I have a bone to pick with myself. I have a bone to pick with American culture. I am annoyed how I have let this aspect of American culture to influence my thinking.
I have developed within myself a belief that any worthwhile occupation will inevitably include a consistent high level of pressure. I use “occupation” in the broadest sense within which it is not limited to your job, but rather those things that occupy your time more definitively. I have found myself attributing the most value to professions and agendas that necessitate constant strain. I feel that this is a product of culture rather than a product of actually attaining a better understanding of how things really are. I have come to understand that this is a lie from hell that leads even the most devout pastors and Christian laymen to pursue achievement rather than God, put faith in efforts rather than the Spirit, imitate the culture rather than Christ, and to find sufficiency in personal accomplishment rather than Christ’s.
When we seek the Kingdom first the vanity of earthly achievement becomes far more apparent.
When we rely on the Spirit we recognize the vanity of our own naked efforts.
When we would rather imitate Christ than meet cultural expectations we find ourselves really living real life that is reflective of God’s glory and grace.
When we find our sufficiency in Christ’s accomplishment we become far less dependent on our own accomplishments.
I think that high-level stress lives quench the above three qualities. Not that no person is ever called to have these jobs or that God cannot protect us from this quenching and provide enablement to glorify him through the prolonged circumstances. My point is more that we should be careful not to follow the American culture in believing that demanding and pressure-filled occupations are more worthwhile than those that are not such. While these occupations generally come with more accomplishment, we must remember that no person has ever been defined by personal accomplishment. We are only defined by our association with the accomplishment of Christ.
There ought to be no division in our minds between a job that comes with massive responsibility, pressure, and 6 figures and a job that comes with free time, enjoyment, and 4 figures. There ought to be no division in our minds between the southern backwoods pastor of a church of 12 and the urban mega-church pastor of 25k. Neither of these men is accepted on behalf of any accomplishment of his own. In either case, we must be the person who is guided by the 4 above steps rather than guided by fleshly thinking that builds our lives into something that will only die. The 4 guiding principles above will lead any person live a life that lives and means something beyond the grave. Maybe you can’t pay your bills if you got a job that you feel would free you to get more involved in your family, church, and community, or to get a job within which you can really express your God-given abilities. So sell your house and get a cheaper one. Sell your SUV and get something with 4 cylinders and ride your bike to more places. Stop buying Starbucks every day. Regardless of what the flesh tells you, you don’t need those things to be happy. See success through God’s eyes. For me, I feel like being over-pressurized during the day drains me and leaves me empty when I get home where my family is. My family, my church, my community, and my God deserve more than the leftovers! And still, the leftovers are often spent on amusement. There are many ways you could define a failure. I think this is one of those definitions.
Take the example of Sabbath. This is proof that God is not ultimately concerned about our efficiency and having a full calendar all the time. Take the example of Christ who showed us that sometimes it’s far better to go to a mountain and pray or wander in the wilderness rather than engage the multitudes. Sometimes it’s better to not have a place to lay your head, but live with your heavenly residence in mind. Take the example of the still small voice that Elijah found God in, or the single, sincere, short prayer with which he called down fire from heaven, rather than imitating the ruckus of his desperate, idolatrous nation. In Christ we are not in such a desperate condition where we have to run around frantically until God does something.
The moral of this post is – we give ourselves far too much credit and give far too little to God. It is not enough to say “praise God” when success comes. We must be the kind of person who means it and does it whether he says it or not, and doesn’t just say something he was told to say since he was as a 2nd grader when he first played special music in Church! We really rely on ourselves far too much to make life work. We think life our little world is far bigger than it really is and it would all stop spinning if we don’t do this or that. Or that the things we are involved in will fail if we weren’t there. We need to live in God’s reality! Get to know it! Get to know Him! Give Him the first fruits of your being, not your occupation! When your occupation, even if it’s being a pastor, takes the first fruits away from God and restrains your ability to influence your family and community like you should, it’s time to reevaluate your situation.

I've noticed, both from my own involvement and from my perception of the involvement others have in philosophical arguments, that the deeper one gets into a certain philosophy the greater the tendency to lose one's peripheral. When you focus on only one detail of a picture you have a tendency to forget what part that detail plays in the whole picture. When you step back and take a look at the whole picture, sometimes you get a different perspective on why that detail is there, which you never would have had if you had just focused on the single detail. Opening yourself up to take in the big picture, understanding original intent, and getting to know the rest of the picture will help you gain a better understanding of the individual parts - both their purpose and other abstract implications.
I find this dilemma to be especially potent in the minds of young, aspiring ministers such as myself. Especially while I was in college. You probably already have a pretty vivit picture of the typical "college dorm debate." A few guys or girls sitting in the basement or someones dorm room debating something useless like whether or not the human being is made up of 2 or 3 parts, or if God's omniscience and omnipresence suggest that He exists in multiple dimensions. But sometimes these debates touch things that are not quite so useless. And any person who philosophizes, even famous intellectuals, can cause much damage by focusing so intently on a single point that their conclusions are obscured by their lack of peripheral. When studying the Scriptures, we call this peripheral "context."
I could say some more things on this but I want to move on to my point. I think that we all need to be carefull not to err in basing conclusions off of context-free discoveries...discoveries that are probably not discoveries at all. Just mislead conclusions - mislead by putting a philosophy into the context of our own understanding rather than in the context of the real authority. For example, I just read Hebrews 6:4-6, a passage imfamously harolded by those who believe you can lose your salvation. Years worth of debate has been spent philosophizing over the intricate details of this passage, and I know that whenever I've read over the passage in the past I would focus on that passage and do my own philosophizing in my head, completely forgetting to prayerfully acknowledge the surrounding context. This time, by the Spirit's enablement, I read it afresh and discovered verses 7-12, which do a phenominal job defining the elements of verses 4-6, erasing any influence of confusion I have ever had in the past. I encourage you to read this for yourself and I will therefore not speak of my conclusions here.
All this to say, do not depend so much on your ability to dig into deep philosophy based on minute elements. Sometimes the best way to make true discoveries is, by the enablement of the Spirit, to see surface level things as they correspond to other surface level things. Read like a hunter - who only takes focused aim through his scope once he has already found his target through constant use of his peripheral.

As a typical evangelical Christian, you’ve always heard it preached “your faith will reveal itself through your works!” You’ve always wanted to be the kind of person who did more. You wish you were more unconventional and stuck your neck out in tough situations. You’ve been longing for more – more joy in your service, more motivation to initiate good works unto the Glory of God, and a greater sense of the bountiful harvest around you that is waiting to be reaped. You wish you cared more. But the hard fact is – you don’t. You aren’t the person you wish you were. When you do serve, there’s little fulfillment in it. It’s not very effective work, as it pretty much dies with the day, and the types of services that you participate in are pretty easy and require little initiative. It’s been a while since you’ve led a soul to Christ, and when you did your soul did not throw much of a party, and you never heard from that person again. You cannot say you really participated in the great commission as you never put forth effort to create a disciple. You just created a Christian, and who knows what that means anymore.
Now you have this acquaintance. Perhaps it’s an atheist, or a Muslim, or an agnostic, or a Mormon. You know they do not believe a Biblical Gospel. But it seems like their life looks more like a Gospel life than yours. They are always involved in other people’s lives. They are always there for their friends. They are the first ones to cry with someone who is hurt. They tend to the pain of others. They are the ones who are the most concerned when even you are experiencing trouble, and will willingly come to your aid and provide their version of genuinely supportive counsel. They seem to be fulfilled when they have an opportunity to make a difference in someone’s life.
Right now you are probably taking this a direction that would include motives, intentions, and goals. And this, though it may be true, is not the direction I wish to take this. It is important to understand this: that we are made in God’s image. While sin has severely marred this image, we are still capable of loving. But the fact that we CAN love is not the issue. The issue is, what value is that love? Is it a detriment to the Gospel to say that an unsaved person can genuinely love his neighbor as himself and treat him that way?
I answer this question with a “no.”
In fact, an unbeliever could actually live a more impressive life than a redeemed individual, even though the redeemed are the ones who alone receive the Spirit’s enablement for redeemed daily living. Does this imply a weak Holy Spirit? Again, “no.” It implies weak faith among the redeemed. It implies lives that do not capitalize on the Spirit’s enablement due to fear and a sense of weakness. This is due to lives lived according to a false Gospel wherein we possess all available power within our flesh and bones to accomplish eternal work. Though we hear different every Sunday and shout our Amen’s to the proclamation of God’s almighty power, when we get to the grind, we buckle under the pressure and abandon hope in the One who sustains us.
Which gets me to my point. How is it that an unbeliever’s works are seen as unworthy, but the works of the redeemed, though perhaps weak in faith and less potent, are considered worthy? What if you did the exact same works as the atheist or the Muslim? When you stood up before God side-by-side with that unbeliever, what compels Him to choose you rather than him?
One word: Association.
And this is what hurts pride. When God accepts you, He is accepting Christ. He is not accepting you because of you or anything you’ve done or said. He is accepting you because of your ASSOCIATION. You are guilt-free by association. It’s a liberating thought to know that it doesn’t matter what you do, you are never going to be a better person to God. You don’t have to try. You left to yourself are, and always will be, putrid. So claim your stench as a person. But claim God’s love in Christ. He loved you and chose you even though you are offensive. The only way we can truly be liberated from the pressure of having to make ourselves into something good is to admit that we will NEVER make ourselves into something good no matter how hard we try. We will never make up for or cover our own offensiveness. But with that, as we are in Christ, we will NEVER be rejected. We are now righteous because of Christ’s cleansing blood. Those who stand up against us and look better are still guilty because they are associated with only themselves and themselves alone, leaving them very alone. They stand before God with all their good deeds, but they mean nothing to God. They provide no atoning influence on God’s wrath. Christ was sent as the atonement, taking God’s wrath so we could be free from it. What more do you want?
So stop living a heresy. You are not making yourself a better person. It’s not going to happen! Suck it up, humble yourself, and find liberating rest in your ASSOCIATION rather than yourself. This will give you the drive to live an eternally successful life. Stop looking for inspiration in 140 characters or less, self help books, exciting preaching, or magazines to drive you to be a better person. People looking for employment hate this reality, but for eternity it’s actually a good thing: “It’s all about who you know, not your resume.” So don’t live like you have to bring your accomplishments to God. That hasn’t worked for anyone…ever. Let Christ bring you to God. And with that, read John 17. What better authority than the testimony of our Great High Priest?

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately on the matter of prayer. I know it is far more important than it has been in my life lately, and I feel continually challenged. Let me start at the beginning of my journey:
Making the Bible relevant to today’s culture has relatively little to do with the music we sing or the methods we use. Relevant Christianity is believing that the God who involved Himself with the Patriarchs is the same God who involves Himself in our lives today. The Jesus that called and worked in and through the lives of the 12 disciples is the same Jesus that calls and works in and through us today. The same Holy Spirit that made apostles out of common men is the same Holy Spirit that transforms common men into bold witnesses today. This is Biblical relevance: God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
Our application of this relevance is found in our prayers. Much of the work God did through both the patriarchs and the disciples was rather unreasonable. Many of the expectations God placed upon His people have been unreasonable. Take a series of miracles Jesus performed: fed the 5k, walked on water, calmed the water, fed the 4k, did many healings therein. But at the feeding of the 4k the disciples still didn’t get it. Jesus says “are you yet without understanding?” Our problem is, we want to understand according to human terms before having spiritual faith. We want some sort of reasonableness in our leap. We want to have a list of ways God could work it out. When the disciples doubted, it wasn’t that they were doubting Christ specifically. They were just thinking with natural minds which naturally doubt what they cannot see. And Christ rebuked them as though they were forsaking the obvious – and they were.
But we somehow justify the disciple-ness of our prayers…we neglect to be bold in asking for unreasonable things. Consider the syro-phonecian woman who asked Christ to heal her child. Christ said “no, the children need fed first. Why should I give to the dogs what is reserved for the children?” But even though the woman agreed that her request was unreasonable – Christ was the Jews’ Messiah. But she still asked, even though 1. Her request was unreasonable, and 2. Christ already said no. She had the boldness and humility to expect Christ to do something unreasonable, even after hearing “no.” This is a faithful prayer. This is a prayer coming from someone who knows far more of Christ than one who can only bring himself to request things that he finds to be reasonable.
Bringing it back to relevance, I’ve been continually challenged that even in my life, no matter how common I am, God is not limited. He still wants us to trust that He is the same God to us that did unreasonable things to those we sanctify in the Bible. They were all common men who would have no place in history if it were not for God’s work in their lives. And we would have no place in His future if it weren’t for His work in us, and because of who He is, we can be free to ask for what is unreasonable and know that He will fulfill it unto His glory. The only two reasons we have not is that 1. We don’t ask, or 2. We ask amiss – we ask stupidly and selfishly. I don’t think God is in the business of saying no all the time. We’re just faithless. We’d see a lot more yeses if we’d just ask and know that God is more desirous of His glory than we are, and more desirous to bring men to Christ than we are. More desirous to build His church than we are. More desirous to build up Christians (like us) than we are. More desirous to build up families than we are. You get the idea. The prayer of submission. Why can’t we even ask for those unreasonable things that we already know are his will? Like for our family to visibly grow in grace? For our local church to grow in grace?
Not to mention (funny…I’m mentioning it) that God rarely does things in a way that we had already mapped out ourselves. This often is a key point on which we lose faith. We didn’t see an answer, so obviously God must be silent, right? Or perhaps you’re not seeing the answer because you’re only looking down one hallway, when God worked it out down another hallway. Instead of listening for Him plainly, we listened for noise in the hallway that we thought He’d do His work in. Even if we hear noise somewhere else, we will not turn to look because of our self-imposed sovereignty. Therefore we never turned to look and see that God did the work somewhere and perhaps somehow differently than according to our prognosis. And sometimes God works in a hallway in a completely different building, so we will never see it. Just because that person didn’t get saved during your time of influence doesn’t mean they’ll never get saved. You just won’t see it happen. We too easily lose hope in what we can’t see. We too often lose hope because we impose our sense of complete comprehension upon a sovereign God.
And sometimes the answer is indeed “no” and will never see a “yes.” Does God not exist? Or does God hate us? No. Rather, though we do not understand why, these times are times in which we are to submit.
Too many people have left the faith or given up on prayer merely because they have prayed falsely. Many nominal Christians have turned atheist merely because God did not answer their impersonal, sacramental, check-list prayer that lacked faith anyway. At least now their claims match the level of faith they always had. Now they can really be reached. You cannot reach someone who thought they already had faith. You cannot redeem those who are already righteous in their own eyes. At least now they are reachable.
But simply, let God be God. You be you. You, as you, come to God through Christ our redeeming mediator, and let Him be God.

My coworker received a "bible promise book" this past weekend and decided to bring it to work. Every once in a while he will bust it out, read a random verse, and ask me where it is in the Bible. This is pretty fun and allows for some sporadic Gospel conversations in the office, which i must say I enjoy very much. Even though I don't know most of the references, it's still nice to get a little Bible action in the office.
Just today he read 1 John 1:9, which says "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." While I've heard this verse a million and a half times over my lifetime, it struck me differently today. Since I've heard it so many times it has become somewhat of a cliche verse that I just normally interpret it to mean "yes, God saves us and cleanses our sin." The focus is on me and the Father. But when I take a closer look, the verse is actually all about Christ.
What struck me was the mentioning of God's faithfulness and justice being fulfilled in FORGIVING me. The reason this struck me was that, due to my sin, God is faithful and just to CONDEMN me, not forgive me. So I was smitten with great confusion, which lead me to read the context.
Just two verses before, John says "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." This verse does not just imply that there is a way to be cleansed. It doesn't just reveal the love of God toward us. It reveals God's passionate hatred against sin. In order for us to be cleansed, someone truly had to bare our judgment, and that was Christ. It is only because Christ took our judgment that we can be made pure. God truly is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins. He does not push aside sin just because He loves us. No, He remained faithful to Himself and His demands for purity. He remained just, as our sin received an appropriate punishment. But we do not have to be the ones baring that punishment! We are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness because of Christ's substitutionary atonement.
It is a mockery to the face of God to value our own works even the slightest bit. It is a blasphemous mockery to believe that there is yet some sin that needs to be purged during or after life. God is faithful to His demands. He is just in His judgments toward us. If we rely on ourselves or any purging work outside of Christ's sacrifice, we will receive the burning judgment of His faithfulness and justice. If we rely on Christ alone, we will receive the total cleansing of the Spirit. Christ completed the work! Don't waste His love toward you.

This blog is dedicated to me walking myself through an area of my life that I know needs a great amount of improvement.
I was listening to a Leadership Coaching video by Mark Driscoll, and he was discussing 4 different stages of ministry. I will discuss these in relation to church ministry first, but then make application to marriage. Please note that these stages are not all necessary.
1. Creative/Vision stage
In this stage, one sees a need, developes a goal, and attempts to make a way provide for that need through formulating methods, processes, and strategies. This stage is foundational to any growth to be had for a ministry.
2. Management stage
In this stage, the need has been recognized, the goal developed, and the means of provision have been established. Now it's time to make it happen in real life. Theory has become reality. All of those preconceived methods now have to be managed.
3. Defensive Stage
In this stage, something has gone wrong in the vision and/or management stages. But instead of managing through the mishap you decide to focus on blame. Generally you direct your focus onto someone other than yourself. This redirection (often referred to as "blame-shifting") is done by most, if now all An increasing sense of animosity arises and people become discouraged. Carrying out the original plan is now about doing a good job and avoiding mistakes rather than providing for the need. Focus has turned from an outward expression of grace to an inward preservation of self-worth. This stage is certainly not necessary.
4. Death Stage
In this stage, the vision has been abandoned. No further vision is being promoted. There is no goal in the mind of the leader or the people. There is no passion for or focus on fulfilling any real need. Perhaps previous animosity has been unrepentedly set aside in hopes it will be forgotten. Everything seems to be OK, but there is no movement. There is little life that would serve as a monument of grace. This stage is also not necessary.
Though Driscoll meant for these stages to refer to a pastor managing his church, I also apply it to marriage, specifically from the point of view of the husband. See below:
1. Creative/Vision Stage
In this stage, the husband sees the need for a need in his family. Instead of letting life take its course, he acts proactively and begins to think of ways that he can lead his family in order to fulfill this need. He takes initiative to promote spiritual, physical, financial, relational, and social health in his home. He seeks for ways to make the Gospel beautiful to his family. He plans out family devotions and initiates personal conversations with his wife and kids. He reads books on personal finance and seeks wisdom from those who have wisdom in this area. He deliberately studies and romances his wife (and plans for it ahead of time!). He makes it a habit to observe his home in order to prevent disasters and to fix things ASAP before the wife is burdened with the need to write an extensive honey-do list.
2. Management Stage
Some men are extremely good at analyzing their personal context, envisioning necessary changes and goals, and putting plans and theories down on paper. But those like me (not saying I am amazing at the above) are terrible at initiating processes and carrying them through to the end. I'd rather pass the buck at this stage. If you're like me, it's because you are afraid of making an even bigger mess. You're afraid of failure. But the lack of initiation and family management on the part of the husband causes even bigger messes in the long run. And these messes are often messes that result in misery, loneliness, unfaithfulness, and divorce. But when divorce happens, people blame the wife because she is the apparent problem because she's the one divorcing her husband. While this may be true, the husband is ultimately responsible because he wasn't a real man for her. He may have been smart and charming at first, but he had no idea how to be a well-rounded, responsible manager in real life. And those of you who are married know that women are far better at recognizing reality than men are! So it should be our continual pursuit to deal with things that are a part of real life now. Not the theoretical, sportscenter, video-gamer, news paper, internet, reality show life that we often grow content and stagnant in. Wake up. That is not "living for the future." That is living for yourself and doing only those things that you are comfortable with and reap enjoyment from with low risk of failure. Take a risk. Do some things wrong. But get involved in the real life that everyone seems to be living in except you. Wake up to the real, though perhaps accepted, burden that your wife is baring. Take it from her and lead your household. Take the finances from her. Stink at it? Me too. But learn it. It's not unreasonable to take time to study things outside of the Bible. Especially when it helps you be a Biblical man.
3. Defensive Stage
All too often couples are miserable because, when something goes wrong or someone gets hurt, noone is willing to repent. Noone is willing to take blame. The husband wants to be respected. How can I have her respect me if I am asking for her forgiveness? Then I am vulnerable. We all know vulnerable people don't ever get respect! We all know she's supposed to be the vulnerable one. So she should be the one just accepting it and getting over it. While this makes sense with the eyes of flesh, when one muses on reality he discovers he's a conceited jerk. Repent to God and your wife. It takes a real man to repent to his wife. It takes a real man to recognize how vulnerable all men are, especially since we're usually the thoughtless ones who hurt our wives. Claim it! Is your wife the more dominant and active figure in the family and therefore more susceptible to failure? That's your fault. You're the head of the family. Often when she fails, it's probably your fault because she should have never been in that situation to begin with. So stop blaming her. Claim it and treat her like the woman she is. Repent to her when it's your fault. Repent to her when she fails at something that should have been your responsibility to begin with, and then take responsibility in the future.
4. Death Stage
In this stage, your family does not enjoy each other. Nobody really sees anyone else as significant - especially not as significant as themselves. No one serves each other except in order to "keep the peace." The husband spends most of his time disconnected from his wife and kids. They may live in the same house, but they aren't really living together. They certainly find more fulfillment and acceptance with those outside their home. Their "real life" happens mostly without the other person. When they are asked to think of something positive, if they can muster a thought, their first 5 answers are things that are completely unrelated to their spouse. Neither spouse pursues the other. The question "How was your day?" is nothing but routine. You don't really care. If a number of these illustrations are true, chances are you are living in the death stage. If these were blown up and applied to a church body, that church would be as warm and exciting to attend as a funeral. How ironic. There is not much to look forward to here. And nothing will get better until you, husband, shape up your act. Nothing will get better until you personally renew your vows with God and then with your wife, and then become the responsible Christian and family man you were created to be. Until you get right with God, you will never be able to affectively return to stage 1 and 2. Who cares if you go to church as a family, or are even in the ministry! You're apparently not a very good church member/person. If you can't nail it with your family, you'll never nail it at church. And nailing it with your family is not all about nailing it at church! Get over yourself and your dreams and your vision of who you want to be. Be a husband. Be a dad. Be a person consumed by grace. let God handle the rest.

In a recent post by John Piper, which can be found here, he writes:
"Jesus did not say, 'True religion is converting orphans.' He did not say, 'True religion is making orphans mature and successful adults.' He said, 'True religion is visiting orphans.' Results are God’s business. Obedience is ours."
I wrote on this in a previous blog, but thought I'd resurface it since this is a very Gospel-packed passage. This surely sparked some thoughts in my chasm, or should I say, my mind.
It seems as though Piper interprets this passage to say that Christ is commanding that we visit orphans (and widows, if you read the passage). I think that taking this merely at face value will leave someone with a very dangerous outlook on religion that could lead one to forsake the Gospel altogether, though unknowingly.
The question comes down to this in my mind: Is James suggesting that true religion is performance-driven? Or is true religion performance that is Gospel-driven?
Just before this James charges the 12 tribes with the following: "for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
How do we reveal a perfect and complete faith through trials? By being steadfast. What does steadfastness look like? Look at Daniel. He knew there was a command to cease praying to any god besides the King. He knew there was a penalty for not ceasing. He didn't care. His faith in God gave him steadfastness in his LIFE. He continued praying. We see steadfastness worked out for Daniel in how he lived. And how we live is seen by what we do. So perfect steadfastness, which is a product of true faith in Christ, reveals itself in works. What is James' famous saying? "Faith without works is dead." Not that works are faith, but that faith produces works.
Just after our subject passage, James says "show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." This is a command based on faith in Jesus Christ. It is no mistake that this issue of partiality comes directly after a charge to visit widows and orphans! Just after this he says, "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors." What is the law? To love ones neighbor. Contrary to popular opinion, love is not essentially an action. God is love. God is not an action. But God ACTS. So love, when it is true, acts.
So back to the original question: "Is James suggesting that true religion is performance-driven? Or is true religion performance that is Gospel-driven?"
Do we have true religion when we visit orphans? Or does visitin orphans REVEAL that one has true religion? I believe it is the latter. We do not control our religion through works! Rather, we reveal our faith in Christ through our works. True religion is not essentially works. True religion is a life so consumed with the Gospel that it cannot help but to work itself out. And that, for the most needy of people - a people that can in no way recompense the service given to them. True religion is revealed when we work with no thought of self in mind. When we forsake our fleshly impulse to only do those things that we will in some way be rewarded for. We can be rewarded for our service to a church, well-off family, institution, community, and wife or husband. Not to say that true faith doesn't work for them as well. But those who are unwilling to visit orphans and widows no nothing about the Gospel. Their life is consumed by EARNING. Their life is consumed by give-and-take. Work-and-wage. This is not Gospel. Gospel living is love-and-give. It does more than just attempt to meet needs that can be preached. It cannot help but to LIVE for others. That is giving of LIFE, not just conversation. That, not as a command so as the earn grace. But as a result of realizing God's grace given abundantly to you.
Countless people sit back and read about the people in need in the newspaper or hear about them from some other source. We say "Wow, I really hope someone comes to their aid. I really hope and pray that God blesses them." But feeling this is pointless unless you live a life wherein those feelings act themselves out. Sometimes that means going to a dirty part of town, sitting on a dirty curb in front of a smoke-house, and giving a dirty, smelly guy a hug and a meal offering your aid and your Christ. Does this seem outrageous or unnecessary? Does this seem revolutionary, enlightening, or inspirting? Then you have not been consumed by the Gospel. If you had been, you'd already be doing such things. So this is the test. If this is truly more than just an elightening tale, you will go out and act. If it's nothing more than amusement, you will return to your life of anti-religion and excuses. For people wanting to go into ministry, if you're waiting until you start up your urban dream-church before you do these things, you have not yet been consumed. Being consumed affects today, not just tomorrow. I say these things partially because I'm trying to make these things real to myself. I'm not a risky guy. I'm not one to do things out-of-the-ordinary. So how about we all make a new definition for ordinary?

I read a quote on Twitter today by Dave Harvey that resonated in me. It said, "Forgive sinners, forgive sin." Short, simple, and straight forward. But I think it touches something that I, and perhaps many others, fail to realize in every day circumstances.
When I am wronged, I tend to overlook what happened, push it out of the way so that I no longer think about it, and call that forgiveness. I focus on the act and how it made me feel. But true forgiveness does not focus on the act and the resulting feelings. True forgiveness focuses on the PERSON who did the wrong, and justifies the PERSON - not their action. When God forgave us, He did not push the seriousness of our sin to the side. Rather He revealed His wrath upon sin by putting that wrath on His Son. He did not justify our deeds. He justified US. He did not reason away His anger concerning our sin so that He would not feel the need to hold animosity against us. No, He justified US in spite of our sin. He is the justifier of ungodly men, not of ungodly deeds.
When we are hurt by someone, we ought to take God's example of forgiveness. My tendency is to try to justify what has been done to me - to reason it away as not a big deal. But the fact is, when we are sinned against, it IS a big deal, but that person (and our relationship with that person) is a bigger deal. But we do not forgive based on redirecting our judgment of that person to something or someone else. We do not justify them by taking judgment on our pillow or our dog. We do not justify them by punishing them in our thoughts, putting them down and puffing ourselves up. In these cases, we acknowledge the seriousness of their wrong, but we belittle the seriousness of their humanity, their accountability to God, and our relationship with them. When we reason away the seriousness of their sin, we belittle the justice of God and the sacrifice of His Son. We forgive sins in the sense that we don't hold them against the one who committed them.
Colossians 3:13 says "as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive." So we see the forgiveness of God is our basis for our forgiveness of others. Ephesians 4:32 says "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." There is an unfortunate chapter break here, but I will continue the passage with the beginning of chapter 5: "Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God." So our firgiveness of others is an imitation of God forgiving us. Not that we did not deserve punishment, but that punishment was fulfilled in Christ's offering. It all comes back to the cross. It all comes back to the Gospel.
When we attempt to forgive based off of earthly means as was described in the beginning of this post, we forsake the Gospel and turn forgiveness, even that of our own sins before God, into an issue of scales. In one way or another, the hurt committed against us still has an offering remaining to be made for restitution to occur. Forgiveness one person to another is a much bigger deal than is often understood! Our perception and imitation of the Gospel is at stake every time we are involved in a situation that calls for forgiveness. Do our relationships suffer due to hurt and lack of forgiveness? Then the Gospel has not been enriched in our hearts. We would do well to meditate on nothing but the Gospel. There is no more sacrifice to be made for sins! Not ours and not theirs. We are accountable to God. We are forgiven by God. We ourselves are partakers of the same forgiveness because we ourselves were partakers in the same sin. We of all people have no right to hold anything to anyone's account because of the great forgiveness that we have experienced from God. Have we even claimed the fact that we ourselves are grievous sinners? Even better, have we claimed the fact that Christ is the glorious Savior, and not just to us? That God was sinned against in a far more serious way than we have? Yet God forgives. Let His testimony of grace speak to us in our dealings with others. Let us be imitators of God in matters of forgiveness and base our forgiveness not in the need for restitution (no matter how abstract) but in the restitution that we have already found in the finished work of Christ.

Over the past couple of years I remember hearing people talk about popular pastors in quite a negative way. And one argument I have heard raised against them is this: "They may seem powerful face to face or have a powerful tone, but if you were to turn their messages into a manuscript you'd see just how powerless their words actually are. The bare words are shallow and meaningless, just like their ministry."
I could take this quote and spend time discussing a number of different topics, and I will make an application of this concerning music later on, but I want to focus this portion of this blog on the topic of "presentation matters." I heard a quote once, I do not remember by whom, that said something to the effect of "People don't retain what you say. They retain what you are passionate about." Context really does matter. And many people think of context only as if it applies to the context of the Scripture passages. However, context within a message, whether formal or informal, does not end with the historical/grammatical framework. It broadens to encompass not just the message, but also the messenger.
Let's say you are approached by a friend. He comes to you as though he is on a relaxing stroll through the park. His hands fill his pockets and his eyes are half shut as though he just woke up from a nap. After yawning he quietly states that he has something important to tell you that will change your life. Would you find him to be serious? Would you be prone to hang on to the gravity of his message from beginning to end?
Now lets say the same friend approaches you like you were the finish line in a marathon. Sweat is dripping off of the end of his nose, and he is speaking in a rushed and voluminous manner, saying he has something important to tell you that will change your life. Would you listen intently to his message from beginning to end?
In either case, we are prone to mirror the passion of the messenger. The presentation of the message is not just a sham or a theatrical production. It is the picture of what the Gospel has done to that messenger. If the preacher hasn't gotten much from the Gospel, then the people will not get much from the preacher. That preacher who is expressive, excited, and loud because of Christ may not say anything more profound than a 9 year old, but his presentation of the Gospel reveals a profound work on his life that is worth more to him and his congregation than literary profundities wrapped in a stiff, starchy suit. PRESENTATION MATTERS.
This is not to say we can only muster a passion for the Gospel if those around us are passionate about the Gospel. But this includes a discussion of how we read our bibles. Do we read it as a stale, starchy documentation of historical events and antique ethics that is to somehow have an impact on our lives today? Do we treat it as a daily devotional book that is supposed to leave us a nugget each day? Do we treat it as "basic instructions before leaving earth" - that it gives us a means of making life work until we die? All of these responses to the Bible focus on US. But the Bible is something that is focused on Christ and His finished work. It not only establishes the knowledge of a Theos and some specific facts about Him, but it goes on to show how He relates to us and how we relate to Him - both through Jesus Christ. Do we see the great Messenger in the message? Do we get His point? Or do we just try to take away something that is supposed to make our life come together and make us feel better about ourselves and our spiritual life? If so, we miss the Messenger, His passion, and His Gospel. Finding the passionate Messenger in our personal scripture reading comes much down to how we read. He is there, but most of the time we miss Him because we avoid Him altogether in the process of seeking a better self-image.
Concerning music, I tie this together with the above in response to another quote I heard a while back from a popular name in his equally popular discipleship series. He said something to the effect of, "They may have impressive poetic form and an artistic use of words, maybe even rich theological content, but the song is not Spirit led because of the wordly compromise of the music." In my opinion, this is a perfect example of pharisaical judgmentalism. But that is off subject. My point is, poetry, artistry, theology, and good music should make their way into every song we sing because PRESENTATION MATTERS. Much of our music is like the stiff, starchy preaching that we've all seen in the pulpit. Zero passion is downloaded from the song to our lives. Many hymns, though theologically rich, are probably the products of writers who have not been energized by the Spirit. Not because they are not theologically accurate, but because they do not imitate the passion of the Gospel in their presentation of the message. I cannot judge specifically, just like I cannot look at a preacher and say for sure whether or not he is filled with the Spirit. But my point is, music can do just as much justice or injustice to the message of the Gospel as a preacher can do with his presentation. Pastors need to be careful to preach with passion just as much as congregations need to sing with passion as well as pick songs that have presentations that agree with the passion of the message. And we cannot confuse a contemporary style with the influence of the world. It may just be something that is more passionate and artisitic than we are used to. And we should get used to it. Be careful not to judge the heart of the song-writer on either end of the stylistic spectrum, but be careful to choose music that actually PRESENTS the Gospel, rather than just saying it with words, because PRESENTATION MATTERS.

Tenth Avenue North puts it well in their song below:

"Healing Begins"
So you thought you had to keep this up
All the work that you do
So we think that you're good
And you can't believe it's not enough
All the walls you built up
Are just glass on the outside

So let 'em fall down
There's freedom waiting in the sound
When you let your walls fall to the ground
We're here now

This is where the healing begins
This is where the healing starts
When you come to where you're broken within
The light meets the dark
The light meets the dark

Afraid to let your secrets out
Everything that you hide
Can come crashing through the door now
But too scared to face all your fear
So you hide but you find
That the shame won't disappear

So let it fall down
There's freedom waiting in the sound
When you let your walls fall to the ground
We're here now
We're here now

This is where the healing begins
This is where the healing starts
When you come to where you're broken within
The light meets the dark
The light meets the dark

Sparks will fly as grace collides
With the dark inside of us
So please don't fight
This coming light
Let this blood come cover us
His blood can cover us

This is where the healing begins
This is where the healing starts
When you come to where you're broken within
The light meets the dark
The light meets the dark

Is there place for patriotism in the church?
I've read some articles condemning the act of churches celebrating their country around national holidays. But is this unbiblical or merely a person's personal conviction?
I am prone to believe the latter. If there is a specific bible passage that I am missing, let me know and I will retract this post. But personally, I really think that we should be gracious in this area. Is there a better and worse way to celebrate a nation? Sure. But is it necessarily wrong to dedicate one or two services a year to praying for our nation and thanking God for our freedoms? What if we didn't have these freedoms? Would it be wrong to thank God with a church service for the lack of national freedoms that produce faith? I highly doubt it. So why would it be wrong to celebrate certain freedoms as the joined covenant community of God on one or two Sundays a year?
A focus on our nation can produce the following for a church:
1. A hightened appreciation for the grace of God as He sheds it upon the righteous and the wicked alike.
2. Humility as we reflect on the comforts that we enjoy but don't deserve while other believers quite literally die daily for the faith. Also humility concerning the rising and falling of nations. They do so at the hand of God, not the hand of other nations. No nation is "God's chosen nation," rather He has chosen to preserve the church. A focus on our nation can help us realize our frailty.
3. A greater burden to win our own communities to Christ as we focus on the people of THIS nation, rather than everyone else's nations through foreign missions.
4. A greater appreciation for where our nation is currently at, as God guides the hands of our leaders. This can also awaken us to the mystery of God's will, as our rulers rule in ways contrary to the Bible. How could God lead our leaders this way? The fact that we don't understand His wisdom does not make Him unwise. It just makes us finite.
5. A platform to focus on the city that is to come. A perfect city that is truly free by the grace of God through Christ Jesus.
So I would say that it is not the act of dedicating a service or two to the topic of our nation that is wrong, but rather how it is done. Here are some things that should be avoided when focusing a service on our nation:
1. Avoid suggesting that our nation is invincible or chosen of God and is somehow better or more loved by God than anyone else's nation. We are one nation among many that God has shed grace upon. This grace does not always look the same. It has risen at the hand of God and someday will fall at the hand of God.
2. Avoid praising men over Christ. Men produce momentary salvation, but Christ has provided eternal salvation. The sacrifice of fallen soldiers truly is a great gift, but even greater is the gift of Christ's sacrifice. Show appreciate for those soldiers, but worship Christ.
3. Avoid praising political leaders for national success. Remember their leadership is ultimately lead by God.
4. Avoid suggesting inequality based on ethnic diversity by your words and actions, even for this service. There are many in our North American churches that have their roots in other countries, and also family in other nations. How would your actions and statements make them feel? Are we not all equal in Christ?
5. Avoid leaving the singing of national anthems as merely an anthem to the nation. Provide a God-centered context for all things in the service.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate that this is a subject of grace. Is it wrong to hold a church service in recognition of our nation? For some, maybe. Depends on what they are fully convinced of. It also depends on if they make our nation or fallen hero's out to be greater than Christ. This type of service can be done poorly. But I believe it can also be done in a way prefectly pleasing to God.

"Let the good times roll"
This has been a song played over and over on a radio station playing in my office at work. And doubtless it is the theme of countless other songs. People, including myself, want nothing from life but happiness, euphoria, and freedom from any sort of trouble.
But "trouble" is inevitable. And what happens when life strips us of the ability to quench our troubled heart with more exuberant music and light-hearted banter? What happens when we are forced to discover that all of this ecstasy is nothing more than a sham?
Life is real. Entertainment is distracting. When people live for entertainment, they merely waste their life chasing a distraction, a lion that preys on the naivety of shallow souls.
Perhaps the purpose of trials is to do nothing more than to deepen the strength and maturity of our souls. Maybe it's not to learn a specific lesson, but to recover our childish dreaming from the sea of vanity. Maybe its purpose is to do nothing more than to free us from the suffocation of idle entertainment. To awaken our souls to real life...to the fact that life is more than eating, drinking, and merriment. To take life seriously. To grow up and claim responsibility while at the same time accepting inadequacy - that we are all "that guy who can't do anything right himself or protect those in his charge." This is all the Lord's doing, and it is precious. It just doesn't seem like it at the moment.

What if you were asked to give evidence that you are saved? What would you say?
Take a minute and think about it. Chew on it. Perhaps you need to wrestle with this question. Take your time.
I believe that many people in our churches are not actually of the household of God. That is, they are given to a false gospel. Though not many will read this post, I believe if many were asked this question, they would give answers such as "before I was saved I drank, smoked, shot up, and slept around. But now I don't. I haven't done those things since I got saved 20 years ago. That is how I know I am saved," or, "I am different from those around me. I don't ___ and I ____."
While I whole-heartedly believe that Christ changes lives and makes us different from the world, to offer a changed or different life as the proof for salvation is to subtily (sometimes not so much subtle!) suggest that one truly relies on his own efforts for his salvation. The Gospel is life-encompassing. To say one can be saved by grace, and then mistakingly live sanctification by works because he is immature is to walk a dangerous line of possibly providing a false assurance for salvation. There is no fine line between grounds for salvation and grounds for sanctification. One may claim salvation by grace but prove with his life that he really believed in salvation by works. A catholic may believe in salvation by grace through faith and protect this belief militantly. But a discussion on purgatory will reveal what they really believe about Christ's sacrifice for sin. I believe many in our church believe in purgatory...only in life, rather than after death. We live like our acceptance before God is relative to our standards and lifestyle.
Check out 1 Corinthians 1:8-9. This passage pretty much sums it up. We are 1. Called to salvation according to the faithfulness of Christ, 2. Kept by Christ's faithfulness, and finally 3. Completed by Christ's faithfulness. Where do our works have a place? Check out Hebrews 3:6 - their part in this story is merely responsive to Christ's faithfulness. Christ is not faithful to us because we are faithful. Rather we who are in Christ are faithful because Christ is already faithful to us. We are proven to be of His household through our faithfulness only because Christ is faithful to His house and will not let any of us go. On these grounds does our salvation - past, present, and future - rest. It's easy to get this backwards in a world that teaches that we must earn anything good, or that good only comes to those who deserve it. But the Gospel teaches that salvation only comes to those who DON'T deserve it! What wonderful news, if we will claim our sin and then claim Christ's faithfulness! So why do we try to deserve it through our reformed lives and standards? Because we give ourselves over to a false Gospel. What evidence do we have for salvation? Christ's faithfulness. That's it. Not ours, not our church's, not an enduring legacy of goodness. Christ's faithfulness to us is our proof. The church needs evangelized just as much as the world does.

I want to comment on a song by Red called "Let it Burn." Below is an excerpt from the song:
I watch the city burn
These passions slowly smoldering
A lesson never learned
Only violence
Is your world just a broken promise
Is your love just a drop of rain
Will we all just burn our fire
Are you still there
How long can you stand the pain
How long will you hide your face
How long will you be afraid
Are you afraid
How long will you play this game
Will you fight or will you walk away
How long will you let it burn
Let it burn
Let it burn
I will not condemn what was said in the song. I do offer commmendation, rather, for the honesty therein. I feel many of us feel these things without admitting it. We have family members that we've tried to lead to Christ for years with no steps forward. Friends continually push aside Christ's Gospel. Perhaps, like Red, we grieve for groups of people or the world in general, wishing that they might be reconciled to God. Tears are shed over these people and hearts are broken over lives and deaths disassociated from God. We wonder "where is God here? Doesn't He care about them?"
In these situations it is encouraging to think that though we love them, God loves them more. Though we grieve over their wandering, He grieves more. They torment us with their mockery of Christ, but God is tormented all the more. Can we honestly believe that the shadowy love that bubbles out of our feebleness, though genuine, exceeds the love God has for them? I don't know why some are saved and others are not. I don't know why I'm saved and not them. But I know God's love is greater than mine. Regardless of what we think needs to happen, we are merely to shuttle His love. Though He may seem absent in a persons life whom we dearly love, He is still there. God loves you. God loves them. Grieve. Weep. You are in good company.

Pastor, elder, bishop, minister, reverend, etc. Though the names for "pastor" are many, even more so are the various qualities from pastor to pastor. From one pastor to another, there can be various different abilities, passions, beliefs, preaching styles, personalities, and emphases. A couple broad generalizations that I was thinking about this morning are "retail pastors" and "corporate pastors," also describable as "picture perfecting" and "frame perfecting" pastors. I prefix my more detailed description with the statement that these can interrelate. Retail pastors can have corporate qualities and vice versa.
A "retail" pastor, or "picture perfecting" pastor, is one who likes to get his hands dirty. This is the pastor who, before and after services and throughout the weeks is always hopping from one person to the next, getting to know the people intimately and helping them individually, one-by-one. He finds his greatest fulfillment in constant face-to-face interaction with his flock. His messages focus more on day-to-day stuff rather than broad principles. And though he loves preaching, he can't wait for his messages to be over so he can get back to more personal interaction. This pastor focuses on the "picture" and does what he can to make it as whole, crisp, and beautiful as possible detail by detail.
While every pastor should have retail qualities, some pastors are more corporal, and focus more on the frame that holds the picture in place.
The corporate pastor cares for his flock just as much, but focuses more on the general structure which provides the atmosphere within which his flock breathes and moves. He loves to analyze and adjust programs and systems based on his perception of the needs and gifts of the ever-fluid flock. He carefully organizes the responsibilities of deacons and other church leaders. His biggest concern is that the flock have perfect framework within which they can flourish and show forth God's beauty.
I believe that every pastor should have both qualities listed above, but not every pastor has the same ability as the next. Some are made to do better at one end than the other. Both sides are important. Figuring out which fits you the best may help you determine how to distribute responsibility among elders.

Church progams.
So how do you determine what church programs you should have and what church programs you should not have? This blog is not meant to be deep or profound, but rather to just address a portion of an issue that is continually on my mind.
I find that many churches grab onto the latest and greatest programs, turning them into somewhat of a "fad." And the fault here is not directly in the "fadness" of the program, but in the choosing of the program. I think many churches add programs to their churches merely because it's a program, and more programs mean more opportunity for ministry. I find this to be completely backwards.
Take 1 Timothy 5:3-16 for example. The church had a "widow-care program." Did they have this program because they wanted to attract widows to their church?
Consider the culture of their time. Commonly older men would marry younger women. This, combined with the trend for women to live longer than men, would result in a massive amount of widows in society, not just in the church. Often these widows would still be somewhat young.
I use this example to make the point that our church programs need to fulfill a need that already exists, not to attract people to need the program. If there is an abundance of programs within a church body, there ought to have first been an abundance of needs for which the programs were created to fulfill. In the case of the Ephesian widow-care program, their program satisfied the needs of the widows in the church. We cannot tell from Scripture whether or not there was an outreach to those outside of the church. However, I think it is fair to say that the priority was the care of those within the church. I would take "for when their passions draw them away from Christ" to imply that they are already in Christ.
This is not to say we should not have outreach to our unsaved communities. I AM saying that the first priority of the Elder needs to be the health of his church. A healthy church is an evangelistic church. If a pastor is truly evangelistic, he will see the many potential evangelists within his own church, rather than just himself, and work to see that they spread the grace of Christ.
When I was a freshman in college, we had a "church fair" where the new freshmen can go around and talk to a number of pastors to help figure out where they want to go to church while in school. I remember one pastor being asked "what kind of evangelistic outreach does your church have?" The pastor's response was "I will build my own church. Just leave the evangelism to me." This is a sign of a church from which you should run because the pastor is not truly and deeply concerned about the health of his church OR evangelism.
But in short, church programs should come from a passion to meet a need that already exists. Church programs are not needs in and of themselves. They represent and meet the fundamental needs of people. Especially those within the church. And you determine what programs you should have by assessing the needs first within the church, and second outside of the church. You do not determine your program line up just because the program sounds like a good ministry opportunity to get involved in.

When a person seeks after something and ends up dissatisfied when he finds it, chances are he was seeking for something else.
For example, if a person seeks for and attains wealth with little satisfaction, he probably wasn't seeking wealth. He was probably pursuing the contentment and happiness promised to him by his perception of wealth and the lifestyle that is promised to come with wealth.
Generally our pursuits are much simpler than the thing we are seeking. When we seek a nice car, we are rather seeking the happiness we feel it will bring us. We perceive a status that comes with the nice car, and want to rise to that status because we feel it would make us feel good about ourselves. It would help us feel content.
I feel Pastors have a similar temptation. Instead of a nice car, they want a nice sized congregation. Instead of a nice paycheck, they want a structure that they feel rises above the rest. If they don't get what they want, they are dissatisfied with their church, or at least the position their church is in. There's a difference between this and being dissapointed because of sin. What I'm talking about is the fact that our specific desires come from a much simpler passion. Do we who are pastors or are seeking to be pastors have our ideal picture of what we want our church to be like, and will be dissatisfied if reality does not match our desire within an unspecified amount of time? Our purpose is the shepherd the flock of God and to help people grow to be God-resemblers and glorifiers. This is all progressive. There is no end to this task. If we have an ideal "spot" or "vision" in which we feel we can be satisfied in reaching, is this no different than the man who fills his storehouses and then tells himself to eat, drink, and be merry? Isn't this a pastors version of materialism? Where are our pursuits? Is our basic pursuit the pleasure of God or the pleasure of ourselves? If we are dissatisfied with anything besides what we envision for our church, chances are our real, basic desires are something unrelated to real ministry. It is not our vision that matters. It is God's.

I've been kind of following the comments on The Gospel Coalition 2011 conference going on right now via Facebook and Twitter. I have to say, the conglomeration of what I'm reading is kind of troublesome. And the problem is neither that anyone is saying anything heretical, nor criticizing what is going on there.
I think that the thing that gets me is that most of the comments are rooted in the raw fact that these people are at the conference where the big name preachers are, theoretically moshing in the conference room chairs. Whether you're a fundamentalist or emergent or whatever, whenever a conference rolls around, the only thing a lot of people care about is that they are able to take part in something that popular preachers took part in. It's like the association makes them feel more important and trendy. Has the Gospel become a trend? I fear it has for many blog enthusiasts and new-release aficionados. The Gospel is bound up in the faith of Christ, not John Piper or Mark Dever. Why is it that we cannot speak of Christ apart from speaking of or quoting these men? Instead of the Book of Mormon, we have adopted the Book of Famous Prophets. I do not doubt that their influence is great, and that Christ is truly magnified by their work. The blame is not theirs. The blame is upon those who react to these men. Let us, rather react to Christ. Let us expose ourselves to Him, not just via second-hand exposure. Let us know Him first hand. Let us develope a personal relationship with Him. By all means we ought to take advantage of the resources that these famous preachers provide for the benefit of our spiritual walk. But let's not make the Gospel trendy. When it becomes trendy, it then becomes amiable and theoretical. One would do well to consciously guard himself from seeing the Gospel through the eyes of theory, and see it through the eyes of true, personal relationship. Christ is not an idea. He is a person. How are you getting to know Him?

Accountability: while it may be good for many people in many cases, I believe that in many other cases for many other people it is spiritually paralyzing.
The good: When someone has been involved in habitual sin, or addictive sin, it is good to have a source of accountability who is continually providing focused edification in the arena of a person’s specific sin. Because let’s all be honest – we aren’t meant to live self-sufficiently. We as Christians are meant for community. We are meant to edify and be edified by each other toward righteousness. And I don’t think it is a stretch to say this is good “especially” for those who have developed a strong tendency toward a specific area of transgression, whether internally or externally.
However, I think accountability is often used as a type of crutch upon which one places their dependence in order to change. They replace personal motivation and intentionality with their accountability partners efforts. Proverbs tells us to “rule over your own spirit.” But many times we give that rule over to someone else, or just plain forfeit it because it’s not easy to rule over our spirit. It’s easier to just let our deceitful heart run its course, and let our accountability partner manage and/or clean up the mess.
Not completely segmented from the above, having an accountability partner also leads one to shift their focus. Their motivation can easily become pleasing their accountability partner rather than pleasing Christ. They want to be able to tell that partner that they went the whole week without ___. Their motivation becomes keeping to a system of ethics rather than growing in their relationship with Christ. Is this not the beginning stages of legalism? Often legalism and true religion look the same on the outside, but the intentions of the heart are very different.
The point is, you are responsible. Perhaps you are irresponsible with your responsibilities, but you are still responsible for yourself. You cannot expect others to change you. You cannot depend on a system or program or person to give you Christ. You are RESPONSIBLE. The question is, will you take responsibility for yourself? Will you choose to rule over your own spirit? Will you say no to the impulses of your emotive heart? Will you consciously choose to think thoughts that differ from what is easy to think? Your husband, wife, pastor, friend, etc. is not responsible for your walk with God. You are. Take responsibility. Own it. Rule over yourself.

My pastor was talking last night about Christ washing His disciples feet. I never really saw the symbol of Christ’s substitutionary atonement in it before. Usually when it’s preached, all I hear about is service, but God impressed the atonement on my heart yesterday. I mean, what did Christ mean when He told Peter “you don’t know what I’m doing now, but you will hereafter”? How do you preach that as simply service when it’s obvious that “later” refers to His sacrifice on the cross? Sure, Christ’s example here could be applied to every-day service, but only, in context, through the example of Christ taking upon Himself the form of a servant, and taking our place on the cross, becoming sin for man that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The foot-washing was not just gross. It was lowly. Just like His going to the cross for us. He took our lowly state upon Himself. If Christ does not wash our feet, we have no part in Him. In that sense, Christ tells Peter “if you don’t know what I’m doing here, then you don’t know me.” And Peter understood many more things after Christ ascended. Namely, that Christ took our shame upon Himself that He might nail it to the cross, and we bare it no more. One only needs his feet washed, that is, his shame. His filth. Christ took responsibility for our sin as our head; He took our responsibility as His own. We are no longer bound to the wages of our sin! Tullian Tchividjian said, “The Gospel frees you from the pressure of having to make something of yourself.” Truly, we are all we need to be in Christ. Our shame was already substituted. If you don’t believe this, you might as well believe in purgatory or some other means of after-the-fact purification. If you don’t believe in something like this, then why suffer guilt and shame? Even the law given to Levi to minister to the people of Israel was a law of peace. How much more then is the law of Christ a covenant of peace? Look to Jesus, not your shame or lowly estate! That which makes us lowly has been substituted with the righteousness of Christ! Take heart, buck up, and move on in your glorious estate.

This post is the product of something I've been thinking heavily on for the past few days. I'm going to try to articulate my feelings, which is not always easy. This has to do with being a husband and a father, both of which I am a novice at. First I will deal with being a father:
Malachi 4:4-6: "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and rule that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction."

Many would take this reference to fatherhood and have it stand alone, preach a whole message on how fatheres should have a special bond with their kids and leave it at that. And fathers should have this special bond. But I think that, in context with the rest of what Malachi was just talking about, there is far more to this reference to fatherhood. If I remember right, this is the only reference to fatherhood in the book of Malachi. Why does He bring it up now at the end? Conclusions are usually summaries of the previous message. So what is Malachi summarizing? The big picture of Malachi is, in my opinion, "proper and holy adherence to the people's covenant relationship with God." So why does Malachi include fatherhood when summarizing this message? I will put this in terms of the Church, the bearers of the new covenant: because Fathers are foundational to the spiritual upbringing of their children, and therefore the Church. The way a father rears his children is symbolic of the health of the Church. When fathers take responsibility for their children, edifying them in a relationship with God, loving them, and providing for ALL their needs, they and the church flourish. This is not to say that children don't make their own choices, however many times children make those choices because the atmosphere that the fathers create in their home is not a Christ-centered one. Nor do the fathers take proper responsibily for their children. They put that on the church. The very church that rests on the fathers and husbands to be godly influences. It is not a godly influence to transfer your God-given responsibility to the church. You make up the church. You take responsibility. You, father, train your child up in a relationship with Christ. You have the sex talks with your sons and daughters. You confront them of sin and guide them in a way as to flush out sin with a deeper love for Christ. You teach them how to choose and develope good friendships. This is not the job of the sunday school teacher or the youth pastor. You are their dad. You take responsibility. When you don't, the church dies, dad by dad, child by child. Our covenant with Christ becomes a side-thought and a mockery. Legalism, dictatorships, and abuse are used to control families to make them what the father deems acceptable.

Perhaps a godly father will look like this, though I do not present prerequisites to fatherhood 101: he will read the bible aloud with his children. He will chat with them about practical applications of biblical truth. He will talk to them about life’s hard issues including sex, drugs, and relationships because he knows that if they are hard for him, they are impossible for his children. He will get involved in their lives, so that when they talk to him it is not like they are talking to a foreign dignitary who only drops in on their lives when there is a crisis or need for punishment. He will express God’s mercy and grace where necessary, and also express His chastisement where necessary. He will accept them as they are, but seek to help them mature and change, understanding that they, as well as he, are accountable to the same God. He will make his expectations known, but not be overbearing or unreasonable in them. In all things he will love his children from the inside out.

Now the husband is the head of his wife. And the quality of this headship is the discussion here. This is where I personally am the most involved. My daughter is 10 months old. She isn’t struggling with issues of sex, drugs, or relationships. She doesn’t even know English. Her biggest struggle right now is whether or not applesauce is right for her. Though I still need to be there for her and provide for her, most of my life’s communication will impact my wife. And here is where I have suffered the most conviction as of late.

I caught myself in a dangerous position. I have adopted the American mindset that a husband and wife are co-heads. We are a team that shares all responsibility. And those who know me and my wife know that my wife has a stronger and more expressive personality than I do. This is not bad, however it presents a struggle for me as far as my headship is concerned. So the struggle looks like this: When an issue arises where the outcome will steer our family in one direction or another, I generally concede. When I don’t have much of an opinion about something, the decision goes to her. I fear responsibility, not because I don’t want to do anything, but because I don’t want to take the fall, because if we are all honest, we know that whoever takes the most responsibility will take the most fall when things go bad. So I don’t want to take the blame for failure. And I know my wife doesn’t fail, so to me the answer is simple. But the answer neglects my God-given duty, whether taking on this duty is immediately efficient or not. The fact is, God made man the head of the woman. The man is to relate to his wife as Christ relates to the church. Christ did not sin, but He put Himself in a place of responsibility for our sin. He died for us. So we as husbands are responsible to selflessly care for our wives, whether we feel it is fair or not to take the burden of provision. And this provision goes far beyond going to work and bringing home bacon, and even some bread. This includes spiritual, emotional, physical, relational, and financial provision. This is a heavy list of terms, but this is the responsibility of husbands as heads of their households. This is why those who cannot rule their own households well should not be in ministry. Ministry will tear your family apart if you first have not gotten a hold of your responsibility as the head of your household. Remember, Christ will build His Church. He doesn’t need you. You can wait. Christ’s first calling on your life is your family, especially your wife. How can you communicate God’s covenant with the Church to your kids (or your church) if you can’t live it out with your wife? I am convinced that there are many in this world who entered ministry prematurely, and therefore have an “ok” ministry. Maybe they are expressive and have all the exuberance of a caffeinated chimpanzee, but God’s covenant has not truly been rooted in and grown up in their hearts because they neglect their own families for the sake of the ministry.

A father and a husband of all people is not his own. He is God’s vessel for communicating His covenant to mankind, primarily his own household. If the men in our churches bore Christ’s headship to his family first, I think we would see an unusual fire kindled therein.

“Shall I sin that grace may abound?”
This attitude seeks to bind God, or trap Him in His words. “Whoops! You promised to take me to heaven if I believed in Jesus. Guess you’re trapped in your words no matter what I do!”
Taking advantage of God’s grace is more than just “utilizing” a gift of God. It is an act of deceitful betrayal. Underneath the act is an attempt to catch God with His own promises. Finding a loophole, if you would, in the covenant contract. Did God not write sufficiently enough that we want more specific fine print? Does a real Christian NEED fine print?
So the real question is, does this attitude comes from someone who really entered into a relationship with Christ? If God did provide more fine print, would this person be any better? Or would he be a Pharisee? Full of religious works but empty of the Spirit?
I think it comes down to this: God did give the fine print, and oh it is fine. It is grace and love. It is a relationship with our Sovereign. Relationships include a bond between two people. And I’m talking about a relational bond – a bond of love. Not necessarily a bond of regulatory requirements. If a person has truly become a Christian, he has entered into this relationship. And don’t get me wrong, relationships grow. Our relationship with God is no different. We will grow from day one in our relationship with God into deeper love with God. But if this love-bond was never there, can you really say you are a Christian? If the details above match the details of your heart I would seriously consider this question. I am no judge, but I think this requires some serious, sober thought.

Titus 2
11For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, 12training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, 13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
The grace of God, when it takes root in our life, teaches us to renounce ungodliness. In other words, it integrates the word "NO" into our lives as it pertains to our worldly passions. I think that counselors do well to try to help people find ways to change, however we cannot lose sight of the focus of this passage. And no, the focus is not a person saying "no" to sin. Saying "no" is a biproduct of the focus. The focus is the grace of God. And this, I believe, references Christ. Specifically according to the perspective that Christ came to establish God's people - the Church...the chosen people whom God's grace has reconciled, established a relationship, and called to holiness. God's grace teaches us the points in this passage. And this grace is personal. The Biblical counselor's first priority is the aid in a the counselee's relationship with God. The Spirit is real. He really does work in people. We don't have to take His place in order to make things work. But we can help people grow in grace. Sometimes this edification comes in the form of helping people establish disciplines in their life. But we cannot do so in a way that would replace grace with guilt. I.e., a person cannot discipline himself to the point where his religion is formed around the idea that if he touches the unclean thing God no longer accepts him. He IS reconciled. Therefore BE reconciled (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). "Be who you are" rather than "try to attain something that you should be." Spiritual disciplines are initiated by grace unto godliness, they do not attain grace by godliness. I believe it is easy and typical for counselors to blur the lines between these two thoughts. The old has gone, the new is here! Offer hope upon grace, rather than a burden upon burdens.

Charles Hawking said something that has become a cheer and a herald for atheists: "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Though atheists treat this statement with as much respect and admiration as a puppy does his owner, it really does nothing to promote the cause of Atheism.
First, it does not provide any reason to reject God. It merely states (though emphatically within context) what theists already believe, that men are free to accept or reject God and His Son (i.e., the existence of a theos and the means by which Christians believe He relates to mankind). I don't think it is a stretch to say Christians actually believed the basic concept before it ever entered the thoughts of an atheist. It does not provide evidence, logical or physical, against theism. It does, however, claim there is no evidence for theism. But it does nothing to build actual evidence against theism.
Second, it does not provide support for Atheism. In fact, the exact same phrase could be used in reference to atheism from the theistic standpoint. Charles Hawking himself, when confronted with the need to provide evidence for atheism during a debate with William Lane Craig, could not provide evidence, but rather avoided the question with much stuttering. It was a perfect opportunity to muster evidence against God in a crowd of both believers and atheists, but he didn't.
Third, it implies, or should I say that the popularity of such a vague statement implies that those who honor the statement believe at some point that the absence of evidence for a theos provides evidence for absence of a theos. This is purely illogical. You cannot disprove the existence of something based on the fact that you haven't seen the proof.
Now, I do not say that the statement is illogical or wrong within the confines of it's limitations. However, I write this in response to the popularity that the statement has achieved among atheists. It is nothing but a fluff-packed pillow that an atheist can rest his weary head on after he has exerted hard labor out of his pre-determined heart. The statement does not flow out of someone seeking truth, but rather someone who has already decided.

We must be careful not to blur the lines between not compromising our positions and having sacrifice without mercy.
James 1:27 "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world."
Our religion (speaking as James would define it, rather than some program or whatever) is not based upon how well we hold to a belief, but rather how we love people. The last description is often a can of worms in this department, as many tend to throw in their ten cents concerning what being "unstained" looks like. Well, here's my tens cents. Take it for what it's worth (pun intended).
I would define "unstained" within its context. I would treat this as a neat segway to chapter 2, where James further describes how we should treat others, just like 1:27 was describing. I believe the context supports the notion that being unstained from the world refers to not live according natural tendencies to treat people differently based on status.
Anyway, all that to say, "unstained" is not quite so broad and subject to opinion as one might think.
Back to the point. Our religion is not based on how dogmatic we are about our doctrinal stances. Rather it is based on how we relate to those around us. It is founded in a relationship with Christ, and that reveals itself through our relationships with other people. When we choose to break relationships because of our inability to compromise, we defile our religion. We sacrifice, but neglect mercy. Now, there is cause for separation, but even that is to the end that heavenly and earthly relationships are restored. When a brother or sister in Christ chooses sin and/or to follow a false Gospel, then there is a reason to separate, all to the end that the wanderer might return to Christ and to the fellowship of believers.
When we become so "sold" on beliefs concerning issues that do not necessitate such a "sold" point of view in order to progress in our relationships with Christ and others, we set ourselves up for nullifying Phil. 1:27 and Eph. 4:12-13 with our lives and relationships. I will not give specific examples so as not to stir up disunity, however this is something that we ought to meditate on. Is my dogmatic stand concerning ___ more important than my relationship with someone? Is my or someone else's relationship with Christ really at stake if I or they do not believe ___? If not, then we should be willing to compromise.

I heard, in relation to counseling, that a person has to hit rock-bottom before he can turn his life around. I've been thinking about that quote. At first thought, I would like to think that it's not true. I mean, come on...I've changed without sulking into depression, feeling like there's nothing left where I'm at. But the more I think about it, the more I tend to agree with the statement. "Rock-Bottom" is basically another term for "realizing your current state, and honestly coming to grips with the truth." This person is fully exposed to HIMSELF. He has quit fooling himself and allowed himself to admit to his wrong and his need for radical change. I remember the man in Luke 18:13 - "And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner." This man was justified in the eyes of God. But who does that these days? Stand, looking to the ground, beating one's chest, praying aloud, grieving. I guess it would follow to ask how many people return from their prayers having their relationship with God mended? Not to say one must beat their chest to be heard. But this just shows a sincere and exposed heart. And exposure is not something people are comfortable with, no, not with their unseemly parts. And this is not to say we ought to live our lives with guilt. But this is to say that there ought to be sincerity and grief when confronted with those things about ourself that are not fit for a child of the King. I think the following quote from A.W. Tozer would be fitting:

"It is possible to go through life believing that we believe, while actually having no conviction more vital than a conventional creed inherited from our ancestors or picked up from. . .our social circle. If this creed requires that we admit our own depravity we do so and feel proud of our fidelity to the Christian faith. But from the way we love, praise and pamper ourselves it is plain enough that we do not consider ourselves worthy of damnation."

So, back to hitting rock-bottom: Must one hit rock-bottom to really change? If the change is going to be real, lasting, and sincere rather than just externally conforming, then I believe so. Not only is hitting rock-bottom a place where we realize our depravity, but it also, when joined with the hope Christ brings, gives us deep motivation to change, and purpose behind the actions that follow. If we haven't known conviction deeply within ourselves, then perhaps we aren't really convinced that it's all that bad. And when we DO change, it is as Tozer said - because we're led by our individual culture (which could be merely a comment from a fellow church member or a quote from the pulpit, or the fact that those around us act and dress a certain way or do certain things) rather than conviction in Christ. Our change is done in order to fit into a system of ethics that we're continually developing, rather than a relationship that we SHOULD be continually developing. Therefore we are not conformed into the image of Christ, but rather the image of those that surround us. If they look like Christ, then we may come to look like Christ to, but we are not like Christ. Weirdly enough, the only true way to grow in Christ's likeness is to hit rock-bottom first. It is there that we rid ourselves of the self-effort and self-sufficiency that plagues us, and we reach out to Christ from our miry clay. Then He will be the one who sets our feet on a rock.