But is it really a big deal? How much of his concern is a shift in societal expectations compared to a real and legitimate concern about personal maturity? He says:

In 1960, the vast majority of young adults had, by the time they reached 30, accomplished the five standard milestones used to measure adult status. These milestones include completing school, leaving home, getting married, having a child, and establishing financial independence. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, less than one-half of all young women reached these milestones by age 30 in 2000. Even more concerning — less than one third of all young men did.

Part of his conclusion is:

The extension of adolescence (itself a dubious and problematic life stage) means further delay in accepting the kinds of roles and responsibilities that make for mature Christians.

I’d love to hear what ‘emerging adults’ think about this.

This struck me as I heard about the recent French vote, in the lower house, to ban the burka.

Justice minister Michele Alliot-Marie says the approval was a success for French republican values of liberty, equality, fraternity and secularism.

I am yet to work out how it is a win for liberty. How a ban on public religious practise equals freedom. It seems to me, from a possibly ill-informed outsider looking in, that the desire for secularism is greater than the right to personal self-expression. In the end, it gives me the impression that secularism sits in judgment over religion and wants to push what it thinks is good or bad for an individual. Equality becomes less about equality, but uniformity. No longer the right the choose, but the assumption that all will choose the same.

Why did this particularly strike me this week?

I’ve been preparing sermons on 1 Timothy for later this year and have been dwelling on this very bold, very absolute, very modernist statement:

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and humanity, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all (1 Tim 2:5-6)

Paul doesn’t have any sense of diplomacy or tact as he states the truth. Regardless of what the prevailing view might have been in the cosmopolitan Ephesus, regardless of the culture of the day, there is one God. And there is only one God. And the only mediation between God and humanity. Jesus Christ who died, that we might know this one God.

It is bad enough when you gossip or slander or lie in a room or a hallway or at a restaurant table  with only another person or two around, but with a medium like Facebook these sins of speech go global.

Doug Phillips

I’ve often been challenged in how to think about Facebook and how to use it as a tool to build and develop relationships. The more I think about it, the more I realise that it seeks to be an online medium for relationships. Therefore, we need to be careful and even deliberate in how we present ourselves and how we relate to others. Doug Phillips, a guest poster on Kevin de Young’s blog, thinks through the importance of online sins of speech, motivated by Ephesians 4:29.

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” (Eph. 4:29 ESV)

There are hundreds of ways to love and a myriad of ways to demonstrate humility. But one of the most effective ways to accomplish both is to simply ask questions. True, it’s possible to be nothing but a smooth talking salesmen who cares little for the actual person across the table. But every virtue can be faked from time to time. So let’s not let that deter us from giving others the gift of our curiosity.

His post is worth reading in full.

• Oppression (v1-3)
• Envy (v4-6)
• Loneliness (v7-12)
• Bad leadership (v13-16)

I made a passing comment when looking at loneliness that I didn’t think the three fold cord of verse 12 was about marriage, nor the trinity. I’ve since realised I should have substantiated that comment.

Verses 7 and 8 are about the futility, the vanity of not having an heir to all the rewards of your toil. Verse 9 starts a different train of thought with the proverbial statement:

Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their toil. (Eccl 4.9)

Like a lot of Ecclesiastes, the writer (who I  refer to as Qohelet – a story for another day), makes a bold statement up front. He presents his conclusion and then goes on to justify it. It’s like a teacher who tells us the main point of the lesson at the beginning and then fleshes out what they mean by it.

What follows in v10-12 are three illustrations to support the main point of v9.

Three times Qohelet demonstrates that two are better than one. Maybe they are all illustrations of a road trip. As they travel and one falls, as they try to keep warm at night, or as they are set upon by another, it is better for there to be two rather than one. Maybe they are relating to the journey of life.

What does this have to do with a three fold cord?

Qohelet is talking about friendship, companionship or mateship. I don’t think this is referring in particular to a marriage situation. So I don’t think a three fold cord is two people plus God. There seems to be nothing in the context of the statement to suggest the particular relationship of marriage all of a sudden.

This is also why I don’t think it is about the trinity. There is no indication that the discussion has shifted to consider the relationships between the three persons of the trinity.

So, what does the statement ‘a threefold cord is not quickly broken’ relate to?

It seems like another proverb. Hence I think it most closely relates to the opening proverb of two being better than one. It builds on the argument that one on its own isn’t as good. Two are better, he says, and, as you know, cords of three aren’t quickly broken. ie a cord is strengthened when there are three. Now, I know nothing about cords and whether or not it is possible to do with four or more. I suspect maybe a mathematician or sailor could argue that any increasing odd number would be better than one. I certainly have never seen a cord of two. I don’t think you can plait two cords, so it wouldn’t make sense to refer to a two fold cord.

In some ways it’s another illustration from what we know of life, that the weight of numbers brings benefit.

I guess I don’t want to read into it, or any part of the Bible, things that aren’t there. Nor do I want to divorce a phrase or sentence from its surrounding context. If I think it makes sense where it belongs, then that’s more often than not, going to be my understanding.

I’m still thinking about it and so this is my brief response. I’d love your thoughts on how to flesh this out.

The heavenly places is a description of the spiritual realm. It’s also where Jesus is now. Looking back over Ephesians and we see it mentioned in 1.3; 1.20; 2.6; 3.10 and 6.12. It describes the spiritual realm in which we’ve received spiritual blessings (1.3), where Jesus is now seated (1.20; 2.6) and where the rulers and authorities dwell (3.10; 6.12).

It’s not a place you can find on Google maps, but a real place where real activity takes place. We must make sure we don’t dismiss the spiritual aspect to reality that Paul clearly talks about.

So, what was so good about it?

1. It’s easy to read as Calvin deals with the text phrase by phrase. It’s written like someone speaking, in a friendly manner, and preaching, in an exhortatory manner. Calvin wants to convince us of what he’s discovered in the Bible.
2. It’s absolutely soaked in Scripture. The most refreshing thing about this commentary is how often Calvin quotes other parts of the Bible. He clearly lets the Bible speak for itself. He demonstrates a supreme confidence in God’s word to be clear and let Scripture explain Scripture. When dealing with 1 Tim 2.6 – ‘who gave himself as a ransom for all men’, there are a couple of sentences of his explanation, though most of the paragraph is quotes of Rom 8.34; Hebrews 7.17 and Hebrews 4.14-5.3. Further, unlike many commentaries or other Christian books I read, the text of the verses are written out in full, not just referenced. More than that, they are included into the body of the text. For some reason I’m prone to glancing over quoted bits of Scripture when they are block quoted in a page of text. This decision of the editors made me read more Bible than I normally do while reading a commentary, rather than assuming I’m the studious type who will look up every reference as they come.
3. It’s relevant to his day and age. He’s not just explaining a text for a technical insight. Rather it is evident that his goal is to address the issues of the day and in particular the teachings of the Roman Catholic church that he wants to refute.
4. It’s relevant today. One of the consequences of using Scripture to explain Scripture is that it is still relevant today in our society. It’s not as though there were anecdotes of the 16th century equivalent of Facebook, sport or other social occasion.

Pick it up and read one.

I think the prayer in Eph 3.16-17 is that we continually be made a more and more suitable dwelling place for God (see also Eph 2.22). This means that though God’s Spirit now lives in us, he is continuing to change and shape us to be more like Christ. ie filled with the fullness of God (3.19).

Does it mean we can be perfect? No. I don’t think so. I do think we will be made perfect on the last day. However, in the meantime, we are to keep praying that God keep changing us.

Can we fully comprehend Christ’s love? Again, I don’t think so. However, we grow and mature as Christians, as we appreciate and know better his love for us.

It is the love of Christ that will motivate us to seek to be more like Christ. It is the love of Christ that will drive us to more prayerful dependence on God. And, it is the love of Christ that will drive us to want God to be glorified in all things.

PS I thought about blogging about the sermon after reading a Sydney Anglican article on exactly that.

John Piper is incredibly shaped by the Puritan Jonathan Edwards. It felt at points that he was summarising and paraphrasing Edwards on preaching. The result is a book which challenged me to reconsider what is the content of my preaching and how I think about it.

The content of preaching, Piper argues, ought to be the supremacy of God. His incredible sovereignty as the creator and sustainer of this universe. This is not to be a philosophical reflection on the other-ness of God. Rather a recognition of how holy he is and how sinful we are before him. This is helpful for a number of reasons:

1. We take the focus off ourselves.
   It is all too easy for my sermons to be addressing myself and the congregation as individuals, encouraging us to godly thinking and living and yet, not reflecting the worth, the glory or honour that God deserves. The danger I see is that a person-centred ministry could easily become moralistic, legalistic or this worldly.
2. We see the grace of God in his gift of Christ on the cross.
   As we refocus on our great and supreme God, we will appreciate the depravity of our sin, our helplessness before God and our utter dependancy on Him. This will turn us once again, back to the gospel, back to the message that Christ died for sinners and that we are saved by grace through faith.
3. We thank God for His Spirit, that enlightens our hearts and minds to know him.
   Therefore, the privilege that it is to preach is not due to personal merit, but the gracious gift of God working through his Word, by his Spirit.

This book also encouraged me to think differently about preaching. It is important to work on the ‘common graces’ of communication, eg how I speak, eye contact, facial expressions (or lack of in my case) etc. But being more dynamic doesn’t make up for lack of depth in content. The challenge for me is to keep working on the content, that I may be continually plumbing the depths of God’s character and then teaching this to others. If I haven’t learned anything in the preparation, I imagine not much will be taught.

It’s my goal to keep reading books on preaching. As I do, I am more committed to preparing better and often that means less time for blogs.

Firstly, I mentioned something about whether anxiety was a sin if we’re commanded in Philippians not to be anxious.

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. (Philippians 4:6)

This was abbreviating a book review of Jerry Bridges’ Respectable Sins which was recently reviewed in the Briefing. The book review made me think it is definitely worth reading, to be reminded again of how easily our Christianity takes on aspects of our worldview that God is against. Other areas mentioned are impatience, selfishness, favouritism …

I’m sorry if what I said was insensitive to those thinking of friends and family with medically diagnosed anxiety issues.

What I was and am keen to challenge us on is the little things we may worry about that are out of our control.

John Bartik’s reflections on Bobby McFerrin’s Don’t Worry, Be Happy are worth a read.

Secondly, I ended with the reminder that we needn’t feel guilt about sin if we’re forgiven.

6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar.  7 And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.” (Isaiah 6:6-7)

I think there’s a difference between feeling guilty and feeling remorseful about sin. I understand remorse as something which also implies regret and repentance. ie a desire to not keep sinning.

I think feeling guilty about sin can lead to two problems.

1. You feel more and more guilt in which case you don’t trust God’s grace to forgive.
2. The guilt makes you want to try harder and be more godly so you don’t trust God’s grace to forgive.

The right response to recognising the sin in our lives is to repent, to say sorry to God and to ask him to forgive us. I think the danger is that all too often we want to say sorry and I won’t do it again, as though we can make ourselves more godly.

What do you think? Have I overstated my case?