, I think.

And that's just the big ones, folks. I have 7 pages of this stuff from less than 2 days of discussion with some really wonderful new friends. Don't have time to proofread this, I'm leaving for evening service...

QICQA #1

2009-03-21T12:27:00.000-07:00

I have a few more minutes while waiting for my flight out of Grand Rapids, just enough time for my first Question I Can't Quite Answer. This actually came up during the worship symposium this weekend. I've had several discussions in various classes, and I've never come up with a precise answer I'm happy with, yet the discussion is profitable:

What was the first sin?

The eating of the fruit? Reaching for the fruit? Deciding to eat the fruit? Giving ear to the Tempter? Ceasing to honor God and live eucharistically?

Hmmm...

QICQA: Intro

2009-03-19T18:28:00.000-07:00

A new series: Questions I Can't Quite Answer. These will be very short posts, because, well, I can't quite answer these questions.

Some of these may seem trivial, but there is a point to this exercise: we need to ask questions. When we can't answer them, instead of choosing one of two extremes (assume they don't matter and so ignore them, or accept a superficial answer that doesn't really say much), we should let these questions sit, unanswered, on the back burner. Let life continue and see if an answer emerges, even if the question seems unimportant. After all, how can you say the question is unimportant if you don't know the answer? Besides, answers often lead to other insights, sometimes unexpected ones. Or not. Meanwhile, we learn to think creatively and probingly.

I'll post the first QICQA in the next few days.

Sunday Morning Basics

2009-03-18T19:05:00.001-07:00

I got some reading done on two flights today, all on the topic of worship. Reading Schmemann on Eucharistic worship, I found an interesting convergence between this Eastern Orthodox writer and my pastor. One of Rick's more common admonitions to young adults (like me) is that you can't show up on Sunday morning, expect to flip some internal switch, and suddenly be worshiping. His line is, "Sunday morning begins Saturday night." Sunday worship is different from the rest of life, and it takes a certain amount of preparation.

Alexander Schmemann makes a related point as he begins his discussion of the liturgy of the Eucharist, which he describes as a journey. Unexpectedly – at least for this recovering fundamentalist – he places the beginning of this weekly journey long before the actual start of the worship service: "The journey begins when Chrisitians leave their homes and beds…and whether they have to drive fifteen miles or walk a few blocks, a sacramental act is already taking place." I love that – I'm going to use that with my kids this Sunday. And myself.

But then Schmemann goes on to emphasize that when the church gathers to worship, we are necessarily coming away from the world around us:

The liturgy begins then as a real separation from the world. In our attempt to make Christianity appeal to the man on the street, we have often minimized, or even completely forgotten, this necessary separation. We always want to make Christianity "understandable" and "acceptable" to this mythical "modern" man on the street. And we forget that the Christ of whom we speak is "not of this world," and that after His resurrection He was not recognized even by His own disciples.

American evangelicalism needs to hear this. Worship is for the people of God, the members of Christ's Body. When true worship connects with the unbeliever for the first time, it's because he has faced the reality that worship depicts and has just ceased to be an unbeliever, because the secrets of his heart have been revealed, and as a result he has fallen down on his face and begun worship God along with the church assembled (1Cor 14:25-26). Again – we mustn't enter worship hoping to impress or be impressed.

Like a Bird

2009-03-17T09:45:00.000-07:00

My friend Cooper persuaded me to Twitter on Sunday night. So far I think I can handle this, although there's some goofiness with getting my mobile phone registered on the Twitter website. I hope they get it fixed soon, because I could use it later this week. I'm leaving for Calvin College & Seminary tomorrow morning to attend a gathering of ETS members who have formed the Consultation on Christian Worship. I'm doing some pre-reading and am really looking forward to the interaction with others who have similar interests in this topic but different backgrounds.

Right now I'm reading a couple chapters from For the Life of the World by Alexander Schmemann, which we'll be discussing sometime during our 2 days of meetings. I appreciate his emphasis on living eucharistically in this world which, even corrupted by us, is God's gift of love. It's a helpful contribution toward overcoming the secular/sacred dichotomy that is so pervasive in the baptist/free church tradition which produced me. This is why pastors, especially pastors-in-training, need to read outside their own ecclesiastical tradition - a stream of thought and action which has developed a selective memory of sorts. Sometimes God's correction comes from what we consider the unlikliest of sources.

Clean Desk, Clear Thinking

2009-03-14T12:42:00.001-07:00

Today is sort of a mental cleaning day. My biggest accomplishment so far is – drum roll, please – my email inbox is now completely empty! Of course, some smart aleck will read this and send me an email just to spoil my feeling of accomplishment. But it feels great for however brief a time it may last.

I'm also cleaning out my blog folder – yes, I actually have one. I came across this file from last November, when I had been studying the basics of Arminian theology. As I wrestled with the fundamental questions that classical Arminians raise against Calvinistic thinking, I found it interesting how A's and C's tend to talk past each other. This is difficult to describe, especially in a blog post, but I found this file with a few of my thoughts at the time and thought I should do something with it. Let me try to explain (note: "foreknowledge" here means simple foreknowledge – the idea that God knows about something in advance without actually ordaining it or causing it in any way).

In my reading I found A's saying something like "God's foreknowledge of evil is somehow compatible with libertarian free choice" and opposing it to the C's claim that "God's foreordination of evil is somehow compatible with his righteousness." This is squeezing an orange to get apple juice. An Arminian takes the former as a theological conclusion derived from other principles just like the Calvinist does with the latter, so there are significant steps missing in this process.

Clear thinking on these issues demands that the Arminian proposition be analyzed over against its proper Calvinist correlate. Thus, the claim "God's foreknowledge of evil is somehow compatible with libertarian free choice" needs to be judged biblically and theologically over against the Calvinist claim "God's foreordination is somehow compatible with (compatibilistic) free choice." Now you have two ideas that can be compared against broad and holistic biblical interpretation. The previous pairing just creates chaos.

The same is true with the issue of evil and divine righteousness, although this one is a tad more obvious. A's say "God's permission of foreknown evil is somehow compatible with his righteousness." This must be argued, not against a corresponding Calvinist assertion about human responsibility, but the corresponding Calvinist assertion about God's righteousness, such as "God's foreordination of evil is somehow compatible with his righteousness." Now we have two claims, both with serious objections, which can be biblically and theologically examined.

Both A's and C's can be guilty of trying to get away with unargued theological premises. For example, an Arminian can't just blurt, "how horrible to claim that God ordains evil! How obviously incompatible with righteousness! He only permits evil – that's obviously compatible with free choice!" The unargued premise is that permission is somehow fundamentally different from foreordination for one who is God of the universe.

Ever notice how much conceptual chaos seems to attend the pitting of Arminianism's fundamental claims against those of Calvinism? At least some of this seems to relate to this sort of argumentative category confusion and unargued assumptions. Not that any of this is big news, but now I have one more clean file…

Enough Already

2009-03-13T14:49:00.001-07:00

I somehow decided that today was the day to play around with my blog design -- a risky venture on Friday the 13th, no? Not in the mood for templates anymore, so I took a simple template and fiddled around with it. It's kinda dark, but I don't mean anything by it. I had to do that so that my snappy new custom header would look right. But now I'm out of patience for figuring this stuff out, so it'll stay like this for a while.

Now I must turn my attention to weightier matters. I've got brisket in the smoker for our Texas BBQ party tonight, and doggone if I ain't got a meat thermometer nowheres in this joint. So I'm off to the store.

Jesus Not Spirituality

2009-03-12T10:32:00.001-07:00

Before I forget, I need to capture this quote from Al Mohler, who was the surprise preacher at our college ministry on Sunday morning. When Dr. Mohler preaches, you can expect to be blessed and challenged across the range of your spiritual person – thinking, feeling, and choosing. The recording isn't up yet, but I'm pretty sure I remember something close to his wording.

His sermon from Acts 17 was biblically faithful and pointedly relevant to the cultural milieu in which we find ourselves today, particularly its pan-religiosity which says that it's good for you to be spiritual, but the precise content of your religion doesn't really matter. In fact, precise content is generally frowned upon. It's just better to believe in something rather than nothing.

After discussing this pluralistic attitude, Mohler concluded:

"Jesus is not value-added spirituality; He is life instead of death."

Simple, profound, devastating. Human beings have a choice – life or death, Jesus or anything else. A thought that makes this recent post on Mohler's blog all the more sobering.

And now that you're thinking about Jesus, download (for free) and listen to General Session 4 from the 2009 Shepherds' Conference, where my pastor Rick Holland preached on "the purity and simplicity of devotion to Christ."

Giving not Getting

2009-03-10T17:52:00.001-07:00

So, last week was the Shepherds' Conference, always a whirlwind of fellowship, fun, and edification. This year I taught a seminar on how worship is to be about submission and sacrifice. Here is a personal reflection on that study:

I wonder how many of the church's "worship wars" would be solved if we all suddenly remembered that worship is about sacrifice and submission.

What do I think about as I enter the worship-center-auditorium-sanctuary-place on Sunday? Am I thinking "I wonder who's going to sing special music today?" or "I wonder if the brass section will be playing today – I love it when they play?" Or am I thinking, "Today I have come to give myself to God; to offer my life as a living sacrifice and my words as a sacrifice of praise to Jesus?" Worship has always been about offering something of value to God in response to his self-revelation, in order to be accepted by and have fellowship with him. Jesus is the sacrifice that makes me acceptable, by faith, to God. And I continually give all that I am to God in response to all that he is. That's a decent biblical summary of worship. But most evangelical churches plan their worship around what will capture the attention of the people and hold it. Worship services are a program that we "put on" on Sunday. And we love to argue over what to "put on."

Years ago, I willingly—even eagerly—dove into the deep end of debates over musical styles in worship. My reaction now is a mixture of sadness and revulsion when the topic comes up. Take all the instruments out if you want, but let's gather together as one, in the peace that the Holy Spirit brings, and offer ourselves to God afresh, submitting our minds and hearts to him and reveling in the joy of being in Christ.

God forbid that I should walk into the gathering of the saints and seek to be impressed by a program. And woe to me if I plan a worship service around what I think congregants will "enjoy." We have this brief chance to encounter the living God together; can we please not waste it by trying to make an impression on someone?

No Idea Where This Came From...

2009-02-28T14:45:00.000-08:00

I hate politics. More every day. But this came to me out of the lifeless void of space this week. I just now got a few minutes to find the images. Here it is:

Famously Liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank...

And airheaded, bumbling Uncle Billy from "It's A Wonderful Life..."

The resemblance is striking. You draw the parallels...

Writer, Unblocked

2009-02-23T18:20:00.000-08:00

So I finally produced something in my sabbatical - it's not all input any more. After studying penal substitution and worship, and finding them inextricably linked throughout Scripture, here was my conclusion:

The penal substitution of Jesus for sinners is to be woven into the worship of God’s people. It is to be pictured in the church’s ordinances and celebrated in her gatherings. We cannot allow distaste for violence—much less a fashionable ideology of redemptive nonviolence—to eviscerate the central truth which constitutes our access to God. We cannot allow the sinner’s desire for forgiveness without justice to overshadow the inexorable truth of the wages of sin. And we cannot allow the the central and organizing principle of the atonement to be reduced to just another metaphor in the crowd. The recent suppression of the doctrine of penal substitution appears to be an effort to put forward a kinder, gentler gospel. But can there be anything kinder than a God who provides a substitute so that the sinner need not face divine wrath; anything gentler than being brought into the presence of God by the Son who paid the price of access?

This is the Savior the people of God worship today, and the one to whom an innumerable host will sing with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing” (Rev 5:12).

So much more to come. Next up: how worship is more about giving than receiving...

Life Goes Faster

2009-01-27T11:53:00.000-08:00

This is my daughter and her...
* deep sigh *

FIANCÉ

Ben's a really good guy, and I'm genuinely happy for them. But I have to say that although I do appreciate the congratulations I've been getting, I can't help hearing each one as something like: "Welcome to the category of those who can no longer delude themselves about their age."
Um, thanks.

Filled but not Formed

2009-01-24T18:42:00.000-08:00

The most difficult phase of a research project is just after the beginning. Pages are filling up with notes and ideas from reading, ideas are multiplying, chaos is building. My project is to explore the link between Christian worship and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. It is every bit the challenge that I expected.

At the moment I'm absorbed in an interesting monograph from the NAC Studies in in Bible and Theology series, entitled Enthroned on Our Praise, by Timothy M. Pierce (see the Librarything box at right). I've been thinking about the role of atonement in the OT worship sacrificial system today, and the foreshadowing of atonement in the cross of Christ is sharp and compelling. This is the last note I jotted on the ol' note pad:

Atonement paves the way for
Holiness, which is required for
Fellowship, which is the goal of
Worship.

And this leads me to the quote of the day. Speaking of the OT saint's experience of worshiping God thru the sacrificial system, he shows how these sacrifices involved worship from the heart that was transformative for the worshiper: "Therefore, even in cultic usage kapar [the Hebrew word for atonement] took on meaning for how people functioned. It was not simply an external concept, for it involved a life-changeing process by which the people sought to preserve fellowship" (87).

So it seems that atonement must play a key role in our understanding and our experience of worship after all. I think. As Drudge would say, the story is developing...

Where I Was This Weekend

2009-01-19T19:21:00.001-08:00

Weekend getaway included a trip up the mountain to see the Giant Sequoias in the snow. Here's my 12-year-old daughter serving as scale reference.

UN. BE. LIEVABLE.

New Year Roundup

2009-01-15T18:15:00.001-08:00

It's been a busy 2 weeks. I hosted Dr. Dan Block for our winterim class, which I also attended. It was excellent. I finished up a syllabus for a D.Min. doctoral seminar this summer, because the students were in town for their winter session and needed it. And I had forgotten. OOPS. I watched more football in the space of 10 days than is advisable. And there's more to come, cuz my Stillers (that's "Steelers" for you'ns who ain't from Pennsavainya) are in the hunt for another Super Bowl!

Anyway, the roundup:

Most convicting biblical discovery: Dan Block's discussion of the 10 Commandments, and what it means to love the LORD with all my lev, nefesh, and m'ōd (heart, soul, and "very"). C'mon, dummy, they're concentric circles: the heart is my inner man – seat of emotions, will, and thought; the soul is my life as a whole – including body; and "strength" is all my resources – talents, abilities, opportunities, possessions, relationships. Why didn't I see this before?
Best quote: discussion with student ministry leaders, about how thinking that knowing a lot about the Bible is equivalent to knowing God better. Someone referred to this arrogance as "feeling like I've got God outlined." Yeah.
Best idea (well, we'll see): I'm beginning to come up with a name for the theological method that I've been musing about in previous posts like those on divine eternity and divine immutability: I'm thinking of calling it "First Person Theology." Get it? It is centered on God as the First Person, and yet it seeks to speak in first person in order to deal with me personally.
Most maddening quote: Daniel Bell, in his essay on why the cross is not about penal substitution: "Yet any effort to make the case that God does not demand blood cannot simply skip over the cross but instead must pass right through it. This is the case not just because efforts to circumvent the cross run against the grain of the tradition and jettison significant portions of scripture, but because discarding the cross and talk of atonement through the blood of the Lamb also undercuts the laudable goals of those who reject blood sacrifice. In other words, we need the cross of Christ in order to reject the logic of blood sacrifice." I call this procedure "denial by inversion."
Biggest waste of time: the season premiere of American Idol
Craziest implausibility: the season premiere of 24. One little gizmo makes the entire infrastructure of the US open to attack. Good grief. This show is full of wild implausibilities, like the idea that you can drive from Studio City to Malibu in 15 mins, but this one beats 'em all. I don't think I'm going to make it past 2 p.m. this year.
Best (and only) movie: Doubt. Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman – powerful combination.

And now I'm on sabbatical. Readin' my fool head off, and loving it.

Happy New Year

2009-01-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

It seems I have developed that inability to "sleep in" that is perhaps a key milestone in the aging process. And one of the great benefits of this disability is that I get to experience the almost eerie quiet of New Years Day morning. Almost everyone in town is sleeping, passed out, or drifting in that direction, so there is this sweet calmness in the air unlike any other day of the year. It feels like a good way to start the year, collecting my thoughts and enjoying the serenity for a short while.

And another year is gone. The general tone in the news is that everyone is glad to see it go. I'm not so sure. 2008 was a good year, not because everything turned up roses all year, but because I experienced the faithfulness of God in many obvious and direct ways. I am so grateful.

It seems to be a part of the human operating system to look back at the end of every year and review. In doing that, we realize that we are a year older. The young folk are excited about that. Those of us being dragged inexorably into middle age and beyond are not as enthusiastic. But one thing I do know - God is not a year older today. He has walked through 2008 with us, working all things for the good of his people, having mercy on sinners, loving his enemies, judging the recalcitrant, unfailingly consistent in his righteousness. But he is not older this year, because he doesn't age. He isn't worried about the passage of time, the recession, the various ongoing geopolitical hostilities. He is "from everlasting to everlasting," and last year went exactly according to plan, just as this year will.

So have a Happy New Year, for as the old year testifies: God is real, God is good, and God is here.

Humility Again

2008-12-30T16:18:00.001-08:00

As a rule, I don't follow blogs. I hardly have time to do anything with my own. But there are a few that I do check periodically, among them Justin Taylor's fine and newsy site. Yesterday he pointed out an article by Tim Keller on humility that appears in CT. Since the poison of arrogance is something about which God mercifully (or mercilessly, as it seems) convicts me on a regular basis, it is becoming a minor theme here. I read the article just now, and it's good, as far as it goes. And in my opinion, it goes far enough to have a real impact.

But not everyone seems to think so. Someone posted another take on this article, as a comment on another blog post elsewhere. The guy who criticizes Keller's piece hones in on the following sentence by Keller: "The wing of the evangelical church that is most concerned about the loss of truth and about compromise is actually infamous in our culture for its self-righteousness and pride." Based on this, Keller's dissenter concludes that Keller "casually associates truth with pride, leading one to conclude that a desire for humility is associated with a disregard for truth."

Well, I'm a part of that "wing" Keller references, and I must shamefacedly agree with Keller. But (as Keller also affirms) I don't think this sad reality means that it's proud to seek, affirm, and defend truth. But he's not writing about that – he's writing about humility. Not about whether to stand up for truth, but how to do so. The critic goes on to be quite unkind to Keller, accusing him of being "disingenuous, affected, and corny," and obviously thinks that Keller is the opposite of what he exhorts his readers to be. In the end, Keller's critic simply disregards the central point and focus of Keller's exhortation, which is right on the money biblically: humility is found in self-emptying. Could Keller have approached this topic differently? Could he have said more? Of course – but why can't we take his article as it stands, receive his admonition, and respond as the Spirit convicts? Sheesh…

Now, I don't know this gentleman, and I'm not trying to pick on him. But I see this kind of thing more frequently than I'd like to admit among seminary students, often resulting in a red-ink admonition and deduction of a few points. Why can't we evaluate an argument on its own terms? There's a lot more to criticize in this brother's criticism of Keller – it seems he's rather confirming Keller's point about that "wing of the evangelical church" – but I'd rather go back and absorb what Keller is trying to say – there's too much pride in the church, and I'm guilty of some of it. Humility comes when I see myself as nothing but an empty vessel which must be filled by Christ; I mustn't dwell on being humble, but on repenting of pride by being more Christlike.

Faithful in Strength

2008-12-28T17:47:00.001-08:00

Today's worship contained a couple of wonderful moments from the Psalms. First, a sermon from Ps 27, focusing on how God is a refuge through the circumstances of life. This is one of my favorite psalms, so this was a special blessing to me. Verse 4 contains one of the great fundamental summaries of the Christian life, the "one thing" – to dwell with God, gaze upon his beauty, and commune with him personally.

Then, from Psalm 77, an encouragement concerning the immutability of God. Actually, this psalm is quite significant to our understanding of the doctrine of divine immutability. It is a great example of how doctrine cannot be separated from practice – of how theology is life. The psalmist bemoans his difficult circumstances, and climaxes his complaint in verses 9-10: "Has God forgotten to be merciful? Has his anger stifled his compassion?" Then I said, "I am sickened by the thought that the sovereign One might become inactive." (The NETbible carefully handles the Hebrew translation here to account for the uncertainty of the text in this spot.)

See the concept of divine immutability in action? The psalmist's worldview is braced by the unchangeableness of God, who has revealed himself to be unalterably faithful to his character and promises. When Asaph let his circumstances loom so large in his vision that he began to doubt the goodness of God, he was so shaken that he realized how distorted his view of the world had become. So he returned to what he knew: "I will remember the works of the LORD…I will reflect upon your deeds…what god can compare to our great God?" And so Asaph ends up at essentially the same place as David in Ps 27 (ESV): "Wait for the LORD; be strong, and let your heart take courage; wait for the LORD!"

This is how the doctrine of divine immutability lives and breathes – not in the abstract philosophy of Aquinas and (later,) the Reformed scholastics, but in the warm immediacy of the biblical writers and their inspired reflection on their interactions with God. This has weighty ramifications for those who subscribe to some version of open theism, which seeks to affirm this immediacy at the expense of divine foreknowledge. But I'd rather not turn this post into a polemic against open theism. Maybe another time.

We Now Return…

2008-12-26T13:21:00.001-08:00

Wow. What a whirlwind. Ukraine was great even though it was freezing, the return trip was relaxing even though there were no movies I could stomach, and Christmas was enjoyable even though I've been jet lagging.

While traveling I was reminded once again about how addicted I am, as an American, to being comfortable. These trips are so helpful at pulling me out of my comfort zone – which pretty much envelopes my whole life. I am reminded how those engaged in ministry in almost every era of the church since apostolic times have had to deal with discomfort of every type. And I'm reminded of how little of that discomfort I have to face in the rich West.

And then, as Christmas took me rather by surprise I was impressed anew with the richness of what we celebrate on December 25 – that God became man for our sakes. Talk about getting outside your comfort zone. Although he was in form of God, He took on the form of a servant and became obedient unto death.

Merry Christmas, indeed.

And now, on to some new things. Today I'm dividing my energies between two important activities. First, organizing my home office to begin my first (and maybe last) sabbatical. I'm not even sure where to start, this place is in such a jumble. The other major activity today is very vacation-oriented. You see, yesterday the Sci-Fi channel had a Star Trek TNG marathon, and I Tivo'd twelve episodes…

I relaxed too much

2008-12-10T08:31:00.001-08:00

I spent a couple days in relative seclusion with my beloved last weekend, and I apparently got so relaxed that I forgot to bring my briefcase home. So since Monday night I've had no computer or relevant study materials. It's an interesting feeling, and I'm learning some things about my time allocation patterns that will be helpful during my sabbatical next semester.

But I'm rather disoriented and looking forward to getting my stuff back today. At least I won't have to use my secretary's or wife's computer to access email (good thing I gave up Facebook on Monday!).

Meanwhile, I'm administering final exams and preparing for my trip on Friday. Speaking of which, I gotta get back to work. Still working on the perseverance of the saints. The doctrine, that is. I certainly AM trying to persevere, but that's not what I meant...

Facebook is dead. Long live Facebook.

2008-12-08T15:25:00.000-08:00

OK, I've given it the old college try - twice now. I listened to the advice of a few friends and set up my blog to auto-import as Facebook notes, and kept my account open. I de-friended a bunch of people that I don't think I've ever met.

And still, I don't feel like Facebook is contributing anything positive to my life. In fact, there are some good reasons for me to abandon it altogether. Here are some, in no particular order:

I don't really have 371 friends.
Even if I did have 371 friends, I don't think I would want them ALL to know "what I'm doing right now."
I'm tired of feeling inferior to Quincy Lima, who has over 1,000 friends.
I'm tired of trying to compose witty status updates.
I'm spending too much time reading other people's witty status updates
Cooper Smith has a new baby AND a new camera. I can't cope with all the pictures.
I'm tired of getting hit with stuff my "friends" throw at me.
I'm tired of getting poked and super-poked. It hurts. Besides, what are we, 12?
I find virtual gifts somewhat less than meaningful.
The abbreviations really get on my nerves. Facebook rarely makes me Laugh Out Loud, and never while Rolling On the Floor. I'm not Just Kidding.
Facebook is the single largest productivity killer ever to entice me away from more important things.

So, to all my Facebook friends: at whatever level I am really your friend, I heartily continue to be so. To my relatives - don't disown me, ok? To my missionary brothers and sisters - I'll miss you the most - keep me on your newsletter lists, and I'll still pray for you. But from now on I really need to reallocate my Facebook time to pursuits of more lasting significance. Please stop by here and comment on a post, or email me.

p.s. If you choose to stay on Facebook, that's totally fine with me. I won't think less of you as you're wasting the time I'm no longer wasting. lol, jk.

(un)Common Grace

2008-12-07T15:58:00.000-08:00

I'm on a resting retreat this weekend with my beloved bride, and I realize that I've been noticing common grace recently. There are so many good things in this life under the sun.

A child's silliness.

A parent's comfort.

A lover's intimate smile that communicates so much.

A cold autumn morning.

Hummingbirds.

Cinnamon rolls.

We mustn't forget that the "good things" in life are good because they are gifts of grace from a generous and loving Creator. So, enjoy them, because he intends for them to be enjoyed. But enjoy them as gifts, and be grateful.

The Point of Omnipresence

2008-12-06T08:36:00.001-08:00

Along the lines of my post on divine eternity, I guess I should vent about omnipresence as well. The typical seminary-guy definition of divine omnipresence goes something like this: "God is at every point in the universe in the totality of his being." Or something equally abstract and murky. Now, of course, I don't disagree with this statement, as far as I can understand what it is intended to mean. But, like the traditional view of divine eternity, I don't think it says enough that is biblical or personally compelling.

When God talked about his spatial relationship to the universe, he said things like this: "Am I a God at hand, declares the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord" (Jer 23:23-24). Or, more comfortingly: "Where shall I go from your Spirit?/ Or where shall I flee from your presence?/ If I ascend to heaven, you are there!/ If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!/ If I take the wings of the morning/ and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,/ even there your hand shall lead me,/ and your right hand shall hold me" (Ps 139:7-10). Does this mean God is not on Mars, Antares, or Betelgeuse? Of course not – God is personally present with all of his creation (cf. 1 Kings 8:27).

My problem with the more abstract definition is that it emphasizes that God is there. But the biblical accent on God's relationship to space is that God is here. Omnipresence is about God's personal presence with all people – to bless or to judge, to receive obedience or witness disobedience, to minister comfort or condemnation. It seems that God doesn't want us simply to define his omnipresence; there's a particular way in which he wants us to think about it. He wants this truth to play a particular role in our lives. And our definition of it should point us in that direction.

So I prefer this definition of omnipresence: "Wherever I go, the God of the universe is with me." Simple, biblically illuminating, and, at least implicitly, calls for a response.

So, my friend, go with God, for he goes with you.

Knowing and Loving God

2008-12-04T06:02:00.000-08:00

Morning worship...

I'm reading Piper's What Jesus Demands from the World devotionally these days. This is a good book, dealing with Jesus' commands in the Gospels. An impactful excerpt from Piper's discussion of the command to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength:

To love God we must know him. God would not be honored by groundless love. In fact, there is no such thing. If we do not know anything about God, there is nothing in our mind to awaken love. If love does not come from knowing God, there is no point in calling it love for God. There may be some vague attraction in our heart or some unfocused gratitude in our souls, but if they do not arise from knowing God, they are not love for God.

It's easy to say that you love God because you study a lot or have devoted your life to ministry. But love for God flows from truly knowing God - and this is what gives study and ministry their vibrancy and makes them really worthwhile.

The Point of Divine Eternity

2008-12-01T09:59:00.001-08:00

One of my favorite class discussions in theology proper (the doctrine of God) is when we discuss God's relationship to time. I pose the traditional view (that God is outside of time and does not experience events as a past-present-future sequence), then I disagree with it, and then the fun begins. Cognitive dissonance galore.

Here's an observation about theological method that all seminoids in my tradition – and all thinking Christians – should consider. We are so concerned to protect God's otherness that sometimes we make metaphysical statements about his nature that we really don't understand. (I'll muse about omnipresence and immutability some other time.) The view of God's relationship to time that arises from the Greek/Roman Catholic/medieval scholastic/Reformed scholastic tradition says that God is outside of time and experiences all the events of time and space "simultaneously" in some kind of "eternal present." These terms have to be enclosed in quotes because they are temporal terms being used metaphorically to refer to – I know not what. Seriously. You'll have to ask Thomas Aquinas or W.G.T. Shedd or Norman Geisler, but I doubt the answer will make any more biblical sense to you than it did to me.

Notice I said "biblical sense." You see, doctrinal formulations should possess explanatory power that thematically elucidates the story of redemption and impacts the believer's life and thought. But the tradition on divine timelessness brings more obfuscation than illumination. Which brings me to Ps. 90. Yesterday my pastor did a wonderful (and too-brief) devotional sermon on Ps. 90:12 ("so teach us to number our days,/ That we may present to you a heart of wisdom"), and I was struck in a fresh way with the biblical point of God's eternality. The psalm begins with a description of how God is related to the time-aspect of his creation: "Before the mountains were born/ Or you gave birth to the earth and the world/ Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God." The psalmist follows up with the famous line, "For a thousand years in your sight/ Are like yesterday when it passes by."

Is the psalmist saying that God is outside of time and does not experience events sequentially? Of course not. You'll only come to that conclusion if you approach the text with a certain set of distinctly Aristotelian presuppositions. So why mention God's relationship to time? Well, just keep reading. The psalmist (Moses in this case) is musing on the brevity of life, and he is contrasting this with the enduring nature and character of the God who is always there. No, always here.

As far as I can tell from his revelation to us (philosophical arguments notwithstanding), God is not "outside of time." Rather, he created the universe and then entered in for the sake of his creatures whom he would wonderfully redeem for his glory. He walks through redemptive history with us, experiencing events (that he ordained from the beginning) as they happen. Read Ps 90 again. As time passes, he does not age or grow impatient or frustrated. He is the everlasting God of the universe. And why does he tell us this? So that we will learn to number our days (see the fleeting-ness of our existence) and focus them on maximizing the glory of God in our lives. So that we will learn to be satisfied with the merciful, faithful love of our covenant God and enjoy him forever (v. 14).

That's the point of the biblical doctrine of divine eternity.

This Just In (Literally)

2008-11-28T19:50:00.001-08:00

They say something about the best laid plans, don't they? Well, today's plan for a quiet reading day turned wildly better by the unexpected arrival of my Kindle from Amazon. The estimated delivery date was next Tuesday, so this was a delightful boon to my already pleasant Black Friday.

Initial experience has been as expected. Getting started was as simple as could be. I figured out basic navigation, emailed a document to the device, emailed another to the free conversion service and then transferred manually, bought a couple books, made some highlighting and notations, transferred clippings to my PC. To a modestly experienced gadget hound such as myself, it's been a breeze. I've even found that reading this device is easier than reading an average hardcopy book if you happen to wear progressive lenses, as do I in my presbyopic condition.

Along with those positives, I've experienced the infamous inadvertent page turns, awkward ergonomics, and slightly goofy (yet very handy, once you get it) book-cover-thingy. I have adapted to each of the eccentricities that I've discovered so far, and I've only had the device a few hours.

It's promising, but of course this is only my initial reaction. I plan to use it for a few months and then provide a review that I hope will help seminary faculty, students, and alumni decide whether it's for them. I've heard rumors that Amazon is trying to open an academic market and maybe even produce an academic version. As always, we'll wait and see.

Giving Thanks

2008-11-28T08:23:00.000-08:00

Had a most enjoyable Thanksgiving at home. Pam put on a scrumptious and lovely extravaganza as always.

And the gang enjoyed it immensely.

Followed by games, both watched (football) and played (Balderdash, Mad Gab).

And now, I get to enjoy Black Friday by going no farther from my cozy study than my back patio. You see, Black Friday means I get to read and study because everyone leaves me alone. So, a fresh cup of coffee and a few good books. Ahhhh.....

What’s in a Motto?

2008-11-26T12:14:00.001-08:00

As part of the beginning of TIL's current reincarnation, I made a few adjustments that include a new subtitle for the blog: "lectio, oratio, tentatio." First, let's get the pronunciation right, ok? It's not "LEK-show, o-RAY-show, ten-TAY-show." Repeat after me: "LEK-tee-oh, o-RAH-tee-oh, ten-TAH-tee-oh." Or something like that.

The Christian life was summarized by some early Christians in several Latin words. "Lectio" refers to reading Scripture - taking in the Word of God. "Oratio" is praying over what you've read, asking for understanding and conviction about sin and truth. Typically, "meditatio" was also included as a way of emphasizing the meditative element of growing in the knowledge of God - pondering the words of Scripture prayerfully in order to listen to the voice of God. Mystics tended to go further into "contemplatio," a search for mystical union with God in a non-linguistic, ineffable experience.

Martin Luther modified this tradition, emphasizing reading, meditation, and prayer. But instead of mystical contemplation, he introduced the concept of "tentatio" - struggle. Luther envisioned (and experienced) the Christian life as interacting with God through the Word and prayer, and then struggling to obey through the afflictions of life (inward temptations and outward trials).

So, my adaptation of all this is "read, pray, struggle." This summarizes the Christian life and especially the complete approach to the study of theology - focused on the Word, dependent on the Spirit, determined to respond accordingly.

One more test post

2008-11-26T09:25:00.000-08:00

Trying to get these to show up automatically as notes on Facebook. The last one didn't make it, so I did a validation procedure to see if that would do it. Don't know if the problem is Blogger or Facebook.

Facebook Addiction

2008-11-25T19:33:00.000-08:00

I deactivated my Facebook account, then I started thinking of the wonderful people that I'll lose contact with - like my missionary friends and some folks in other parts of the country. Besides, I need to be able to spy on my kids. So I decided to reactivate it and use Facebook's blog import feature. Of course, none of this will fix the lack of discipline that results in wasted time from pointless Facebook surfing. So I'll have to work on that.

So this post is really a test to see what it looks like when it shows up on the other side.

Looking to the Cross

2008-11-25T11:03:00.001-08:00

I'm studying various aspects of the doctrines of salvation these days in preparation for my upcoming trip to teach in Kiev. This morning I'm reading my favorite Arminian theologian, Richard Watson (my incredible aunt LoLo got me an 1833 edition of his Theological Institutes for my doctoral graduation in '07). Watson's love for Jesus as Savior and his focus on the cross produce gems like this:

All that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful majesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; all that can win back the heart of man to his Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a matter of affection and delight as well as duty; all that can extinguish the angry and malignant passions of man to man; all that can inspire a mutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-denying charity for the benefit of others; all that can arouse by hope, or tranquillize by faith, is to be found in the vicarious death of Christ, and the principles and purposes for which it was endured.

A good example of a theologian who wrestles with the deep issues but never loses sight of the point of it all. If theology is life, and theology is centered on the cross, then every life must be a Cross-Centered Life.

On Being Arrogant, by One Who Is

2008-11-24T11:01:00.001-08:00

Hanging out with seminary students over pizza recently, I heard it again: "I was told not to go to [this] seminary because people who go to [this] seminary come out arrogant, and split churches."

This just vexes me to no end. Now, of course every seminary is going to have graduates with a pride problem, and I'm certainly not the guru of humility (just ask my wife and daughters). And it's not like no one ever exhorts these students on the need for humility in the Christian life in general, and in pastoral ministry in particular. It seems like the treatment for this disease is more like a course of antibiotics for an infection rather than, say, surgery to remove a nasty wart. You never really eliminate the tendency towards pride. You need a steady, ongoing dose of humiliation – be humble, or be humbled. Then you are truly useful to God.

So, today I trot out (again) a few of my favorite quotes on humility. First, Augustine: "If you ask me what is the first precept of the Christian religion I will answer, first, second and third, Humility." Then Andrew Murray: "Humility is the only soil in which the graces root." Don't you get this? If you don't have a humble spirit toward God and others, you can't truly develop the other virtues that characterize a Christian. The fruit of the Spirit is only borne when the tree of your life is rooted in and fed by a Christlike humility. "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus." If you don't model the fruit of the Spirit, if you are not an exemplar of the gentleness, patience, tolerance, tenderness, and forgiveness that are to characterize ALL Christians (Eph. 4), how can you even begin to approach the task and office of shepherd?

"For by the grace given to me I say to every one of you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think, but to think with sober discernment, as God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith" (Rom 12:3).

So I have to ask myself: how am I, the professor, nourishing the tendency toward arrogance in class? After all, a student becomes like his teacher, right? Sheesh… More later.

Theology is Music

2008-11-20T17:28:00.000-08:00

I'm listening to Andrew Peterson's latest release, Resurrection Letters Vol. II. No, there's no volume one yet. I really like this guy's writing - he's deeply theological and yet still has a real talent with words.
He's definitely going to make the airplane playlist for me. I've got a trip to Kiev, Ukraine in a couple weeks, and that flight from L.A. to Munich is a killer - gotta be ready with just the right music, and this totally fits the bill.

Unity and Denominations

2008-11-18T20:28:00.001-08:00

Over the last year I have been remarkably compelled by the call to unity in the NT. A while back I read Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ by John Frame. I'm cleaning off the top of my desk, and it's still here in a pile, after at least 8 months. I don't think many have heard of this book, and I'm sure most evangelicals will find it very uncomfortable. However, I think that we should be willing to be challenged by this piece of creative theological thinking. Frame's grand vision is a united Body of Christ, a church that is truly Catholic in all the right ways.

And I think the reason most of us react viscerally at such an idea is our predilection for in-the-box thinking and comfort-zone living. Frame thinks that most of us have the following unspoken assumption (among others): "The distinctive of my tradition are more important than the doctrine and practices that we share with other traditions." He goes on: "I think many Christians feel this way; for the things that really excite them about the Christian faith are the distinctives of one tradition rather than the common property of the universal church."

For the record (our pervasive suspicion-prone disunity requires that I make this disclaimer), I think there are important theological reasons why Frame's vision will not be realized before Jesus returns. But I also think that maintaining "the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" is an imperative at which the church, by and large, has failed miserably. God help us.

Adjustments

2008-11-08T12:02:00.001-08:00

I just deactivated my Facebook account. Maybe I'll have time to blog now.

Or maybe not…

On Writing Better

2008-10-21T20:29:00.001-07:00

I've been a subscriber to Time Magazine for about 15 years or so. Yes, of course this is one of the more liberal magazines, and no, I take nothing at face value (from any "news" source). I don't think I've ever read a single issue cover-to-cover, but I almost always spend 30 minutes or so getting the main points.

Even when I'm in a hurry, though, there is one Time writer that I usually stop and read – Nancy Gibbs. She has a unique gift with words; I want to write like this. In this week's issue she's written a story on the role of "temperament" in a presidential election. Her opening line is typical of her skill: "Of all the false intimacies of modern life, the promise of a presidential campaign may be the most misleading."

How about this: "Temperament is a special subcommittee of character: it is less intellect than instinct, more about music than lyrics—the quality voters sense when they watch a candidate improvise or when he thinks no one is looking."

She has a talent for encapsulating so much in so few words:

This is the first election in our lifetimes, and maybe ever, when almost 9 out of 10 people think the country is going in the wrong direction. We have bridges falling into our rivers and children dropping out of our schools and an abiding sense that the American Century that let us shine as a beacon to the world is giving way to one in which we can't afford the electric bills.

Wow – that's pretty much how we feel, isn't it?

The Essay on the last page is sometimes a place where great writing happens also. Here's one from Michael Kinsley this week, on traits of leadership:

What we need instead [of empathy] from a leader is astringency. Astringency means telling people what they don't want to hear and leading them where they don't want to go. It's not comforting people about their current situation and reassuring them it will get better. It's telling them that the situation is likely to get worse and that only their efforts can determine how soon it will start getting better. Astringent leadership is Churchill calling Britons to "brace ourselves to our duties."

Good stuff – for leaders of ANY category.

Oh for greater skill in verbal economy.

What I’ve Learned

2008-10-20T09:52:00.001-07:00

So, it's been a few days since I posted. OK, more than a few. I'm not going to offer any explanation - no one will read it anyway. Let's just say it's my way of trying to strip my blog of any and all readership. I'll feel more comfortable if I'm the only one hanging around here.

I need to (re)start slowly, so after careful consideration, here's the most profound thing I've learned since my last post. Well, I haven't really learned it yet, but I'm trying. Here is Jonathan Edwards' Resolution #8:

Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

I don't need 70 resolutions – that one will take my whole life.

Return to Lewis

2007-10-01T11:15:00.000-07:00

I continue my reading of the works of C.S. Lewis, in the order they were written. I just finished The Pilgrim's Regress and was thoroughly fascinated. Lewis's allegorical presentation, and often parody, of non-Christian thinking has a sharp - sometimes jagged - edge. And sometimes it's downright funny. For example, his portrayal of the "scientific mind" in the personage of Mr. Enlightenment, who extols the inductive method thusly:

Hypothesis, my dear young friend, establishes itself by a cumulative process: or, to use popular language, if you make the same guess often enough it ceases to be a guess and becomes a Scientific Fact.

More soberly, Mr. Sensible makes the unbeliever's distinction between "reasonableness" (or common sense) and "Reason" carefully:

Sense is easy, Reason is hard. Sense knows where to stop with gracious inconsistency, while Reason slavishly follows an abstract logic whither she knows not. The one seeks comfort and finds it, the other seeks truth and is still seeking.

You have to read Lewis's afterword (written 10 years after the book itself) in order to understand the story better, and it's a little comforting to a literary dullard such as myself to see Lewis admit the book's weaknesses, particular that of obscurity. A parting shot from that afterword:

We were made to be neither cerebral men nor visceral men, but Men. Not beasts nor angels but Men - things at once rational and animal.

Lewis's strange journey from philosophy to pantheism to theism to Christianity took him through many hard places, and his exploration of the roles of reason and passion in the human soul is particularly poignant.

And now, to Thulcandra. Dr. Ransom's first adventure Out of the Silent Planet is next on the list. Plus a whole stack of books on worship that I just bought. Plus teaching prep. Plus ministry. Life is good...

Retreated Again

2007-09-24T10:57:00.000-07:00

Spent the weekend near Mammoth Mountain at a retreat with about 65 college students. Great ministry experiences, and a really cool hike to Morgan Pass, elevation: 11,100 ft. It snowed on us a good bit, but we also had some blue sky and sun. And there were the amazing little lakes all over the place - we passed 4 or so. Extraordinary.

Reading Hazard

2007-09-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

One of the risks of reading good theological literature is that I tend to come away with bruises on my soul. Prepping for my class in theological method, I came across this gem from David K. Clark in To Know and Love God (an excellent book whose devotional title belies the very deep waters within):

Christians who unknowingly shield their personal lives from theological reflection can pretend they are "growing spiritually" when perhaps they are merely accumulating biblical or theological information or using high-level spiritual gifts for effective public ministry. A seductive temptation for me - and for religious professionals generally - is to think that I am mature in Christ because I am knowledgeable about theology or skilled in ministry.

How about this: ST = Systematic Theology = Structured Transformation

Life continues

2007-09-14T09:18:00.000-07:00

A brief round of miscellaneous mundanities:

The profile pic of me on the tractor wasn't doing much for me, so I switched it to something with a little more personality. This is one of the first pix I took with my Samsung Blackjack phone back in March or April. I was trying to figure out how the little mirror next to the camera lens worked. I found the expression of mild bewilderment and intense concentration amusing. Taken at a rocky beach in Ventura County on a chilly day.

My firstborn just turned 17. Driving, has a job, growing up. The problem is that my next one turns 14 in 2 days and is getting serious about being a teenager. Didn't see that one coming. Bummer.

I have finally started a new life that involves what I shall call "expansive reading." Calling it "fun reading" doesn't sound serious enough. But since my doctoral work is finished, I have some time to devote to professional, cultural, and even fun reading. So I joined a nifty service called LibraryThing that allows me to generate the little booklist widget that you can now see on the right of theologyISlife. I'm not sure why anyone would care much what I'm reading now, but it seemed an appropriately bloggish and even slightly educational thing to do. Thanks again to Brian Colmery for hooking me up.

Finally, I just found this in a little crack in my blog - I wrote a post for it last week, but somehow never actually posted it. Anyway, here's what I said: "Periodically, one finds irrefutable evidence of a non-religious type that the world is going to hell in a handbasket. My boyhood has been retroactively destroyed by this news."

If you've read this far, I wish you a good weekend.

Theological, Worshipful Theology

2007-09-12T07:40:00.000-07:00

I have not forgotten my series of posts on corporate worship. In order to motivate me back in that direction, here are several excerpts from Kevin Vanhoozer's article entitled "Worship at the Well: From Dogmatics to Doxology (and Back Again)," From Trinity Journal 23ns (2002), pp. 3-16. This article is required reading for all three of my theology classes this semester. It is Vanhoozer's theological exposition of the John 4 account of the woman at the well.

Focusing on "Worship in Truth:"

Worship involves a conception of the object--the person--to whom our feeling, singing, and praying is directed. Real worship should not require us to turn off our minds. On the contrary, the purpose of theology and worship alike is to cultivate the vision of who God is and what God has done, and to cultivate it so well that, when we perceive it, it stops us in our tracks and elicits our praise.

Focusing on "Worship in Spirit," and emphasizing that facts known about God do not by themselves constitute knowledge of God. There is an experiential dimension to the knowledge of God:

In our contemporary context it is all too easy to pit ideas of God (theology) against an experience of God (worship). But this divide is just as fatal for the knowledge of God as it is for knowledge in general. . . .What we need to do is make worship more like theology and theology more like worship.

So, emphasizing the confluence of theological knowledge and worship, he quotes a phrase from Jn 4:22:

"You worship what you do not know." What an excellent incentive for studying theology! For no one wants to hear that rebuke. But suppose we turn it around: "You know what you do not worship." That is an excellent justification for corporate worship. We must know what we worship, and we must worship what we know. . . The nature and quality of our worship is an index of our theological understanding and our spiritual life, a measure of our apprehension and appropriation of God's truth and God's Spirit.

And now the kicker, especially for my beloved seminoids:

The point is that our worship should sharpen our theology, just as our theology should sharpen our worship. Of all the ugly ditches to which we are exposed in seminary education--the ditch between biblical and theological studies, between theory and practice, between the seminary and the church--none is uglier than the ditch between theology and worship.

Life is worship, worship is theology, theology IS life.

Christian Modeling

2007-09-11T08:28:00.000-07:00

An interesting discussion this morning about whether young pastors should look to Mark Driscoll as a model to be imitated. The usual, familiar discussion ensued - he's got good soteriology, an orthodox gospel, success at planting gospel-minded churches; but his public personality is often abrasive, his preaching contains various vulgarities seemingly intended to prevent anyone from taking it as dignified, or even sanctified.

I'm not going to engage in the particulars of that discussion, but it got me thinking about how we go about choosing people as models to imitate. Seminary students and young ministers seem to gravitate toward those who are "making an impact" - on culture, on the church; through books, blogs, and big sermons.

Um, can we push pause here? What about "be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1)? How about the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23)? Why would I seek to imitate someone if I cannot perceive the profound working of the Holy Spirit in his (or her) personal life? No disrespect intended to Driscoll, but I don't KNOW the guy. I've never spent time with him or even met him. And his sermon recordings don't inspire me to imitate the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control in his heart and actions. I'd much rather follow someone whose life is visible to me, not just his writings and sermons. Isn't that what discipleship is, ideally? I'm so blessed to have men and women physically present in my life that model the fruit of the Spirit of Christ. I can learn from people by reading their books and hearing their sermons, but I want to follow the example of a life lived, not a blog posted or a sermon preached.

(Which reminds me - young pastors need to learn from the godly women in their lives. Don't let your biblical complementarianism become spiritual chauvinism - that's really ugly. God has placed women in your life - like he did in Timothy's [2 Tim 1:5], to model spiritual virtues. They are imitators of Christ that should be imitated by all of us.)

Anyway, I don't mean to disparage the good things that happen at the mega-level thru mass ministries like writing and media. But this morning's discussion just made me realize how important it is to remember that there IS a biblical ideal for imitating someone. The fruit of the Spirit is not just a verse to be memorized, it is a life to be lived, a walk to be emulated.

Theology's Big Picture

2007-09-07T08:40:00.000-07:00

Now that Labor Day is behind us, I have a better shot at establishing a routine for the next 15 weeks. Whew. Anyway, as I was preparing for Theological Method class I ran across this from David Wells. It is probably the thickest description of the activity of theology that I've ever seen:

If theology is about God, his character, his will, and his acts, then the most obvious audience is still those who, through Christ and their knowledge of his Word, know him. But since theology's mission also echoes the very mission of God, that Christ's progeny should be as numerous as the stars above, then it also has to look beyond the people of God to those who are outside the circle of faith. Thus we might say that proximately theology is for God's people, mediately it is for those who are not his people, and ultimately it is for God himself as all of our service returns to him in praise and adoration. This threefold objective, then, prescribes for theology a threefold and basic means of evaluation. Is this theology a faithful repristination of the revelation of God? Does it give the believer a cogent and constructive view of the world and, in the process, does it project Christian norms and values into the society? And does it nurture the life of God in his people, strengthening Christian understanding, nurturing Christian virtues, and undergirding Christian worship?

This is brilliant. Theology encompasses the mission of the church - proclamation, sanctification, and adoration. So, theology must be pastoral, and pastoral ministry must be theological.

Following doctrine

2007-08-28T17:20:00.000-07:00

In today's chapel message on 1 Tim 4, I saw something that had never caught my eye before: "In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following" (4:6). It's that last phrase that grabbed my attention. Timothy learned from Paul that doctrine is owned, it is not just perceived or apprehended with "the mind." Timothy didn't just understand Paul's teaching, he lived it. What a great thought for students of theology to hear on their first day of class. I think I'll use that tomorrow.

My Next Challenge

2007-08-22T11:51:00.001-07:00

I'm too busy getting ready for the new school year to post anything of substance. But now that my doctoral work is done, I know I'll need something else to consume my time. Some people take up golf, surfing, quilting. I'm gonna learn how to do this:

Fresh Beginnings

2007-08-20T10:41:00.000-07:00

Today begins new student orientation. My session on tips for academic success in seminary is usually on day 2, but a scheduling change has me on day 1. So I've been listening to these 70 new guys introduce themselves briefly on their first official morning in seminary. Was I that nervous, intimidated, excited, passionate? Am I still?

On a different note, Rick Holland's sermon at Crossroads yesterday was a gem. A nugget that lingers with me is the idea that maturity is primarily a developed awareness. Children are unaware of what's going on around them and how their actions are affecting others. Maturity is the development of that awareness and skill in responding accordingly. It struck me how this is particularly bad news for men, because we seem to be chromosomally programmed to be oblivious

Retreat season

2007-08-15T10:30:00.000-07:00

I have two "retreats" to attend in the next 9 days. I think this is an odd phenomenon, although I understand why we do it. Some day I'm going to add up all the days I spend at retreats and conferences in a year and think about it. But not today - I have to get ready for a retreat.

It does remind me of something that occurred to me this summer, on the topic of rest. Sometimes (often?) we approach rest as a break from the busy-ness that we dread resuming when the break is over. What a tragedy. Rest is a gift from God (Ps 3:5; 4:7) and is a part of the blessing that comes from walking wisely before God (Prov 3:21-26). As such, rest should remind me of the goodness of God and should involve (periodically at least) reflection on God as my source of joy and strength. Maybe this is one way to prevent rest from turning into laziness. If both the labor and the rest are from God, I can - if I'm thinking rightly - look forward to both of them.

Timely thought for both students and teachers just prior to the beginning of another school year.

Summer Slam '07

2007-08-13T08:59:00.000-07:00

So, I got home from vacation on July 3, and life came back with a vengeance. Taught summer school until 7/27, including several days teaching seminars in the D.Min. program. Then, since Monday 7/30, I've had a front row seat to witness the extraordinary healing grace of God in the life of a special young couple. Summary: 29-year-old lady who is otherwise completely healthy suddenly starts having strokes due to extensive blood clots in 3 major brain arteries; the right superstar surgeon is available to perform a unique version of a cerebral angiogram surgery just in time to save her life, even though he doubted she would survive in any state much better than a persistent vegetative one; 30 hours later she has a heart attack; spends a week in ICU at or near the brink of death; then yesterday, 2 weeks after it all started, this lady is sitting up in a regular hospital bed eating Thai food and talking about going back to work. Check out their ongoing story.

Of course, fall semester lurks on my calendar like that weird dog thing in Lady in the Water. This is what my desk looks like as I am trying to get ready for a new class. My brain isn't much more organized than this.

Summer travels

2007-07-06T14:12:00.000-07:00

Three weeks of vacation with sparse internet access and weird computer problems (and a lot of fun that pushed blogging far into the background anyway), and finally we're back. A week each in PA, NJ, and NY.

Things I learned on the trip:

I'm not the only one in my family succumbing to the ravages of aging. Here I am with my brothers. Dude, we're old - but at least I'm still winning the hair wars. My sister gets a pass because she's a lady (but she IS the oldest).

My nieces and nephews are growing up, too. (My oldest daughter is on the left; I hadn't seen this nephew, 2 nieces and their sibs in 7 years.)

You can consume a week's worth of calories in about 6 ounces of food. I've got 3 words for you: deep fried oreos. It's an experience not to be missed (they taste soooo good) - or repeated (I'm pretty sure that each helping shortens your life span by about 7 years).

My sweet wife still brings the biggest smile to my face.

Books I read on the trip:
The Pattern of Religious Authority by Bernard Ramm. Classic evangelical work on the application of the concept of authority in Christianity, prior to the onset of cultural postmodernism.

A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren. So generous that it can't be orthodox, although that makes it sound like I'm choosing un-generosity. I hate the false dichotomies on which much of his argument is based. Surprising amount of legitimate food for thought, though.

The Post-Evangelical (North American rev. ed.) by Dave Tomlinson. Similar to McLaren's book, although focused on church culture and practice. This one shows much of the outworking of an approach like McLaren's, and it ain't pretty. I cheered for Mark Galli at every one of his sidebars.

Breaking the Missional Code by Stetzer and Putman. This is an attempt at emergent-meets-seeker. I'm still reading this one and have mixed reactions. Sounds good at first, but he seems to be lapsing into "method makes message," market-driven churchianity. I may be wrong, though. He has some important questions.

I preached once and did some music with my wife and daughter several times. While studying for my sermon on Ps 103, I was moved by one of Spurgeon's "quaint sayings" in The Treasury of David, on verse 14 ("He knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust"):

Not like some unskilled empiric, who hath but one receipt for all, strong or weak, young or old; but as a wise physician considers his patient, and then writes his bill. Men and devils are but God's apothecaries, they make not our physic, but give what God prescribes. Balaam loved Balak's fee well enough, but could not go a hair's breadth beyond God's commission. - Wm. Gurnall.

And now we're back, temps are in the 100s, class begins on Monday. It's good to be home.

Israel, days 10 and following

2007-06-06T07:48:00.000-07:00

I think today is Wednesday. I'm pretty sure I got back from Israel Sunday night. Jet lag is a funny thing - as soon as you say "this isn't so bad, I feel pretty good," it's like someone drops an anvil on your head. Think Road Runner vs. Wile E. Coyote. Anyway, my blogging efforts were largely thwarted by unreliable, unavailable, or overpriced internet connections, so here are a few more thoughts.

Pam and I on the Temple Mount in front of the Dome of the Rock. The Mount is a beautiful and eerie place. Heavily armed police within sight at all times, Muslims and Muslim buildings everywhere - in the immediate vicinity of where the real Holiest Place was. It's an odd mix of conflicting impressions.

A good example of how narrow the streets are in the Old City of Jerusalem. When a car, bus, or (most often) tractor comes along, you just have to get out of the way.

In the Western Wall plaza, a poignant scene that illustrates the strong tradition among the ultra-orthodox Jewish population. A young man helps an old man across the plaza to the Wall so he can pray.

The Elah Valley, where David killed Goliath. Best guess is that it happened in the vicinity of the satellite dishes in the left center. This was one of those places where the biblical narrative came to life in vivid color.

The Nahal Zin, probably part of the route used by the 12 spies to sneak into the promised land. No picture can capture this amazing place - you really have to be there. Like the Makhtesh Ramon - I have a 4-pic panorama of it that still doesn't begin to represent it.

The remains of Herod's palace in Caesarea Maritima. We stood in one of the large rooms which is very possibly the place where Paul made his appeal to Felix and Agrippa. One of the tingliest moments of the trip for sure.

An archaeologist at Bethsaida who talked in enraptured tones about stuff we barely understood. She embodied the stereotype in every way I can think of, right down to the pith helmet.

One of the main streets in Beth Shan. This was the last site we visited, and in some ways the most impressive. Huge place with lots of Roman remains.

That's it for now. Personal impressions and closing thoughts tomorrow or Friday.

Israel, days 4-9

2007-05-25T10:53:00.000-07:00

OK, today is the first time I've had an internet connection since my last post. The hotel in old city Jerusalem advertised wireless internet service, but it was down more than it was up. Then we spent 2 days in a youth hostel in Arad where there wasn't even a phone, much less internet access. Cool place though. Then one night in Eilat where there were two internet terminals for the whole hotel, at 10 shekels for 30 mins. That's $2.50 folks. So, since a blog post would have cost me 5 bucks, I decided to wait until we were at Yad HaShmona (pronounced "yahd hah-shmohNA"), the IBEX compound, where there is unlimited free wireless networking. So here we are. There is way too much to tell, so just a few brief highlights, picking up where I left off last time.

Dr. John Street on a camel. What can I say? Words fail.

The Arab who kissed me. After I paid him 10 shekels for this picture. I don't think he was accustomed to a tip that large (it was the smallest coin I had at the time), so he kissed me and said some nice things. But I wouldn't give him my phone number. Actually, this guy was hilarious. This is on the Mount of Olives at a place that overlooks the temple mount. He was accustomed to "Christian" pilgrims, but didn't have much English. He just rode around on his donkey in the middle of the crowd announcing, "Taxi! Here! Jesus!" over and over.

This is the Wadi Qilt, and that's a Greek Orthodox monastery in the background. Like many of the sights here, it is just impossible to capture the magnitude of the place in a photograph. But we had a brief worship service on Saturday morning here at the edge of the canyon as we headed toward Jericho. This is the kind of wilderness in some OT story that I can't remember right now. Something about Elijah I think. Incredible place.

Snyders of Hanover. In Israel. Oh yeah. And if you're up for some adventure, they have ketchup flavored Pringles.

Four thousand year old mud brick wall, not reconstructed, just exposed by excavation. It's weird, but this is one of the really gripping moments for me. Somebody built this wall 4000 years ago, and here it is, bricks right where they were originally laid. At Tel Gezer.

The love of my life. Sitting at the gate of Tel Gezer.

Mark Scarborough on what's called a standing stone. Basically an enormous idol from a pagan temple. You can see how tall and relatively smooth the thing is. And he climbed it. Dude.

Cats. You just can't believe the number of cats running around everywhere. I guess there are enough small rodents to go around.

Of course, we've visited most of the pilgrimmage sites, like the Church of the Nativity and Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Church of the Crown of Thorns, and the Church of the Time Jesus Stopped and Ate Lunch. There's a church/shrine for everything here, and I resent how it really obscures the authenticity of the Holy Land. But there have been a few moments that were really arresting for me. More on those later.

Israel, days 2-3

2007-05-19T06:51:00.000-07:00

Well, I had a post all ready yesterday, but the hotel lost internet access. I'll try to catch up, there is so much...

Synopsis of days 2 and 3:

We got up and had a sumptuous breakfast of scrambled eggs, little danishes, granola with warmish milk, something like hot dogs, salami, and some kind of spiced turkey (I think). Nothing like starting your day with a hearty helping of cold cuts.

Anyway, we departed for our day of adventure, walking down David Street and into the Jewish Quarter. There we had a good look at a couple partial excavations of Hezekiah’s wall. It was very helpful and informative, of course, but the weird thing here is that most of these sites are in somebody’s back yard. We’ve got normal life - little kids playing, impatient housewives driving, delivery guys delivering – all around us while we’re checking out this excavation of a 2,700 year old wall.

We also visited an excavation of a large 1^st century house that may have been the accommodations for priests that were in town for their 2-week (or whatever) tour of duty in the temple. We weren’t allowed to take pictures in there, and I was among the 70% of the group that actually complied with the rule.

Next, we visited the Jerusalem Archaeological Park on the southwest corner of the temple mount. This is a picture of Robinson’s Arch, around which we learned a great deal about the amazing Herodian architecture and construction. We also went to the southern steps of the temple, where Peter must have preached on the day of Pentecost. This was really exciting – the New Testament church was born on these stairs!

Among the other fun stuff we did, we passed through the Muslim Quarter as we walked the Via Dolorosa and visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (which was not fun part – ewww. I’ll comment on Catholic paganism later). Walking thru the MQ was fascinating. The market was a flash flood of sensory stimuli – souvenirs of every description, but also fruits, vegetables, meats, spices, and pastries, all blended with secondhand cigarette smoke. Wow. I want to go back and taste almost everything. Almost. But I need to get pics of this place.

Highlights of Day 3:
I can't summarize everything, just a highlight or two. We went to the traditional (and wrong) location of David's Tomb, a museum with a model of Jerusalem during the First Temple period, then into the old City of David where there are excavations of houses that are probably from that period! Look- here's a 3,000 year old toilet bowl!

We intended to go through Hezekiah's Tunnel to the Pool of Siloam, but on Wednesday there was a big rainstorm and a sewer line broke nearby, and the Tunnel and the Pool were flooded with sewage! So instead, we went thru the old Jebusite water system, which is now dry. Pam and John Street enjoyed the narrow little tunnel.
We also went to the Pool of Siloam excavation and got to see it, but the smell was pretty bad.

OK, I gotta go to dinner, but tomorrow I'll post today's highlights. It was a great day - John Street rode a camel, and I got kissed by an Arab on a donkey.

Israel, day 1-ish

2007-05-18T06:25:00.000-07:00

Note: I wrote this on Wed. night, intending to add pics on Thursday. But I was so sleep-deprived on Wed. night that I deleted my pics without transferring them to my hard drive. For pics of London and Israel day 1, go to my buddy Dr. John Street's Israel site.

I got my laptop back on Sunday and left for Israel Monday, so the worship series most likely will have to wait. We left our house at 10:30 a.m. Monday, met up with our close friends John and Janie Street, and rode together to the airport. The group gathered 12:30-1:00 and got checked in, then we had lunch in the terminal at LAX. The British Airways flight left at 3:30, and we were anxious to get going. It was a 10-hour flight that left an hour late and took an hour less flight time than normal, so we got to London Heathrow on time anyway. Didn't sleep much, but that's another story - let's just say that there was almost a case of air rage between the passengers next to me and the ones behind them. Anyway, we spent about 5-6 hours in and around the British Museum, particularly the Ancient Near Eastern and Greek/Roman exhibits. Jet lag began to be a problem somewhere in first century Rome, where John and I found Janie and Pam dozing on some steps in a display room.

We had some great fish and chips, and bangers and mash (sausage and mashed potatoes with baked beans). Then back to the airport for the 5-hour flight to Tel Aviv, which left at 10:30 p.m. I got about 3 hours of the best sleep I've ever had on a plane, in spite of a couple screaming children (thank the Lord for earplugs). We stumbled off the plane in Tel Aviv into a clean but simple Ben Gurion Airport, breezed through customs (it was 5:30 a.m. and the agent wasn't in the mood to ask questions). We gathered, met our tour guide Randy Cook, and got on the bus for the 40-minute trip up to Jerusalem. We entered the Jaffa Gate and checked into the Gloria Hotel just in time to have breakfast and clean up before our first session at 10:30 a.m. I stayed awake for the whole thing - no really! We went to bed at 8:30 p.m. and slept as firmly as the hills of Zion until almost 5:30. Ready for day 2.

We made it

2007-05-16T20:31:00.000-07:00

We made it to Israel and have been here for 24 hours. I tried to post last night (Wed), but 52 hours with only about 5 hours sleep made that impossible. Now I have to go to breakfast. I have a post mostly written, but need to add pictures. Tonight I hope. Mazel tov!

Disconnected

2007-05-11T08:04:00.000-07:00

My laptop has been on the fritz since just after my last post, so I'm having the unsettling experience of being disconnected from my normal routine. It's really quite disorienting, I don't know if that's a good or bad thing. Anyway, it means that my ability to blog is seriously hampered temporarily. Hope to have it fixed by the end of the day. But I'm taking the rest of the day off anyway...

When We Gather - What is it?

2007-05-08T07:01:00.000-07:00

When we gather together for worship, what are we supposed to be doing? We must begin with a quick definition of worship. I'm going to define it as "ascribing worthiness to God." We could refine it a bit by looking at the biblical words for worship and seeing that they often involve the concept of service, but I think this can be subsumed into the category of ascribing worth. Now, there are multiple modes of this activity when done corporately: prayer, confession, Scripture reading/meditation, and singing. The last of these is what most people think of when corporate worship is mentioned.

But should the whole service (program, meeting, gathering) be classified as worship? Answering this question will help to focus my thoughts for this series by narrowing the scope just a bit. Since worship is, generally, the activity of ascribing worth to God, I'm going to say yes and no. Let's take the most common elements of a worship service and think about it:

Invocation - yes, an act of worship in that it invites and acknowledges the presence of God in the gathering of saints.
Singing - yes, under certain conditions that will be discussed later.
Pastoral prayer - yes, insofar as the pastor/elder is bringing his people before the throne of God to praise, thank, confess, yield, and offer requests to God.
Announcements - no, although some try to make this part of worship by speaking of ministry and service opportunities. But this is not ascribing worth to God because there is no directly "vertical" element of this activity. But that's not to say we shouldn't do it. More on this another time.
Preaching - hmmm. I hesitate to say that preaching is not an act of corporate worship, but it is different, isn't it? Only one person is doing it and the rest are listening. But as we listen, we are growing in our knowledge of God and our ability to worship him rightly. And we are doing this together - corporately. So here I say a qualified 'yes.' It is a kind of corporate worship where we are yielding ourselves to the Spirit of Christ in order to be taught and convicted by him. But I want to focus most of this series on the aspects of worship in which the congregation is more overtly active.

So that gets us started. Next time, a few comments on the vertical and horizontal perspectives in worship.

NOTE: I'm getting ready for a crazy graduation weekend culminating in a Monday departure for 3 weeks in Israel. I'll probably get one more worship post up before then, but I hope to blog my Israel experience, so no worship posts during that time, unless I have an unusual impetus for it while over there. I'd appreciate your prayers.

When we Gather - Introduction

2007-05-07T08:18:00.000-07:00

Well, after a few excellent comments in response to my shameless and pitiful plea for affirmation, perhaps it's time to begin. It would probably be fruitful to explain a bit first. I've decided to call this series "When We Gather."

Intro: Why This - Why Me?
I have been a Christian for most of my 40-years-and-counting life. I was raised in an eastern-U.S. fundamentalist environment (family, church, grade school), and I am deeply grateful that I was introduced to Jesus Christ at a very early age. While I do not continue to practice much of the cultural accoutrements of my ecclesial childhood, I am thankful for the life God has given me and the godly parents that gave me my start in almost every way.

Music has been a vital part of my life since I was old enough to slur out the general gist of "Jesus Loves Me." I've been singing ever since (with a brief break in jr. high for obvious developmental reasons) in choirs, ensembles, and solo. I had some musical training in high school and college, but between the two of us, my wife is without question the REAL musician.

As the Lord drew me into pastoral ministry gradually over a period of 5 years or so, I became more involved in leading worship. And I found it to be something other than leading music. A continuous involvement in this kind of ministry (among others) has given me a 3-D, 360-degree experience. I've led worship for congregations ranging from 25 to 2500, and with a background in audio engineering, I've done all the technical stuff in those contexts, too. Finally, I am still involved as a practitioner - I lead worship a couple times each month along with some friends who are highly gifted musicians and committed worshipers.

Why all this background? The point here is that I'm not a theologian looking in from the outside, critiquing something I don't understand. I've seen (and done) the good, the bad, and the ugly. This is not a theoretical exercise. My questions, comments, and suggestions on the topic of corporate worship arise from the heart and mind of a worshiper who is seeking to worship the triune God along with the Body of Christ in Spirit and in truth.

This series will be oriented toward practical critique, with theological background where needed. The point is neither to reinvent worship or to rehash what others have done so well already. This will be a bunch of brief (I hope) thought-provokers and discussion-starters.

With all that said, I think I'll begin with Chase's question about whether the preaching time in a service can be called worship...

"Questions, comments..."

2007-05-04T06:48:00.000-07:00

I'm in planning mode today. Summer classes, fall classes, ministry, and yes, blogging. I'm going to begin a longish and somewhat rambling series on corporate worship soon, and I'm looking for some input. Recently I reacted to Tozer's comment about "the element of fun" in worship services, and Nathan reacted to my reaction, so I'll probably start there. I have a bunch of notes on other things to talk about, but I'm curious about a couple things:

a) does anyone read this blog?
2) if so, what worship-related questions, issues, or pet peeves are on your mind?

So, this is an invitation to comment. I know I have previously come across rather strongly about debating on the Internet, but I don't want that to squelch good interaction here. Let me know what you think I should talk about in the field of corporate worship - i.e., worship services in the church. Nothing is out of bounds, but that doesn't mean I'll address everything suggested.

God is speaking

2007-04-30T06:47:00.000-07:00

Morning worship...

In an eloquent and pointed reminder that God is still speaking in the Scriptures, Tozer writes of our tendency to think of the words of the Bible as disconnected from our own present life:

"I believe that much of our religious unbelief is due to a wrong conception of and a wrong feeling for the Scriptures of Truth. A silent God suddenly began to speak in a book and when the book was finished lapsed back into silence again forever. Now we read the book as the record of what God said when He was for a brief time in a speaking mood. With notions like that in our heads how can we believe?"

Then I turned to Ps 50, which includes this passage that I have officially placed into a category that I call "Scary Verses": These [sins] you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.

God still speaks in Scripture. We need to listen more than ever...

The presence of God

2007-04-27T07:38:00.000-07:00

I'm rereading Tozer's The Pursuit of God right now, something we should all do every year or two. Of course, there are my favorite ego-crushing quotes ("Self is the opaque veil that hides the face of God from us. It can be removed only in spiritual experience, never by mere instruction"). But as usual, the Lord is using this same old book in new ways.

The chapter on "The Universal Presence" of God was up this morning. Tozer talks about our receptivity, or simply "spiritual awareness." He's talking about the cultivated ability and discipline to discern and appreciate the constant presence of God with us. "It is an affinity for, a bent toward, a sympathetic response to, a desire to have." He talks about how the patient cultivation and exercise of this receptivity is less popular as society gets faster and more automated.

"A generation of Christians reared among push buttons and automatic machines is impatient of slower and less direct methods of reaching their goals. We have been trying to apply machine-age methods to our relations with God. We read our chapter, have our short devotions and rush away, hoping to make up for our deep inward bankruptcy by attending another gospel meeting or listening to another thrilling story told by a religious adventurer lately returned from afar.

The tragic results of this spirit are all about us: shallow lives, hollow religious philosophies, the preponderance of the element of fun in gospel meetings, the glorification of men, trust in religious externalities, quasi-religious fellowships, salesmanship methods, the mistaking of dynamic personality for the power of the Spirit."

Now, Tozer's situation in evangelical-fundamentalist history is evident in parts of his description of the problem, but it is quite easy to apply his concern to the present day. Just look back over his list in the last paragraph. Selected ponderings:

Does my ministry draw people toward a deep experience of the presence of God, or do I allow them to be content with splashing around in the shallows?
Does my teaching reflect a thoroughly Christian way of thinking all the way down, or am I just repeating the doctrinal formulations I've heard from my academic betters?
When I participate in worship, am I looking to be impressed or entertained? When I lead worship, am I trying to be impressive or entertaining? His phrase "the preponderance of the element of fun in gospel meetings" is a rusty nail in my soul. I think that this problem is more widespread and insidious than we realize, and it's something I've been thinking about lately. A separate post will ensue.
The last few items on Tozer's list can be seen under the rubric of style over substance. Does my ministry emphasize man or God? Am I trusting in cleverness and wit rather than Word and Spirit? No, really - what specifics can I point to in my life/ministry as evidence that I'm not deceiving myself in this area?

Just a few thoughts from the exquisite turmoil that Tozer tends to create in me.

DIY reality

2007-04-20T09:00:00.000-07:00

Once again, I find myself at the end of another week with no bloggage to show for it (outside of the silliness at St. Anne's). I'm not sure why it was such a whirlwind, but the last 3 days have been nonstop from early to late. I slept in a little this morning, because regional ETS is today, and I have to stay awake all afternoon.

Anyway, as I intermittently continue the lengthy clean-up from dissertation work, I ran across the following quote from Bernard Ramm (in Special Revelation and the Word of God, now out of print I think) that speaks directly to the current postmodern (or whatever) fascination with creating your own reality:

An existential leap cannot make a falsehood true; an intense religious emotion cannot change shadow into reality; a profound decision cannot substitute for logical rectitude; and faith as deepest commitment cannot transmute error into truth.

In a world dominated by video games and screen names, a world where your vote determines who gets the record deal, and where truth is by poll as much as anything else, we need to stand as those who refuse to give in to the idea that Scripture can mean what I think it does, and God, if he exists, is who I want him to be.

Yes. I'm sure.

2007-04-14T08:30:00.000-07:00

This semester I supervised an M.Div. thesis by a student who wanted to examine the erosion of "certainty" in postmodern evangelicalism, particularly the Emerging Church movement. This is a topic that has interested me in various ways for at least 6 years, but I haven't had the chance to do my own research yet. I've often felt that there has not been enough biblical input when discussing the squishy epistemology of some postmodern evangelicals. So I suggested that he examine Paul's expressions of confidence in the NT as a way of constructing a biblical response to the postmodern ambivalence about many things, particularly doctrine.

So, as it turns out, if the Bible is our authority for life, then we can be at least as "certain" as Paul was about at least some things. For example:

I am sure that nothing can separate me from the love of God in Christ (Rom 8:38)
I am sure that nothing is unclean in itself because of Christ's finished work (Rom 14:14)
I am sure that God will finish the work he has started (in me and in the church) (Phil 1:6)
I am sure that God will enable me for the life he has ordained for me - that his callings are his enablings (2 Tim 1:12)

The grammar and usage in these verses is unambiguous: Paul was certain. But some Christians have believed the pomo argument that certainty is unattainable and is a relic of modernism. Now, I agree that there is a kernel of truth here - modernism was the attempt to establish certainty apart from God and his revelation. This is indeed impossible. There is also a certain caution and humility that must pervade my theologizing - I am liable to error since I am fallen and finite. But there is - let's call it confidence - available for those who are in Christ. Paul was so sure in the above cases that he was willing to stake his life and future, and those of countless others, in the truth of those assertions.

The key is in the last example, 2 Tim 1:12. Here's the sentence in full: "But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me." Notice that his confidence begins in the person of Christ. The paradigm is: "I know whom, therefore I know that." Confidence follows relationship with God.

This, I think, is where the balance between modernism and postmodernism begins. Confidence doesn't begin with an undeniable certitude ("I think, therefore I am") but with a person ("I know whom I have believed, therefore I am confident"). This is thoroughly Christian confidence, the only kind of certainty that really endures. I'm sure of it.

I admit it: I'm tired of 24

2007-04-10T10:08:00.001-07:00

Can we just review for a moment? Jack started out this day severely depleted from 18 months in a Chinese prison. He almost immediately endured further atrocities at the hands of Fayed, yet managed to escape (in a further depleted state) and resume extremely complex mentally and physically demanding duties that he had had no connection with in the last year and a half. He's once again a crack shot, dropping the bad guys one shot at a time while they blaze away with assorted submachine guns and fail to hit him. The compounded implausibilities have made it a lot less compelling to me. And he still remembers all the phone numbers.

Plus, there are these great moments for those of us who live in L.A. who know where things are - like this week when Jack went from Century City to the Santa Monica Pier in 10 mins. Right.

So 24 isn't doing it for me any more. Maybe the new story line will be more gripping. Meanwhile, I have to have a little fun elsewhere.

Theology comes last

2007-04-10T10:02:00.000-07:00

I have kept a few piles in my study over the last year - books and articles that I needed to keep handy just in case I needed to refer to anything in the writing and editing process. Now I'm going through them to file what belongs to me and return what is overdue. Part of this process is removing dozens of sticky notes from the books. In doing this, I came across the following that I had flagged as a good blog post. It's from The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought by Peter Macky:

Equally important for our understanding a speaker's meaning (prior to our evaluating its significance, its value for us) is our openness in receiving it. [C.S.] Lewis suggested a helpful distinction when he wrote: "A work of (whatever) art can be either 'received or 'used.' When we 'receive' it we exert our senses and imagination and various other powers according to the pattern invented by the artist. When we 'use' it we treat it as assistance for our own activities." For example, "receiving" Jesus' metaphor of the burdened traveler requires us to reconstruct imaginatively the picture Jesus had in his imagination, to see with his eyes. On the other hand, "using" that passage can be done by asking whether it adds anything to our doctrines of sin and salvation. The latter is not an erroneous question, but it is a question about the significance of the passage for our uses. Receiving the speaker's meaning, by contrast, is a prior necessary step, one in which we attempt to follow the path laid out by the speaker as nearly as possible, not judging its value at all until we have first understood.

This is an especially important distinction for seminary students and theo-bloggers, both of whom tend to prove theological points via proof-texting, or to approach a passage with an eye toward systematic theology or doctrinal formulation rather than understanding the author's meaning. Now, Macky could be approaching the edge of committing the intentional fallacy here with his talk of reconstructing Jesus' imaginative picture, but he's talking about Jesus' use of a particular metaphor, which has an imaginative element, so I think he's still in bounds.

A vital element of hermeneutics, theological method, and the Christian life itself - the Bible is God's Word, and as such is God's communication to me. I must understand what he is saying and obey his claims on my mind, will, and emotions. As I do this I will perceive the systematic, holistic truth contained in its pages. Systematic theology comes last.

Too much me, not enough us

2007-04-06T07:52:00.000-07:00

"I will bless the LORD at all times; His praise shall continually be in my mouth. My soul will make its boast in the LORD; the humble will hear it and rejoice. O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt His name together." Psalm 34:1-3

Recently, upon the umpteenth reading of this psalm, I took special notice of verse 3. It is an invitation to corporate worship. Then I noticed there's more of this language in the psalm: "O taste and see that the LORD is good" (v. 8); "Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD" (v. 11).

"Magnify the LORD with me, let us exalt his name together." I think there is something qualitatively different about worshiping with other believers that goes beyond the simple accumulation of bodies and voices. It's not a matter of crowd size and volume level. Worshiping with others is the joining of redeemed souls in the presence of their Redeemer for the purpose of rightly adoring him for who he is. And when we do this, he meets with us in an unusual way. It should be regarded as an immense and exciting privilege to gather and worship with the assembled saints. I think that our cultural individualism inhibits the corporateness of our worship. We're not a bunch of individuals who have gathered to worship individually. We are a body whose members have assembled to offer a unity of worship.

"Taste and see that the LORD is good." We are not spectators when we worship together - we are those who have seen, heard, touched, smelled, and tasted the goodness of God. We bring those experiences together and share them with each other in the presence of God.

"Come children...I will teach you the fear of the LORD." Our worship also has a teaching element. But be careful - worship is not merely intellectual, just like theology is not merely cognitive. More on this in a later post. On to the punch line -

Resurrection Sunday is my favorite day of the year, for on it we celebrate uniquely the reason for living the other 364. So much comes together theologically on this day - the Body of Christ, crucified and raised together with its Head, gathers in the Spirit of Christ to praise the Father of us all. I don't know about you, but I can't wait to gather with others who have tasted the goodness of the Lord, and exalt his name together.

The glory of grace

2007-04-02T11:24:00.000-07:00

Morning worship...

Glorious Benefactor, we can meet thee on good terms, for we are full of poverty, we are just as empty as we can be. We could not be more abjectly dependent than we are. Since thou wouldest display thy mercy, here is our sin; since thou wouldest show thy strength, here is our weakness; since thou wouldest manifest thy loving-kindness, here are our needs; since thou wouldest glorify thy grace, here are we, such persons as can never have a shadow of a hope except through thy grace, for we are undeserving, ill-deserving, hell-deserving, and if thou do not magnify thy grace in us we must perish for ever.

Spurgeon's prayers are so much bigger than mine...

Loose ends

2007-03-30T08:40:00.000-07:00

This week has been a blur - literally, at times, because of the periodic dizziness. Anyway, a big week with some big moments, climaxing on Wed with my dissertation defense. So this morning I began the recovery process by clearing out some of the clutter on my computer. Only some - it's too big a job to attempt it all at once. One file that I found contains a few random quotes and thoughts, collected for some purpose that has since been forgotten. This is an odd mixture of quotes from Tertullian, Luther, and Neil Simon. How's that for a historical/cultural trifecta?

The Simon quotes are from The Odd Couple, one of my favorite plays/movies ever. The Jack Lemmon - Walter Matthau version is a true classic. So since my profundity tank is running on fumes, it seemed appropriate to share two of my favorite lines which really sum up the story:

"You can't spend the rest of your life crying, it annoys people at the movies." (Oscar Madison, encouraging his despondent friend Felix to get on with his shattered life).

"Marriage may come and go, but the game must go on." (Felix Unger, with a new determination to pick up the pieces and move on).

Of course, you have to know the story, but that's a good reason for you to go rent a copy and watch it. As for me, I am now beginning my final pass thru the boat anchor (i.e., dissertation), to make final corrections.

While Rome burns

2007-03-21T21:02:00.000-07:00

I have never been much interested in politics, although I have tried to gain a basic understanding of issues in order to vote semi-intelligently. But a few years ago I began paying more attention, and listening to a little talk radio (a little Rush here, a little Hannity there, a sprinkling of Larry Elder, only during commutes).

I won't be surprised if someone calls me to repent, but I've decided to lapse back into my good-citizen-minimalism, which means generally avoiding political news when possible. It's so clear to me that the American political system has for the most part degenerated into a preoccupation with self-perpetuation where "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a distant, warm-fuzzy memory. I mean, when presidential elections start 2 months after the mid-term, the motives seem pretty clear. What is Hilary doing for the citizens of NY? Obama for IL? I mean, the guy just got elected to his first term in the Senate, and his aw-shucks attitude during the election ("naw, I'm not thinkin' about running for president...") seems pretty distant now. And it's not just the Dems. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw a news story that presented something that shows our elected representatives are doing anything substantive with regard to actually serving the people that elected them. Yeah, that's a little bit of an exaggeration. A little.

Of course, the news organizations are no help. I don't really spend time wondering whether Gonzales will last, for I don't really believe I could ever know the truth of the events that brought about his current troubles - because of the bias in the organizations that report the events. So, I'm still going to vote, but I will resist most political contact until a month or so before the day.

Rome is burning, and I have more important things to do than carry buckets.

---------------
OK, now that that's off my chest, I am aware of the following criticisms:

if you don't like it, you should work to change it rather than whine.
what kind of example does this set for my kids?
what about my students who will be pastors - if they take my approach, will they create churches who disdain civic involvement?
am I just a whiner, or do I have real business as a citizen of a not-of-this-world kingdom that has captured my passions?

As always, balance is more difficult than it first seems...

Clarity from a fresh look

2007-03-21T20:41:00.000-07:00

So, I'm sitting at a friend's house while Pam rehearses with the worship band that we sing with a couple times a month. I can't rehearse because I can't take the sound yet. It'll be a few weeks before I can handle a worship service of any kind at normal volume.

They're doing this very tasty arrangement of "Like a River Glorious," and I JUST NOW GOT the lyric of the first verse. Sheesh.

Like a river glorious is God's perfect peace,

Over all victorious in its bright increase,

Perfect, yet it floweth fuller every day,

Perfect, yet it groweth deeper all the way.

The melody/rhythm obscure the commas in the last two lines, and I never really realized what they were saying. There must be 3 dozen more hymns that I've known since I was a little kid where parts of the lyric are still misunderstood in the dark mazes of my bizarre brain.

A new perspective on an old hymn helps me to focus on the words more. Speaking of these, I found a few in the haze of the last few days as I was unable to do much with my eyes because of dizziness. I listened to some worship music I'd not heard before (I love my subscription to Yahoo Music Unlimited). My favorite discoveries are Kathryn Scott's version of When I Survey and Ross Parsley's very nice update of Fairest Lord Jesus. Don't buy the whole CD, though - just these 2 tracks. Or subscribe to Yahoo Music and listen to anything you want for $15/month.

Dizziness and A Grief Observed

2007-03-18T18:36:00.000-07:00

Well, the surgery went very well, I think. Something was different this time - suffice it to say that I definitely needed the pain meds he prescribed. The pain is subsiding now, and I'm mostly dealing with the dizziness. I can't spend too much time on the computer or I'll launch.

One note from ear surgery weekend. My reading material during pre-op waiting and post-op (a few pages at a time Sat and Sun) was A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis. I read his biography last month and have begun to read all his works in chronological order, except the technical literary criticism books. I read this one out of order for other reasons, and it helped me get to know Lewis a bit. He was a deeply emotional person, and this little book was written after his wife, Joy, died of cancer. They were married late in life and their marriage only lasted 3-4 yrs until she died of cancer.

It is the raw outcry of a bereaved heart - he holds back nothing as he struggles with his personal encounter with suffering, even having written The Problem of Pain over 20 years before. I think the following sums up his struggle: "What do people mean when they say 'I am not afraid of God because I know He is good?' Have they never even been to a dentist?" Echoes of Narnia, where everyone knows that Aslan is good, but he's not a "tame lion." I still haven't decided what to make of it, but I think Lewis knew it was ok to lament as the Psalmist did - to yell to the sky when one is hurt beyond the ability to reason it through. When I come around to this in my reading of Lewis, I'll read it again. For now, I need to stop typing. Maybe something more meaningful tomorrow.

Can You Hear Me Now?

2007-03-15T20:17:00.000-07:00

So, tomorrow I will be having surgery on my right ear to restore the hearing that has been lost to a condition called otosclerosis. I had my left ear done last June and the results have been dramatic - I can't wait to hear in stereo again!

The surgery takes about an hour, I'll be awake for it (though numb and pleasantly drugged), and then I'll be dizzy for a few days, which will entertain the kids immensely. I plan to do as I did last time - take many Dramamine-induced naps and move slowly. I'll be back in class, Lord willing, next Thursday. Full healing takes 3-4 months, but I'll be better than pre-surgery at about 6 weeks. Yeeehaaahhh!

The procedure is called stapedectomy, and if you're curious, you can watch a video (edited for length) of a stapedectomy procedure (although mine will be done with a laser and a metal wire instead of clip). This is the only video I could find, and I especially liked the cool background music.

A rock star mentality

2007-03-14T10:08:00.000-07:00

NO, this is not a post about music and is not at all related to the previous post.

Have you ever noticed the way we react when we notice a high level of some spiritual virtue in someone else? This came to my mind last month at the Resolved conference. Many of us tend to think of them as a "rock star." See, a rock star in our culture is someone who has what I could never have, but might fantasize about - huge houses, cool cars, money to burn, friends galore, adulation from the crowd. This is someone that I would love to be, if only...

Why do we do that with great spiritual leaders? We believe we could never pray like Moses or George Muller, trust like Abraham or Amy Carmichael, stand firm like Daniel or Spurgeon, worship like David or A.W. Tozer, love like Paul or Hudson Taylor. That was them, this is us.

"But they had really different circumstances." Well, sort of. But they had the same God.

I'm trying to face the fact that it's easy to settle for mediocrity. Small would look lazy, but large is just too much work. Medium is a comfortable compromise. Moses and Muller? Nah, I don't need that much intimacy with God. Tozer was a great writer and really communed with God, but after all, that was TOZER. I'll settle for a nice medium spiritual life.

God forgive us for treating the great saints of the past and (especially) the present like rock stars. Of thinking we have some kind of excuse for not going hard after God. These were given to us as an example - to follow, not to admire from a distance.

I don't know about you, but I don't want to settle for medium.

Girly-man pianists and twitching drummers

2007-03-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

As I've said, I'm not much of a blog reader, but this post at Pensees was brought to my attention and I thought it could be fruitful to respond. I've never read this blog before, but apparently Bob was at the Shepherd's Conference last week and did not appreciate one session where the music was contemporary (there were other contemporary sessions, but Bob only mentions this one). What follows is a response to Bob and is addressed to him:

Dear Bob,

As a member of Grace Community Church, a professor at The Master's Seminary, and most importantly, a worshiper of God, I thought it might be worth a few moments to volunteer a few words as a brother in Christ. I'm sorry you were "irritated" and "vexed" at some of the worship leading. If anyone was hindered from adoring the Savior with a whole heart during one of our worship services, it is a source of sorrow to us.

Your post focused on what "the electric guitar dude" was wearing (actually, he was the bass player – there was no electric guitar there). Your assumption about a tie requirement is incorrect. If you were in the Friday morning general session, you may have noticed that while I was singing in a trio with my wife and daughter I was not wearing a tie. It is not unheard-of at Grace Church for a pastor or for the music minister to preach or lead music in a tie-less state of dress on a Sunday evening (MacArthur, to my memory, always wears a tie to preach on Sunday). I sing special music on a fairly regular basis and almost never wear a tie. No one has ever rebuked me for this or requested that I dress differently than I do. So no one was getting a pass.

The point that I wish to make here is that the two men (pianist and drummer) wore a tie that day, not out of obligation, but out of respect for and deference to men such as yourself. I did the same on Thursday when I taught my seminar at the conference. I'm guessing the bass player didn't wear one because he doesn't own one. In any case, these men are friends of mine – highly gifted young men with whom I minister frequently. The girly-man-pianist-worship-leader is John, a humble and passionate musician who leads me, my wife, and 900 college students in glorious worship every week. Were you there on Friday night to hear him sing in a tenor trio? On Sunday morning when he sang "The New Jerusalem" as a solo? If you were, you know that John is a tenor – an incredibly powerful tenor at that. When he sings congregational music it is somewhat below his optimal range and so it's not as loud. I thought the sound guy should have turned him up more when he was leading worship. Your comment about "making love to the mic with soft, hoarse, barely audible voice" is vulgar most unbecoming a servant of Jesus. I urge you to not let such "corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth" (Eph 4:29). It is even more offensive when directed at such a dear brother in Christ.

The drummer is David, a young man who loves Jesus and expresses that love in his music. He is the son of a pastor who I know well, who taught David to love the Lord and do all to the glory of God, including his drumming. I sat in a hospital ICU waiting room with David and his father for many hours last fall as a mutual young friend lost his wife to cancer. David is a busy college student and in-demand drummer who put much of his life aside to minister comfort to a friend. The various movements you observed in David during worship were the expression of that inward love for Christ being expressed outwardly. You hinted at the end of your post that you weep at certain kinds of worship music. David moves his head in rhythm and motions with his hands. Why is his outward response less godly than yours? Because it is in front of 3000 people? Would you not weep in front of 3000 people? Why not?

I'd like to introduce you to Ryan, the bass player, but he's a recent addition to the band (at John's discretion), and I haven't had the chance to get into his life yet. But he shows the same humility in spite of great talent, and he sacrifices much to be a part of the college ministry worship band so that he can serve Christ with his gift.

Look, I understand that you don't like the musical style. I get that. On the other hand, I and many others worshiped every bit as intensely during that session as in any other. I love the best of contemporary worship music – not because it sounds hot but because it sanctifies my thoughts and turns me to Christ. But your personal comments on the musicians are out of line. The really cool thing about these guys is that they don't dismiss your opinion - they're alarmed at your critique and would hate to think that they somehow prevented someone from worshiping. I know this because John came to me yesterday at church with precisely that concern. These guys love you, Bob. They are your brothers. If you wish to comment on the style of music and whether it's biblical, then by all means do so. But please, treat your brothers for whom Christ died with more of the love that Christ has showed to you (John 13:34).

P.S. on the issue of contemporary worship, John Frame's two books, Worship in Spirit and in Truth and Contemporary Worship Music: A Biblical Defense are probably the most biblical out there.

Spurgy does it again

2007-03-02T11:14:00.000-08:00

Quote of the week - Spurgeon on the pastor's need for humility:

"Some trumpets are so stuffed with self that God cannot blow through them."

Delighting in the Giver

2007-02-28T19:42:00.000-08:00

The theme of "delighting in God," particularly in Christ, is receiving fresh emphasis in my life for a variety of reasons. While doing some reading in preparation for a seminar on prayer for pastors, I ran across this by Spurgeon, in the context of delighting in God so that our requests to him will reflect his sovereign will. The simple yet penetrating insight here is that when we delight in God, we love him more than the gifts he gives:

If you delight more in God's gifts than in God himself, you are practically setting up another god above him, and this you must never do. Even when a man truly loves the Lord Jesus Christ, there may be within him something which is very like idolatry. There is even a danger of loving some things which are associated with Christ as much as we love Christ himself; and we must be on the watch against such a feeling as that.

Now, get this:

Love him, dear friends, even when you do not realise his presence; love him even when you do not feel his love; if you cannot walk in the light of his countenance, hide beneath the shadow of his wings; and, under all circumstances, let it be your joy still to say, 'he is worthy to be praised, he is ever to be blessed, whatever he does with me.'

I'm brought back to Ps. 43:3-4, where a depressed and beleaguered psalmist pleads, "Send out your light and your truth; let them lead me; let them bring me to your holy hill and to your dwelling! Then I will go to the altar of God, to God my exceeding joy, and I will praise you with the lyre, O God, my God." I will never get over this text. I hope one day I'll be able to say without pretense or prolepsis that God himself is my exceeding joy.

For Me

2007-02-22T06:57:00.000-08:00

I got back from the Resolved conference Monday afternoon and have been scrambling for a couple days to get reoriented. On second thought, that's actually what the conference was about for me - reminding myself (or maybe learning for the first time) how the gospel is to be the fuel and motor of the Christian life.

This came home to me in theology class on Tuesday as we were discussing the meaning of Jesus' death and the question of what he suffered (and suffered for) on the cross. The tendency seems to be to focus on Jesus suffering for sins rather than sinners. Certainly the Bible speaks of Christ suffering for sins, but the point is not precisely that he suffered the penalty for the 1,253,846 sins that I would commit in my life. The real point is that he suffered for me. He suffered the penalty that I should have suffered.

Here we have a prepositional confusion. Try giving the gospel without using the word "for." It would go like this: Jesus died instead of me, because of my sins. And this brings us back to a message by C.J. Mahaney at the Resolved conference. He preached on Isaiah 53 and just broke me to pieces. God crushed his Son instead of crushing me. I'm responsible.

The death of Christ is not an abstraction - the point is not that he died for some principle of sinfulness "out there." He died for me. Instead of me. Because of me. Living in light of this truth is what C.J. calls The Cross-Centered Life.