My son just returned home from our District Youth Convention and shared this video with me. I am not very well acquainted with "spoken-word poetry" as an art form, but I was impressed and blessed by the style AND SUBSTANCE of this presentation. I am doubly blessed because my son and I are united in our appreciation for the truth conveyed. ENJOY!!

The Gospel

Sliding toward Universalism

Our pluralistic, postmodern culture provides fertile soil for the renewed growth of inclusivism and even universalism.
The shift described in the quote by Robert Gundry below should cause us to seriously reflect on the direction the church is headed in respect to its mission in the world. A lot has been written about the need for the church to move beyond a narrow focus on making converts and broaden its mission to include issues of social justice. I don't think anyone can argue that true Christian mission ought to be holistic, touching both the physical and spiritual needs of people, but the real question is whether evangelism is taking a back seat to social ministry. Gundry's quote is certainly worthy of heartfelt reflection among those of us who care about the gospel.

"It remains to be seen what an effect on Christian evangelism and missionary endeavor the migration from exclusivism through inclusivism toward universalism will have, but Burdick and Hammond ("World Order and Mainline Religions", 198-205) chart a decline in past American foreign missions with the shift of purpose in three stages: (1) From the conversion of non-Christians (2) to the exercise of philanthropic compassion on them (3) to a co-religious companionship with them. And it seems likely that the passion for souls that carries over from many inclusivist's upbringing in exclusivistic circles will dissipate among second and third generation inclusivists. Bringing people to Christ merely sooner than they otherwise would come to him does not provide so strong a motivation for evangelism and missions as does the bringing of people to Christ who would otherwise be forever lost."



Robert Horton Gundry in "Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian" pg. 108

Merry Christmas

As I reflect upon the wonder of the incarnation I am once again reminded that it is beginning of the victory of Jesus over sin and death. I am in awe of Jesus perfect righteousness; the righteousness that conquers sin.

Perfect Righteousness = Perfect Love for God and Man

Perfect Love for God = Perfect Obedience to God
He always did the Father’s will
John 4:34; 5:30; 8:29

Perfect Love for Man = Perfect Benevolence to Man
He actions were always in mans best interest
(Mark 10:45; John 13:34 )

Perfect Obedience to God = Perfect Sacrifice In Order To Accomplish God's Will (Phil 2:8)
(Hint: My boys never have trouble obeying me when I ask them to do something they WANT to do)
Perfect Benevolence to Man = Perfect Sacrifice for Man - “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for His friends.”

Jesus loving obedience to the Father's will and His loving benevolence towards our need of redemption was PERFECTLY demonstrated by his PERFECT sacrifice. A sacrifice that began with His incarnation, was continually manifested as He lived to serve rather than be served, and culminated in the ultimate sacrifice of laying down His life. PRAISE TO THE PERFECT RIGHTEOUS ONE WHO’S PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS HAS DESTROYED SIN PERFECTLY!!

Some thoughts on Newsweek's Religious Case for gay Marriage

The following are just a few of my thoughts in response to reading Lisa Miller's article, featured on the cover of Newsweek a couple of weeks ago, that claims to establish biblical support for gay marriage. Lisa Miller's article is so full of distortions, inconsistencies, and mischaracterizations that it is hard to cover them all w/o an awfully lengthy post so I am leaving those with an interest in a complete rebuttal a link for further reading.

1. Lisa writes, "First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes."
Maybe Lisa should read the following passages:

Matt. 19:5 ;Lk 18:29; 1Cor. 7:2,3-4; Eph 5; 1 Timothy 3:2.12

In addition to the specific verses cited above Lisa might be interested in doing a search of all the NT references to marriage. If she did she would find that every one is either explicitly or implicitly about monogamous heterosexual marriage. One of Lisa's egregious mistakes is to suggest that unless the Bible provides us with a dictionary type definition of a term it therefore leaves the term undefined.

2. Lisa writes, "The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family." She picks up this theme later writing, "He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers, whose bond in God superseded all blood ties. Leave your families and follow me..." Her attempt to paint Jesus as being indifferent or even opposed, to marriage & family is pitiful. She completely ignores Jesus strong affirmation of marriage demonstrated in his emphatic condemnation of divorce. Her distortion of Paul's view of marriage is also shameful.
She makes no attempt to understand the comments of Paul's, which she so selectively cites, in their context (See Prof. Gagnon's response) and she ignores Paul's high view of marriage expressed in Ephesians 5: 25-33. After reading Paul's admonition to husbands, calling on them to love their wives to the point of being willing to die for them, would Lisa still feel Paul's teaching expressed only a "lukewarm endorsement of a treasured institution". Does Paul's instruction to husbands to "love their wives as their own bodies" sound like someone who believed marriage was simply a means for a man to relieve his sexual frustration? Neither did she take the time to mention what other NT books say about marriage, like, "Marriage should be honored by all..." (Hebrews 13:4)

What troubled me almost as much as her distortions of scripture was her own glaring inconsistency. She apparently can't decide from sentence to sentence whether we should have great respect or utter contempt for Jesus in particular and the Bible generally. When scripture agrees with her it is profound but when it doesn't it is outdated. Consider these quotes from the article:


"We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual, but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future. The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family and community. It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs"."

"In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified. Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace....Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."

"If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity, then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow. Terry Davis is the pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over "holy unions" since 1992. "I'm against promiscuity—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships," he says."

This is truly amazing!
Lisa Miller decries the attempt to define marriage as consisting of one man and one woman as a failure to meet the Bible's true message of "acceptance for all". But then, without so much as blushing, she smuggles in her own definition of marriage: homosexual or heterosexual monogamy. She can appeal to the Bible in defense of the "value of monogamy" and the necessity to "bind ourselves in loving pairs" but she doesn't extend the same privilege to those who appeal to the Bible in defense of heterosexual monogamy. In other words, Lisa wags her finger at those who are unwilling to reach out and include those "on the margins" while clearly expressing her own preference for monogamous marriage. Wait a minute, Lisa, what about all the bi-sexuals in the land? What about the polygamists? Why don't they deserve a place at the marriage table? What happened to the message of inclusiveness? Since she quotes Terry Davis in an affirming manner, is Lisa, like Mr. Davis, against promiscuity. Come on now Lisa, what happened to all the talk about "accepting everyone"? This "hate speech" against all the nice promiscuous people out there has got to stop! I also find it odd that Lisa can conclude so confidently that children are harmed when we cease to bond in loving pairs while failing to recognize, despite the abundant evidence, that children need both a mother and a father. The article should more appropriately be titled "The religious case for Lisa Miller's Vision of Marriage".

Prof. Gagnon has written a lengthy rebuttal to Lisa Miller's article which provides a detailed and nuanced response to the more complicated issues raised by Lisa Miller.
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdfhttp://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf
Here is a quote from Prog. gagnon taken from the link above:
"Scripture’s male-female prerequisite for marriage and its attendant rejection of homosexual behavior is pervasive throughout both Testaments of Scripture (i.e. it is everywhere presumed in sexual discussions even when not explicitly mentioned); it is absolute (i.e. no exceptions are ever given, unlike even incest and polyamory); it is strongly proscribed (i.e. every mention of it in Scripture indicates that it is regarded as a foundational violation of sexual ethics); and it is countercultural (i.e. we know of no other culture in the ancient Near East or Greco-Roman Mediterranean basin more consistently and strongly opposed to homosexual practice). If this doesn’t qualify as a core value in Scripture's sexual ethics, there is no such thing as a core value in any religious or philosophical tradition. "

Who I am, Whose I am, WHO HE IS

I am posting the following in response to a conversation I just had with a fellow minister whom I love very much. I hope it will encourage all who read it to serve the Lord with gladness.

Moses encounter w/ God in the burning bush in Exodus 3 reminds me of two misperceptions I must guard against or run the risk of failing to fulfill God’s call on my life. The first issue is related to his perception of himself and the second is related to his perception of ministry.

Moses misperception about himself is revealed in two phrases which he uttered. The first was a statement he made about himself and the second, a question he asked about himself. He said, “Here am I” but he then asked “who am I?” Moses knew where he was but he didn’t know who he was. In this passage I discover that Moses identity crisis resulted from defining himself in terms of his gifts and position, or perhaps more accurately, in terms of his perceived lack of giftedness and lack of position. His response to God’s call was, “Who am I that I should go to Pharoah?”; the obvious underlying thought being, “I have no title, power, or authority, I am just a shepherd in Midian.

Later his argument was, “I can’t go. I’m not a gifted speaker”. But it’s not like God didn’t know about Moses lack of position and his speech impediment. We don’t find God responding, “You know, Moses, you’ve got me thinking. I completely overlooked the fact that you aren’t the leader of a great nation with a powerful military force. I also forgot about your speech impediment. I don’t know what I was thinking.” But Moses lack of position & giftedness wasn’t an issue to God. I’ll get to why in a moment.

What lies at the heart of Moses identity crisis is his failure to define himself primarily, and ultimately, in terms of whose He was. He was asking the question, “Who am I?” when the real issue was not who he was, but whose he was. When God began to speak to Moses he revealed Himself in terms of His relationship to Moses. He said, “I am the God of your father…” which meant I am YOUR God. You belong to me. My identity needs to be wrapped up in my relationship to God as his child. Moses went wrong by defining himself in terms of his function/personality/position instead of his relationship to God. There will always be reasons to be insecure if we define ourselves in terms of function/personality/position, but never any reason when defined in terms of our relationship to God as his children. Our sense of identity, of who we are, has to be firmly grounded in whose we are.

The second issue that hindered Moses was his perception of ministry as being something God was calling him to go and do rather than as allowing God to do His work through him. Moses retort, “Who am I to go and deliver the Israelites?” was based on the faulty assumption that he was the deliverer. God said, “I have come down to rescue them…” If Moses was the deliverer than position & natural ability might have been critical. But God was going to rescue them, and he chose Moses to be his instrument. Moses reluctance to obey was due to the fact that he was more concerned with who he was, or wasn’t, rather than who God was! The locus of Moses faith was in himself, not God! There is a world of difference between viewing ministry as something we are doing for God as opposed to something God is doing through us! In the former case the effectiveness or success relies upon us and in the latter it relies upon God. I, personally, am much more comfortable with it relying upon God. The ministry should be about who God is rather than who we are!

In short, we need to move from focusing on thoughts of “who I am” to “whose I am” and “who He is.” Our understanding of the first will be faulty & problematic unless built upon the foundation of the others.

Dear Lord,
Help me to always ground my identity (who I am) in my relationship to You as Your Son (whose I am). Help me understand how great a love has been bestowed upon me that I should be called a child of God! Help me to always be more concerned & consumed with knowing who you are than who I am. May my God-consciousness be far greater than my self-consciousness.

The Gospel: Forgiveness, Fulfillment, AND Freedom

In his book, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., Mark Driscoll asks the question, "Will you proclaim a gospel of forgiveness, fulfillment or freedom?" He goes on to suggest that traditional, contemporary, and emerging churches differ in how they present the gospel; traditional churches present a gospel of forgiveness, contemporary churches present a gospel of fulfillment, and emerging churches present a gospel of freedom."


If I am reading Mark correctly, he agrees that the "gospel of forgivenss" is faithful to scripture but he seems to suggest it is no longer relevant. While "it made sense to most people at one time" today it "seems judgmental, mean-spirited, naive, and narrow-minded to the ever growing number of people who don't understand the basic tenets of Christianity". He suggests that correcting this misunderstanding of the gospel of forgiveness will take "months or years".

The better approach therefore is to proclaim the gospel of freedom, which apparently is more comprehensible to the mind-set, and palatable to the tastes, of the younger postmodern generation. The gospel of freedom emphasizes sins' destructive effect upon ourselves and "God's good creation". It is good news because through Jesus we are liberated from Satan, sin and death.

I enjoyed Mark's analysis of the distorted gospel of fulfillment. He is correct that many churches have bought into the misguided self-esteem movement and have preached a gospel that places man at the center rather than God. I don't think he has overstated the case when he describes this gospel as one where "God exists to worship us". He sums up the problem with the contemporary gospel of fulfillment nicely when he writes, "...it does not call me to God's mission but rather calls God to my mission".

While I agree with some of his insights I see a number of problems. The biggest problem is that his question sets up a false antithesis. It implies that we need to choose between proclaiming a gospel of forgiveness, freedom, OR fulfillment when, in fact, the good news (gospel) that Jesus came to bring is that we can have all three through Him. The gospel is about forgiveness AND freedom AND fulfillment, although fulfillment needs to be defined scripturally.

I also have to disagree with the notion that the we should present the gospel as freedom from Satan, sin, and death RATHER than as the gift of forgiveness from the God we have personally offended. I don't believe those who recoil from the gospel of forgiveness for the reasons stated above will be any more receptive to the true gospel of freedom. To preach the gospel of freedom faithfully means to present it as Paul does: to be free from sin is to be free from the bondage to our own fleshly desires and to be simultaneosly "enslaved to God" (Romans 6). It is not freedom from God's authority, but the freedom to be able to submit to God's authority. Contemporary resistance to the gospel is primarily due to a distaste for all authority outside the self. I don't see how the gospel of freedom, defined properly, is any more palatable to the tastes of people today then the gospel of forgiveness is.

While we must guard against the man-centered gospel that is common today we shouldn't overlook the fact that true fulfillment is an important aspect of the gospel. Jesus told his disciples that he had peace to give them that the world couldn't give. He prayed to the Father that they would have the full measure of His joy within them. He pours out the love of God in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. His will is that our lives would be fruitful. I can't think of a better definition of fulfillment than a life of love, joy, peace, and fruitfulness. Of course, we need to explain that we must abide in Christ to experience these, but it is absolutely appropriate to speak of the gospel of fulfillment. There is only a problem when we distort the true meaning of fulfillment and equate it with material possessions and worldly status and position.

For years I have taught about the "diamond of salvation." There are many facets to salvation just as there are to a diamond. Each facet is a different view of a singular reality, and every view is beautiful. Justification speaks of forgiveness, redemption speaks of freedom, reconciliation speaks of fellowship, adoption speaks of family, and regeneration speaks of the fulfillment of the promise of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The bottom line is that every aspect of the gospel message needs to be proclaimed.

For my pastor friends that have asked me about my thoughts concerning the emerging church I am listing a couple of links that echo my thoughts on the "movement". The first is a primer on the emerging church by Justin Taylor that I believe is accurate in its' description and analysis. The second is a youtube video with Al Mohler & Ravi Z. I thought my friend Jeff Fulford would especially enjoy Ravi's comments. In a future post I will share some thoughts on JT's article.



http://9marks.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598014%7CCIID2249226,00.html



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6uxCch7oc