Reformed Baptist Blog

An Elephant, Rock Star Mega-Church Pastors and Discernment

2012-02-02T15:28:00.007-06:00

I am perplexed! No, I am troubled! I am concerned, or maybe I am just a "hater." I pastor a small church, so who cares what I am, how I feel, and what I have to say. I am sure I am just jealous, or a fundamentalist, or a failure. Whatever I am, I am sure I will not be classified as "discerning."

Why am I troubled? Because Reformed Christianity appears to have fallen victim to the Hollywood pop culture where a few celebrity mega-church pastors have more influence upon younger Christians than a multitude of ordinary pastors who remain faithful and unknown. It is difficult to sound the alarm (Hey! There’s an elephant in the room and he kind of smells) because of the likelihood of sounding jealous, but the elephant has gotten so large and stinky that it's hard not to say something. This is not to say that it's wrong to pastor a mega-church or have a large following, but it is dangerous to place a person on a pedestal just because he pastors a mega-church and to fall all over ourselves in seeking to win their approval and a few of their internet followers. Credibility should never be based upon how many twitter followers a person has, but upon how faithful a pastor is with the truth. As said in the intro of the Mike Corley Program, “…the messenger does not validate the message, but rather the message validates the messenger.”

Human nature desires fame, envies those who are famous, and seeks the friendship of those who are famous. It is amazing how fame subconsciously and quickly warps our perspective and judgment. The most undeserving and despicable famous person in Hollywood may be Paris Hilton. Not even a fan of hers (I don’t like her at all), I thought I had great bragging rights after I ran into her in London. I remember eagerly and shamelessly walking back to the hotel so I could tell my friends. As if somehow the value and worth of my life went up some degree due to running into someone who is famous. Silly, I know, but this is human nature. We want to be famous or at least connected with those who are famous. I think it is because if we can get near to those who have the spot light we may somehow get out of the shadows. Even famous people do not seem exempt from the influence of this phenomenon. Have you not noticed that famous people befriend, date and marry other famous people? Maybe it's because famous people think that being connected to other famous people will bring more popularity for themselves, as though two famous people coming together brings each a broader fan base than they would have had on their own. Whatever the case, fame has a gravitational pull on all of us, and I am afraid that the church along with her discernment is being sucked into its black hole. Here is some of the refuse the elephant is leaving behind in the church, and I personally believe it smells.

1. Reverse Fundamentalism

We can't use discernment and question the actions of various well known celebrity pastors without being judged as a fighting fundamentalist or just flat out jealous of their success. We can be more liberal than they are, but we dare not be more conservative. If we happen to be more conservative, we are automatically villainized as belonging to the fundamentalist camp that only wants to fellowship with the King James Only Advocates. For instance, Steven Furtick, who is a mega-church pastor in Charlotte North Carolina went on this rant:

All of a sudden I am the hater because I take a more conservative and cautious approach to the ministry. I could believe the prosperity gospel and be a muddled modalist and be tolerated and even accepted with a cool, manly fist bump (as was the case with Driscoll and T. D. Jakes in the Elephant Room 2), but I dare not question the methodology of a pastor who pastors a mega-church or I will be labeled as a hater. Even worse, I may be threatened to be arrested, as was the case for our Lutheran friend Chris Rosebrough when he attempted to attend the Elephant Room 2 conference (see here).

The point is that we are charged with being haters because we voice our concerns, but our voices are the ones that are being cut off from the conversation.

2. Jumping on the Bandwagon Just because There is a Long Boarding Line

Have you ever gone to Walmart and counted the people wearing jackets with the little words "North Face" stamped in the corner? Probably not, but I have, and you would be amazed at how many people want a jacket just because of that little logo. Everybody seems to have one, and that seems to be the reason why everybody wants one, me included! Don't say that it's the quality, because I can go get a Snozu jacket, which is just as nice at T. J. Maxx's for half the price. Yet without that North Face logo, a Snozu jacket just doesn't seem as cool. If the herd of people were not wearing North Face jackets, I am sure I wouldn't feel so tempted to buy one. The point is, it's human nature, so it seems, to follow the crowd without really examining why.

The growing mega-church and celebrity pastor phenomenon seems to be under this spell as well. Grab people’s attention by talking about sex and the use of controversial and slightly seditious methodology, and then the momentum of the crowds rushing in will do the rest. People want to go where all people are going. If you stopped and asked them why North Face, why this church? The honest answer would likely be, because it’s cool, and it’s also where all my friends or potential friends go. The right music, the right aesthetics, the right web-design, and throw in a bigger than life personality for the pastor and then presto—you have created the perfect combination for a mega-church, and the rise of the latest celebrity pastor. But, if we step back and ask why is Paris Hilton so famous? What has she really done to deserve such a large fan base? Besides some questionable behavior and a little bit of charisma, there is no substantial reason for her to be so popular. She is not the prettiest girl, she can't sing, she is not much of an actor, but for some reason she is famous. In the same way, many of these celebrity pastors have nothing substantial to justify such a large following. I am not saying that they have no spiritual gifting, but I know many obscure pastors who are more knowledgeable, spiritually gifted and devoted who remain out of any national or international spotlight. Martin Luther, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and even contemporaries like John Piper, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur have something unique about their spiritual gifting that sets them apart. These men deserve a broad hearing. Yet, other than their personal charisma and charm there is not much that makes ministers like Rick Warren and Steven Furtick worthy of such attention within the Reformed community. My point is, the most faithful, the most gifted and the most devoted pastors do not always equate to the most famous in the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, fame has the tendency to warp our judgment, for in many cases the most faithful and gifted pastors are overlooked, while the celebrity pastors grab all the headlines. Carl Truemen rightly noted:

One thing that is so striking about the rise of celebrity in the wider world is that it has been accompanied by the rise of the myth of the polymath. Thus, a pop star who can write a song that becomes a hit also becomes a person who is consulted about things like gay rights, Third World Debt and global warming. They are no more qualified (and in some cases much less qualified) than you or I to offer such advice; but we are never asked because we have not written a pop hit or starred in a movie. We now see this phenomenon in the evangelical world: fame and a big church make you competent to speak all over the theological map.

There has been a downgrade in the Reformed Community. I was afraid of this back when Mark Driscoll was introduced as a Calvinist. For years, Calvinism was despised and marginalized by mainstream Christianity. Pastors were run out of their churches and they sacrificed greatly for their faithful stance for the truth. Now with the rise of this neo-Calvinism, God's sovereign grace is cool and fashionable. Yet it appears that this new form of Calvinism is only cool when it comes to Jonathan Edwards screen-printed T-shirts, but has nothing to do with one's methodology of ministry. The famous Calvinistic ministers of old where known for their commitment to truth in all facets of life, but these new Calvinists are known for how fast they can grow a church and cumulate a fan base by marketing themselves as cool and providing a multi-sensual worship experience. Worse yet, these young Calvinists, who know little to nothing of the hardships of the previous generation of Calvinists, are telling that generation to get out of the way, for they have discovered a better and less offensive way to do ministry.

3. Mega-Pastors' Gravitation Toward Each Other

It’s weird, but it does seems that the larger the objects the greater their gravitational pull. Mega-church pastors seem to attract other mega-pastors, regardless of their doctrinal stance. I love John Piper and think his books (especially his book on missions, Let the Nations be Glad) are excellent! With that said, I am disappointed with his endorsement of Rick Warren. I am sure we can learn something from Rick Warren, but whatever we may be able to learn from him we could learn from someone else without all the seeker sensitive baggage. The question I have is why? Dr. Piper, why Rick Warren? Whatever the reason, if Rick Warren was not so popular I am almost certain that Piper wouldn’t be so drawn to him. But worse than John Piper’s association with Rick Warren is the latest Elephant Room fiasco. The mega-church pastor T. D. Jakes is treated as a hero even though he will not take a firm position on the Trinity, and even though he perverts the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching a man centered health and wealth gospel.

It almost seems as bad as this mock conversation below:

“Okay Benny Hinn, get ready! I am sure you’ll be the next celebrity who will be welcomed into the fold. Maybe by reaching out to you, our Reformed celebrity pastors may be able to win some of your audience and followers over to Reformed Theology.”

“You’re crazy, Jeff,” the mega-church pastors may respond back to me, “don’t you understand that unity is not about Reformed Theology, it’s about the gospel!”

To which I would replay, “Is it?”

In which they respond, “Well, okay, it’s technically not about the gospel because we accepted T. D. Jakes and his prosperity gospel.”

To which I would reply, “Well, since it’s not about the gospel, at least you celebrity pastors may be able to broaden your fan base by reaching out to these other celebrity pastors.”

Finally they agree, “What a good idea! Your right, Jeff! Hey, Benny Hinn come on over and bring us some of your followers.”

4. Multi-Sight Campuses

I wonder why mega-church pastors are not willing to plant new churches rather than feeling the need to open various satellite campuses. I understand that any given locality has its limitations, and people are willing to drive only so far, but what are the reasons to divide a local body when starting a new work seems to be more in line with the biblical pattern? Do these mega-pastors think so highly of themselves as to think that no other preacher is as capable? Are they unwilling to share the glory? If it’s the people who would rather have a famous virtual pastor than an unknown pastor who is present, then are not these mega-church pastors unwilling to teach their followers of the danger of exalting a man? Is it about building a kingdom that is centered around a mega-church personality? Is it all of a sudden acceptable to have a bishop pastoring multiple flocks? Is it biblical to divide a local body, or can it even be called a local body? How do you effectively pastor a flock in an off site location? It seems slightly better than handing a group of people a pile of recorded sermons and then telling them that I am happy to be your Shepherd who watches over your souls. I am sure there may be some good motives mixed in with opening satellite campuses, but I can't help but think it’s not about reaching more people (planting local churches could do that), but about ego and building a fan base. I know I am a "hater" for bringing up such concerns, but all this celebrity Christianity seems to be getting out of control.

There is an elephant that has squeezed into the church and hardly anyone wants to admit it. Maybe it’s because we're scared that we will be judged as envious or overly scrupulous. Also, if I am seeking popularity among young teenage girls, the last thing I want to do is vocalize any criticism towards Justin Bieber. In the same way, if I want to broaden my ministry opportunities, and if everybody loves these mega-church personalities, then the last thing I should do is offend the followers of Mark Driscoll. I think it's the desire to be famous which is a large part of the problem, and the elephant in the room is so big it's time for us to say something regardless of what it may cost us.

John MacArthur Adresses the Issue of Multisite Churches

2012-01-26T15:50:00.000-06:00

Once again I find myself in agreement with John MacArthur. In fact, I also see it as a real problem today that so many professing Christians are willing to substitute listening to or watching videos of sermons for actually assembling together with other believers to personally hear the word preached. What do you think?

Review of The Radical Reformission

2012-01-17T21:39:00.018-06:00

I am young, Reformed, and I enjoy Starbucks coffee, snowboarding and backpacking around Europe. I prefer Apple products, I don’t preach in a tie, and I think fundamentalism is dangerous. Who am I? I am someone who is concerned about the influence Mark Driscoll is having upon the church.

It has been many years since I first heard the name Mark Driscoll. The day before, I was eating lunch with one of my Pentecostal friends, who wanted to know more about Calvinism. Being worried about being tagged as a hyper-Calvinist, I did my best to be humble, balanced and clear in my explanation of the five points. The next day that same friend brings me some secular magazine with an article inside entitled, if I remember correctly, “A Cussing Calvinist.” I was glad that my friend learned that I was not the only Calvinist in the world, but I was not sure how I felt about being paired with some weird preacher in Seattle who was known for his profanity. After reading that article, I thought to myself, who is this guy, and why in the world is he going around cussing in his sermons? As with my own personal introduction to Driscoll, this controversial minister in Seattle has burst upon the scene with a bang—winning as many fans and followers as he has rattled the cages of the fundamentalists.

Since that time, I have learned a lot more about Mark Driscoll, but sought to remain silent upon the cultural debates surrounding his ministry. But, having many young college students in my church (who feel called to the ministry), I feel that I couldn’t avoid the controversy any longer. So what do I do? I hop into my car, drive to the local Christian bookstore, and pay full retail price (which I hardly ever do) for Driscoll’s first book, The Radical Reformision (printed in 2004 by Zondervan). Anyway, for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the book.

STRENGTHS

1. Likable

Driscoll’s brutal honesty, transparency and wit, which are clearly communicated in his writing style, are endearing and captivating. After reading this book, I could not help but like Mark Driscoll, and I could see myself enjoying spending the day running around Seattle with him.

2. Concerned for Evangelism

I like Mark’s emphasis upon equipping the saints to be mission minded (evangelistic). Churches should encourage and equip the saints to carry the gospel to those who are in darkness. “Very Good!” are the words I wrote in the margins of page 66 after reading: “Reformission requires that every Christian and church realize that missions is about not something they do but something they are. We are all on a mission with Jesus every day, and we are either good missionaries or bad.” Mark challenges those churches who only want to form a holy huddle that they may avoid any contamination with those in the culture. I agree with Mark, we all need to rub shoulders with sinners that we may have opportunity to share our faith to those who need the Lord.

3. Full of Love

Mark’s love for the Lord, for the church and for sinners is clearly communicated as well. He has a passion for the Lord, which all Christians would do well to emulate. This book personally challenged me. After turning the last page of the book, I fell on my knees in prayer, asking forgiveness for my own lack of zeal for those without the gospel. If I ever had the opportunity to talk with Mark, I would want to tell him thanks for encouraging me in such a way.

CONCERNS

1. Embellishing the Gospel Narrative

The first thing that troubled me was how Mark purposefully embellished the gospel narrative to make it seem as scandalous as possible. As Driscoll wrote, “Doesn’t the story (gospel narrative) sound like the plot of a trashy, daytime television talk show?” (p. 29). I know he is trying to contextualize the gospel narrative to fit a culture that is drawn to scandalous language, but even if the language is not disrespectful, it is unfaithful to the text. Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, but nowhere in the gospel narrative does the text indicate that the Jewish community perceived Mary as a “slut”. Christ did turn water into an alcoholic beverage (e.g., wine), but this was at a traditional wedding party where his own mother was present, not some college frat party where decent mothers would not only be unwelcomed, but also feel very uncomfortable. Christ did eat with sinners, as Christians often eat with sinners in their homes or at work, yet this does not mean that Christ purposefully looked for the most questionable and shady environments to hang out and socialize so that he could better connect and understand sinners. To spin the gospel narrative in such a way to create an effect of shock in the listener is concerning to me. Driscoll takes a few events from the life of Christ and embellishes them. Worse yet, Mark seeks to build a philosophy of ministry from it.

2. A False Dichotomy

Intentionally or not, Mark labels all those who would oppose his philosophy of ministry as legalists, fundamentalists and traditionalists. As the Pharisees criticized Christ for eating with sinners, today only legalists would criticize this modern approach of evangelizing the lost by seeking to be edgy and risqué. As I was reading over pages 140-142, I could not help but think that ‘this is clever, I can’t disagree or I will become a legalist.’ According to Mark, legalists are more focused upon keeping their own human traditions than with reaching sinners for Christ. Driscoll is right when he talks about the dangers of legalism, but wrong to lump all those who do not perfectly share his opinions into the legalist camp. It is wrong to impose manmade regulations upon others, but it is not wrong to be cautious and precise in how we apply biblical principles. It is not wrong to be worried about negative appearances and concerned about how the holiness of Christ is depicted in a dark and unholy world. Contextualization of the gospel is not as cut and dry as Mark makes it sound. Also, it would have been nice if Mark could have been more understanding to those who take a more cautious approach to evangelism without disregarding them right off the bat as legalists.

3. A Misunderstanding of 1 Cor 9:19-23

Not only does Driscoll seem to build his philosophy of ministry from an embellished rendition of the gospel narrative, he seeks support from a misapplication of the words of Paul, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might win some” (1 Cor 9:22). “All things to all people” seems to be Mark’s motto. In reference to this, Driscoll writes: “Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many as possible in the cultures around them” (p. 100). In context, however, Paul was not suggesting that the Christians follow the latest trends and fads of the increasing secular culture, but rather that Christians be willing to subject their personal liberties to the moral convictions of others. For instance, out of love, Paul was willing to subject himself to the personal and moral convictions of others. He did not want his Christian liberties to be morally offensive to those whom he thought would view them as such. Eating meat offered to idols may have been lawful, but it may also have caused real offense to those who have a weak conscience. Out of love, Paul was willing to sacrifices his liberties for the good of his neighbor. How could Paul be an effective witness for a holy God if those to whom he was witnessing viewed his liberties as sinful activities? Paul loved others more than he loved his own personal freedoms, and this is what made him such an effective witness for Christ. Anything that had the appearance of evil, even though Paul may have had a clear conscience to enjoy it, he was willing to forsake if he thought it would have caused offense or would hinder the gospel from being heard. The point is that Paul was worried about being morally offensive, not stylistically offensive. In other words, Paul was not concerned about being viewed as a nerd or out of touch with the latest fashion, but more worried about limiting his ministry by participating in lawful activities that others may consider as morally wrong.

Yet Driscoll is using a small segment of this text (becoming all things to all people) to encourage Christians to purposefully participate in cultural activities which even the secular society considers risqué and edgy. This almost turns the meaning of the passage upside down. Body piercings, tattoos and drinking Budweiser may not be sinful activities in and of themselves, but these things really do little to help contextualize the gospel and may be a real hindrance to one’s ministry opportunities. The point is that Paul was not encouraging Christians to indulge in cultural activities that are considered edgy by even those who practice such things. These activities may not be sinful in themselves, but due to their negative association, they will surely be offensive to some. Some things may not be sin, but some things are not helpful (1 Cor 6:12). According to Paul, lawful activities are fine to enjoy privately or among those who share those same sentiments, but if there is a real possibility of causing offense, it is best to seek the moral high ground in cultural areas that could be considered as taboo or morally offensive (Rom 14). Driscoll may agree with this, but if he does, it would have been nice if he had warned his impressionable young readers of the dangers of negative associations and the sin of causing a weaker brother to stumble.

4. Lack of Any Clear Theological Foundation

The Scriptural basis for Mark’s philosophy of ministry seems to be based upon an embellished account of the gospel narrative and a misunderstanding of 1 Cor 9:22. Outside of these two things, there doesn’t seemed to be any real theological foundation for his view of church and culture. The only principle Mark appears to utilize is the notion that what is not explicitly forbidden is lawful. Mark has simplified this principle in the catchphrase, Reject, Receive and Redeem. Reject the things in the culture that are sinful. Receive the things in the culture that are good. And Redeem the things in the culture that are shady or questionable. If anything, Mark seems to have been influenced by the theology of the Emergent church that believes that the mission of the church is to redeem the culture. To do kingdom work is to be fully engaged in redeeming the culture and social “transformation.” The Emergent church seeks to blend the church and culture, and the gospel and social activism, together. The objective is not to have a pure church (a called out people from all nations who worship God), but a redeemed culture and a transformed society. Yet we need to remember that the Bible teaches that there is a clear distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world. Christians live in both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. Because we live in both spheres, there are some overlaps in the cultural activities that we will enjoy (e.g., music, dress, foods, etc.). Yet, because the culture of the kingdom of God (e.g., the church) is shaped by spiritual values, and because the culture of the world is shaped by fleshly values, there is a distinction between the culture of the church and the culture of the world. The great business of the church is not to redeem culture, but to redeem sinners. This is not to say that society and culture will not benefit from the spread and growth of true Christianity; they certainly will. Yet the great mission of the church is to evangelize the lost and equip the saints for the end goal of establishing a holy people who are separate from the world. Driscoll has a passion for sinners, and I believe reaching the lost for Christ is his main objective, but he doesn’t seem to have (or at least seem to communicate) a clear theological foundation to support his philosophy of ministry.

I recommend for those who desire a theological foundation for their understanding of the church and culture to study David VanDruen’s book Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, and for a practical application of the subject to read Kevin Deyoung and Greg Gilbert’s recent book What is the Mission of the Church?

5. An Attempt to Bring Secular Culture Into the Church

Mark does well in stressing the need to reach out, to go out, and to be sent out into the culture. This is good! Mark’s initial emphasis upon going out into the world as missionaries, however, is undermined by the bulk of the book dealing with how the church should contextualize its appearance and worship to better connect with sinners. The book is not about Christians going out into the culture as much as it is about how to bring the culture into the church. It would have been helpful for Mark to have made a distinction between reaching the culture in the culture and reaching the culture in the church. All this is blended together. Mark admits on page 73 that his approach of bringing the culture into the church “blurs the line between evangelism and discipleship” and removes any clear line of who is and who is not a member of the local church. As I will mention later, this book is more a church growth manual than it is a book on outreach and evangelism.

6. A Double Standard When it Comes to Appearances

Driscoll seems more concerned about how the church appears to those whose values are shaped by the flesh than he is worried about how the church appears to those whose values are shaped by the Scriptures. Outward appearances are a big deal to Driscoll when it comes to the church being relevant and the need to contextualize the gospel to connect with sinners. The major theme of this book is how to bridge a gap with the culture by the means of aesthetics, acoustics and musical style. “Reformission Christians and churches exist to perpetuate the gospel and should be swift to change their cultural forms if they are not the most beneficial for achieving that goal… Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many people as possible in the cultures around them“ (p. 100). The point is, when it comes to relating to sinners, outward appearances matter greatly. Yet, when it comes to the appearance of evil, Driscoll discounts those who bring up such concerns as legalists. Not one time did Driscoll raise any concern about negative appearances and the danger of offending the brethren. When Driscoll did bring up the subject, he responded defensively by saying, “To let go of culture is fundamentalist sectarianism. Sectarianism is the huddling up of God’s people to enjoy each other and Jesus without caring about anyone who is lost and dying outside of Christ. To justify themselves, sectarians will often quote 1 Thessalonians 5:22 from the King James Version, which poorly translates this verse to say that we should avoid every appearance of evil, when the text actually says that we should avoid every kind of evil, which is a different matter altogether” (p. 143). As to say, don’t bring up any concern about offending others by outward appearances; all that matters is that we don’t break any explicit commands.

On page 97, Mark defends the fashion of a young woman who was into the gothic look (“complete with face painted white, hair dyed black, and dark clothing”). Mark criticized a visiting pastor who assumed that the gothic girl was a non-believer. Driscoll explained that she “was a leader in [his] church, and then justified her appearance as merely matter of personal taste and preference. As if to say, how dare you judge this girl by her cover? (Yet Driscoll, on page 100, judges churches that are not in vogue with the latest fashion and cultural trends as legalists and unconcerned about evangelism.) The point is, for Driscoll, outward appearances only matter when it comes to relating and connecting with the culture. Fashion communicates that we are relevant; it has nothing to do with communicating if we are holy. Paul and Peter must have been borderline legalists when they instructed godly women not to dress in a way that would overshadow and distract others from seeing the hidden beauty of the heart (1 Pet 3:3-4, 1 Tim 2:9-10).

I understand that we cross the line into legalism when we seek to pinpoint the line between holiness and worldliness. The difficulty in talking about this subject is that it is wrong to define what worldliness outwardly looks like (e.g., don’t touch, don’t taste, don’t where fashionable clothes, don’t drink Budweiser, etc.). Once we start to draw the lines, we do become legalists. Nevertheless, I still think that a wise pastor would have explained to this Christian girl that outward appearances still matter. If appearances did not matter, why did the president of the North Carolina Panthers (NFL football team) asked their star quarterback Cam Newton (who is considered the face of the franchise) to remain free of tattoos? The reason is that even non-Christians realize that certain cultural practices communicate negative values and can harm a healthy perception. Outward appearances do communicate inward attitudes and desires, this is why Paul and Peter reminded godly women not to place their emphasis upon their external appearance, but rather seek to display the hidden beauty of the heart (1 Tim 2:9-10, 1 Pet 3:3-4).

Appearance of wealth, the appearance of being cool and hip, the appearance of being rebellious and the appearance of being smart is more important to our culture than actually being rich, cool, rebellious and smart. Appearances and personal image is everything to this fallen culture. All of this in reality is vain and stems from the lust of the eyes and pride of life. Now, the church does exist in the culture and, because of this, Christians will enjoy and participate in certain secular cultural activities (foods, dress, music, etc.). However, the church should not seek to portray that their focus is upon the same thing the world values—looking cool, smart, rich and rebellious. This is sending and communicating the wrong message. Also the church needs to be careful not to promote and encourage Christians to run after these things. The church needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of seeking to gain credibility and the approval of society by seeking to brand a certain fleshly image that the world considers attractive and cool. This is sending the wrong non-verbal message. Why would the church purposefully use the outward forms that the secular culture is knowingly going to tag with questionable practices to mediate the glorious gospel? Just because we live in Vanity Fair, does not mean we have to look like Vanity Fair to warn the lovers of Vanity Fair to forsake Vanity Fair.

7. How Much of Contextualization is a Really a Church Growth Marketing Strategy?

As I read this book, I was looking for the foundation behind Driscoll's philosophy of ministry. Driscoll admitted on page 65 that when he planted Mars Hill (the church he pastors) he did not know what he was doing. This means that Driscoll began his journey by not knowing what to do and ended up with a mega-church and a book telling others how to do it. So between the time of ignorance and publishing a how-to book, how did Driscoll arrive at his approach? As mentioned before, he seems to have been influenced by his own embellished account of the gospel narrative, as if Christ sought to promote a cool and fashionable Christianity. Second, Driscoll leans heavily upon a misapplication of 1 Cor 9:22, “I have become all things to all people.” Third, he seems to have been influenced by the Emergent Church, which believes that the mission of the church is to redeem the culture and transform society. Yet, in these three things, there seems to be another influence that helped shape Driscoll’s philosophy of ministry. On pages 70-73, Driscoll reveals what may be the main reason for embedding the church with secular culture—it’s a proven marketing strategy that sells. Driscoll applies the principles of growing a business found in The Experience Economy (a book written by James Gilmore and Joseph Pine II) to the church. In The Experience Economy we learn that people are not just buying coffee, they are buying an experience. In the same way that Starbucks has successfully branded itself by creating a personal in-store experience for their patrons, according to Driscoll the church needs to market itself by providing a similar multi-sensual impression for its visitors. If an aroma of potpourri, soft music mingling in the background, and relaxing earth tone colors can stimulate coffee sales, maybe the right personalities, lighting and music can stimulate church growth. To grow a church, the church must offer people a multi-sensual experience. This is why music, lighting, acoustics, art, and fashion are such a major theme in Driscoll’s book.

Worse than that, one of the biggest methods of gaining popularity, fame and fans in our modern secular culture is to gain press coverage by doing something edgy or questionable. Think of all the music artists who have sold their records by promoting sex. Controversy draws curiosity, media time and attention. The former coach for the Tennessee University football team, Lane Kiffin, admitted after the fact that much of his wild antics and questionable statements were designed to bring the national spotlight back upon the program. Controversy and sex sells, even in the church! I am afraid if we took away the curse words, explicit talks about sex acts, his edgy cultural expression and all his outward ascetics and left him alone with the gospel and a basic pair of blue jeans, Mark would not be near as interesting, or likely to be a high profile Christian celebrity.

In conclusion, because of his firm stance upon the gospel and his love of the lost, I would gladly stand with Driscoll when it came to preaching the gospel, but because of his questionable practices, I would hesitate recommending his philosophy of ministry for building a church.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

2012-01-11T17:55:00.007-06:00

In my last post I wrote about how we may be encouraged through trials – even such trials as depression – that God's purposes in our lives are being accomplished as we see his glory being revealed in and through us and thus increase in our confidence that our future glorification is assured. In this post I want us to focus on how suffering through our own trials also enables us to better minister to others in their trials. This can be seen in Paul's teaching on suffering in 2 Corinthians:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort [paráklēsis], 4 who comforts [parakaléō] us in all our tribulation [thlípsis, affliction, distress, oppression, trouble], that we may be able to comfort [parakaléō] those who are in any trouble [thlípsis], with the comfort [paráklēsis] with which we ourselves are comforted [parakaléō] by God.”

In his epistle to the Romans Paul teaches that “we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (8:28). Here in 2 Corinthians he teaches us that one way in which God works all things together for good is that He comforts us in our troubles so that we may be able to comfort others in their troubles. In other words, He uses our trials or troubles – which would include depression – in order to make us more useful ministers of His own comfort to others.

Thomas Constable, in his Notes on 2 Corinthians, ably highlights the importance of the Greek word translated comfort in this passage:

“Comfort” (Gr. paraklesis) is the key word in this section (vv. 3-7) occurring 10 times as a noun or a verb [parakaléō]. It also appears in 2:7, 8; 5:20; 6:1; 7:4, 6, 7, 13; 8:4, 6, 17; 9:5; 10:1; 12:8, 18; and 13:11. Thus 2 Corinthians is truly a letter of encouragement. This Greek word means much more than mere sympathy. It communicates the idea of one person standing alongside another to encourage and support his friend. The same word describes the Holy Spirit ("Paraclete") who strengthens and guides us (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). Christ, too, provides encouragement and support as our Advocate (1 John 2:1) and Helper (Heb. 2:18). Here it is the Father who comforts and consoles the afflicted.

Notice also the emphasis Paul places on the words all and any in these verses. He says that God is the “Father of mercies and God of all comfort [paráklēsis], who comforts [parakaléō] us in all our tribulation that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” As the God of all comfort, our heavenly Father is able to comfort us in all of our troubles, and we are thus able to comfort others in any trouble they might face.

Thomas Constable is again helpful in driving home the point, when he writes:

Nevertheless God does not intend this encouragement and strength to end with our personal benefit. Its further purpose is to enable us to become God's agents in extending God's comfort to others in their afflictions. As God comforts us in all our afflictions, we are to comfort others in any and every one of theirs. (Notes on 2 Corinthians)

There are several important implications that follow from Paul's teaching here:

First, there is the implication that we gain the experience we need to comfort others by going through the kind of troubles that necessitate that we ourselves seek comfort from God.

Second, there is the implication that the more troubles we go through, the more useful and capable we will be in offering God's comfort to others. This means we should not despise our troubles as we are often tempted to do, but rather see them as opportunities to become better conduits of God's comfort to others who are suffering as we have suffered.

Third, there is the implication that we become more like God, who is the Father of all comfort, the more we experience His comfort in our troubles and are thus able to more fully comfort others.

Sadly, all too many Christians see their troubles through the wrong lens, perhaps as a sign of God's displeasure, when in reality they are a part of His plan to make us more like Himself, and to make us more like Christ, that we might ultimately be glorified together with Him. As Paul wrote to the Roman believers, if we are God's children, then we are heirs, “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (8:17b).

Ed Welch is helpful in applying the point of Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians 1 when he writes:

Depression is hard. It doesn’t leave without a fight. But there are good reasons to enter into the fight. Changes are guaranteed (Phil. 1:6). You are in the presence of “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles” (2 Cor. 1:3, 4). Do you believe that? Think about it. When you consider that the Father sent His Son — His beloved, only Son — to die for us when we were still His enemies, there is no reason to think that He will be stingy with His love and compassion now that we know Him as Father.

Sometimes, however, we have our own definition of compassion. Compassion might mean “to take away misery, quickly.” Instead, you have to believe that God’s love and compassion exceed even our imagination, let alone our understanding. He is up to something good. He wants to shower you with grace and make you look more and more like Jesus.

So don’t give up. You have a purpose. God is on the move. You are a servant of the King, a child who represents the Father, and you will soon have the privilege of comforting “those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God” (2 Cor. 1:4). The body of Christ needs you. (Words of Hope for Those Who struggle with Depression, Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2000, p. 45-46, CCEF.org, website of the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation)

Do you want to love the body of Christ as Christ himself does? Do you truly want to be more like Christ in this regard? If so, then you will be willing to walk the path of suffering even as He did. If not, then you need to ask God to make you willing. Remember what Peter said, “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). Or remember what Paul said it to the Philippians, “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (1:29).

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:5 “For as the sufferings [páthēma] of Christ abound in us, so our consolation [paráklēsis] also abounds through Christ.”

Here Paul makes it clear that all our troubles that are designed to make us better conduits of God's comfort are actually the sufferings of Christ. It is important to remember that, in the context of 2 Corinthians 1, only such sufferings are in view. Paul does not say, for example, that we may regard suffering for our own sin and disobedience as the sufferings of Christ. Peter also communicates such a distinction when he writes:

NKJ 1 Peter 2:19-21 “For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps ….”

But here in 2 Corinthians Paul also makes it clear that, as these sufferings of Christ abound in us, so also our comfort will abound through Christ. Once again, then, we see that the more sufferings we endure the more comfort we may experience. And, viewed this way, sufferings – including struggles with depression – are once again seen as opportunities. As the ESV renders verse 5, “as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.” Do you want to share abundantly in the comfort of God? Well, then, it is crucial to consider that you might only be able to experience such abundant comfort through abundant suffering.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:6 “Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation [paráklēsis] and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings [páthēma] which we also suffer [páschō]. Or if we are comforted [parakaléo], it is for your consolation [paráklēsis] and salvation.”

David Guzik offers some helpful comments on this verse:

Significantly, Paul writes of the same sufferings. It is unlikely the Corinthian Christians were suffering in exactly the same way Paul did. Probably, not one of them could match the list Paul made in 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. Yet, Paul can say they are the same sufferings, because he recognizes that the exact circumstances of suffering are not as important as what God is doing, and wants to do, through the suffering. Christians should never get into a “competition” of comparing suffering. There is a sense in which we all share the same sufferings. (Commentary on 2 Corinthians)

Here Paul simply tells the Corinthians that he and his fellow ministers view their own sufferings the same way that he is telling them to view theirs, as opportunities to better be used of God for the comfort of others. Paul sees no such thing as wasted sufferings in his life, at least not so long as he knows they are the sufferings of Christ. This is the lesson he desires us to learn as well.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:7 “And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings [páthēma], so also you will partake of the consolation [paráklēsis].”

Here Paul derives hope for the Corinthians from his own experience of God's comfort in his sufferings. This is because he knows that God will do for them what He continually does for him. But what about you and me? Do we sometimes forget this when we see the troubles and sufferings of our brothers and sisters in Christ? Do we sometimes lose hope when we see them suffer? If so, this is probably just an indication that we ourselves are inexperienced in receiving God's comfort in our own sufferings. And it probably also means that we will not be of much use to others who are suffering. It just isn't likely that we will have hope that others will experience God's comfort in their sufferings when we have not experienced it ourselves. But when we become experienced in receiving God's comfort through various sufferings and troubles, including trials such as the deepest depression imaginable, then we will also have a steadfast hope for the believers we see suffering around us. And we will be able to communicate this hope to them even when they feel hopeless themselves.

Free Audio Download of J.I. Packer's Knowing God

2012-01-05T16:21:00.001-06:00

This month's free audio book from ChristianAudio.com is the Christian classic Knowing God by J.I. Packer. Here is the brief summary description from the publisher's product page for the book:

A lifelong pursuit of knowing God should embody the Christian's existence. According to eminent theologian J.I. Packer, however, Christians have become enchanted by modern skepticism and have joined the "gigantic conspiracy of misdirection" by failing to put first things first. Knowing God aims to redirect our attention to the simple, deep truth that to know God is to love His Word.

What began as a number of consecutive articles angled for "honest, no-nonsense readers who were fed up with facile Christian verbiage" in 1973, Knowing God has become a contemporary classic by creating "small studies out of great subjects." Each chapter is so specific in focus (covering topics such as the trinity, election, God's wrath, and God's sovereignty), that each succeeding chapter's theology seems to rival the next, until one's mind is so expanded that one's entire view of God has changed.

Author Elizabeth Eliot wrote that amid the lofty content Packer "puts the hay where the sheep can reach it--plainly shows us ordinary folks what it means to know God." Having rescued us from the individual hunches of our ultra-tolerant theological age, Packer points the reader to the true character of God with his theological competence and compassionate heart. The lazy and faint-hearted should be warned about this timeless work--God is magnified, the sinner is humbled, and the saint encouraged.

This book has been greatly used by God over the years to help many Christians come to a deeper understanding of God and a greater desire to study His Word. And, since ChristianAudio has decided to offer the audio book for free this month, there is no reason not to get it. You may also want to check out other audio books they offer at very good prices.

Teaching Notes on the Importance of the Virgin Birth

2011-12-22T14:59:00.003-06:00

Following are teaching notes from 2006 on the importance of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I hope they will be helpful to the blog's readers as they prepare to celebrate Christmas this year.

Scripture Reading: We will be reading lot of Scripture this morning, but we will begin with these two foundational texts: Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35. As we read, notice the emphasis both texts place on the fact that Mary was a virgin and that both Jesus' conception and birth were therefore the miraculous work of God alone.

NKJ Matthew 1:18-25 “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.' 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' [Isa. 7:14] which is translated, 'God with us.' 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.”

NKJ Luke 1:26-35 “Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, 'Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!' 29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.' 34 Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?' 35 And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'”

Introduction: As we have already seen in our Scripture reading thus far, both the accounts of Matthew and Luke are very clear about the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. Throughout the centuries the Church has always been sure to emphasize this fact as well, deeming it so important that it was included in its most cherished creeds. Consider, for example, the Apostles' Creed (3rd-4th centuries):

I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

Notice that this creed includes only those things which were deemed most essential to the Christian faith. It is a very selective creed, yet it includes an emphasis upon the historicity and reality of the virgin birth. It clearly sees this doctrine as one of crucial importance, then, doesn't it?

This doctrine has been deemed just as crucial by all Bible-believing Christians since that time, being included in virtually every orthodox creed or doctrinal summary, including our own. For example, in chapter 8, paragraph 2 of our own Confession of Faith we read:

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with Him, who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He hath made, did when the fullness of time was come take unto Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary.... (an amended version of the Baptist Confession of 1689)

We even include this doctrine in our Summary of the Doctrines of Grace Expressed in the Baptist Confession of 1689 (Paragraph 7):

We believe that God sent His Son into the world, conceived of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, unchangeably sinless, both God and man, born under the Law, to live a perfect life of righteousness, on behalf of His people.

But why is this doctrine deemed so crucial to us? And, more importantly, why is the fact of the virgin birth stressed so clearly in Scripture? Why was it important to God that Jesus be born of a virgin and that we know this with such certainty?

Well, neither Matthew's nor Luke's account comes right out and plainly says why this is so. There is no statement by either of them that Jesus was born of a virgin for any specific reason other than Matthew's assertion that it was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy.

However, I think that the Bible does nevertheless clearly indicate some answers to these questions, and these answers will be the focus of our study. I would like to briefly suggest to you four Scriptural reasons why it is important that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I. The virgin birth explains how Jesus is both fully God and fully Man.

Unlike Matthew and Luke, the Apostle John does not begin His Gospel with an account of the virgin birth and the events leading up to and surrounding it, but instead begins with a description of the incarnation of Christ.

NKJ John 1:1-3, 14 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... [And then later in the passage John says] 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

I would suggest to you that this is really not a different starting place at all, for the virgin birth is the way in which the incarnation of Christ came about. It is the way in which Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us.”

So, Matthew and Luke and John really begin at the same place … the incarnation of Christ. Remember the account of Luke that we read earlier:

NKJ Luke 1:34-35 “Then Mary said to the angel, 'How can this be, since I do not know a man?' 35 And the angel answered and said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.'”

The son to be born of the virgin Mary was going to be more than just a man, He was going to be the divine Son of God as well. Throughout the Gospels this title was used by Jesus and rightly understood by the Jews to be a claim to deity. None of them questioned His humanity, and the virgin birth ensures that no one could rightly question His divinity either!

John Piper stressed the importance of this issue in a sermon entitled Christ Conceived by the Holy Spirit:

Gabriel's answer to Mary's question, How? is very simply and delicately: the Holy Spirit. Beyond this, revelation does not go. How can a virgin have a child? How can the human child be the divine Son of God? Answer: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you . . . therefore the child to be born will be called the Son of God." The word "therefore" in Luke 1:35 is tremendously important. It shows that the conception of Jesus in a virgin is owing to the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit. And it shows that the divine sonship of Jesus depends on his virgin birth.

Many people will try to say that the conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary is not essential in the doctrine of the incarnation, since Jesus would have been the Son of God even if the virgin birth weren't true. The words of Gabriel do not agree. In answer to the question, How can a virgin conceive? he says, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God." Jesus can be called Son of God (v. 35), Son of the Most High (v. 32), precisely because he was "conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary." It is an unfathomable mystery that all the fullness of deity should dwell bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9). It is fitting (indeed necessary, I think) that the entrance gate to this mystery of incarnation should be the virgin birth.

Application: So, Christmas is a celebration of the power of God and the wonder and mystery of the incarnation. It is a time in which we are to be humbled by our own inability to grasp His greatness.

The virgin birth reminds us of what God once said through the Prophet Isaiah, “'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'” (55:8-9, NKJ). We must throw up our our hands with David and cry out, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (Psalm 139:6, NKJ). What other response could be more appropriate as we prepare to celebrate Christmas?

II. The virgin birth explains how Jesus was without sin.

This is hinted at in the prophetic announcement of Jesus' birth by the angel Gabriel. Recall again Luke's account of his pronouncement to Mary:

NKJ Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

The ESV translates this verse a bit differently:

ESV Luke 1:35 “And the angel answered her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy -- the Son of God.”

Whichever way it is translated, this statement by Gabriel informs us that, because he was born of a virgin, Jesus was holy. That this holiness was more than just being set apart as one who was special to God, but that it included a moral holiness or perfection, is clear from the fact that He was also going to be the very Son of God, who could be nothing but morally perfect. It is also clear from what the rest of the Scriptures tell us about Christ. For example:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:21 “For He made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

Paul connects Jesus' sacrifice for our sins to His own sinlessness. In fact, the Scriptures teach that Jesus' sinlessness is why He can be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

NKJ 1 Peter 1:18-19 “... knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”

NKJ 1 Peter 2:21-24 “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 'Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth' [Isa. 53:9]; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed.

NKJ Hebrews 10:4-12 “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He [Jesus] said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come -- in the volume of the book it is written of Me -- to do Your will, O God.”' 8 Previously saying, 'Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them' (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.' He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God....”

Functioning as our great High Priest, Jesus sat down after He made His sacrifice because there was no need for any further sacrifice! His was the perfect sacrifice once for all!

Application: Christmas is a time to celebrate the fact that Jesus was born without sin, in order to live without sin, and then to die without sin for His people. This is how the angel's prophecy that “He will save His people from their sins” was fulfilled.

III. The virgin birth explains how Jesus became our sympathetic High Priest.

That Jesus remained without sin throughout His life does not mean, of course, that He was never tempted to sin, but rather that he was able to overcome every temptation. And this is one of the reasons that He had to become man and therefore that the virgin birth was necessary. He is not just our great High Priest in that He gave the final, perfect sacrifice for sins – Himself. He is also our High Priest because He can sympathize with our weakness and help us to overcome sin as He did.

NKJ Hebrews 2:14-18 “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.”

NKJ Hebrews 4:14-16 “Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

Application: Christmas is a time to rejoice that God Himself has condescended to become one of us, and that He understands and sympathizes with our weakness. It is a time to celebrate the victory over sin and temptation that He provides for us. It is a time to celebrate a God who has drawn close to us so that we may boldly draw near to Him!

IV. The virgin birth is a miraculous sign from God that He has acted to save His people from their sins.

This is what Matthew's tells us when he cites the prophecy concerning Jesus' birth:

NKJ Matthew 1:21-23 “'And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.' 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' which is translated, 'God with us.'”

Here Matthew is citing part of Isaiah 7:14, but the whole verse reads, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

Clearly Matthew saw Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of this promised sign that a virgin would conceive. Matthew also clearly sees the virgin birth as connected to the mystery of the incarnation, for he points out that the meaning of Immanuel is “God with us.”

The miracle of the virgin birth is something that only God Himself could perform, and it is thus a reminder that salvation is the work of God on our behalf. It is thus by His grace that we are saved. It is not something we can do for ourselves.

As Wayne Grudem aptly observes in his Systematic Theology:

[The virgin birth] shows that salvation ultimately must come from the Lord. Just as God had promised that the “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15) would ultimately destroy the serpent, so God brought it about by his own power, not through mere human effort. The virgin birth of Christ is an unmistakable reminder that salvation can never come through human effort, but must be the work of God himself. Our salvation only comes about through the supernatural work of God, and that was evident at the very beginning of Jesus’ life when “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5). (p. 529)

Application: Christmas, then, is a celebration of the grace of God in providing Jesus as our Savior and accomplishing through Him all that is necessary to save us.

Conclusion: I hope we all have seen just how important the virgin birth is to our faith. Scripture is quite clear about how essential this historical fact is to our salvation. But, in order to further stress the importance of the doctrine of the virgin birth and to show you that I am far from alone is seeing how crucial the doctrine is in Scripture, I would like to conclude with quotes from two leading modern theologians:

First, Wayne Grudem is again helpful when he writes in his Systematic Theology:

It has been common, at least in previous generations, for those who do not accept the complete truthfulness of Scripture to deny the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. But if our beliefs are to be governed by the statements of Scripture, then we will certainly not deny this teaching. Whether or not we could discern any aspects of doctrinal importance for this teaching, we should believe it first of all simply because Scripture affirms it. Certainly such a miracle is not too hard for the God who created the universe and everything in it—anyone who affirms that a virgin birth is “impossible” is just confessing his or her own unbelief in the God of the Bible. Yet in addition to the fact that Scripture teaches the virgin birth, we can see that it is doctrinally important, and if we are to understand the biblical teaching on the person of Christ correctly, it is important that we begin with an affirmation of this doctrine. (p. 532)

Second, Albert Mohler also drives home the importance of the doctrine of the virgin birth in a blog article entitled Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?:

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible's teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

May God grant us the grace to stand firm on this crucial doctrine when so many have been abandoning it.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Romans 5:1-5

2011-12-01T16:31:00.002-06:00

So far this series has considered seven case studies from Scripture, from which we have endeavored to draw lessons about some of the possible causes and cures for depression. Then we examined a couple of passages which speak directly to the issue of depression in order to see how the Bible says that we should face such a trial. Now let's turn our attention to some of the Bible's teaching that deals more generally with trials and tribulations, of which depression in all its forms would be a subset. For example, let's begin by examining some of Paul's teaching on trials in the Book of Romans:

NKJ Romans 5:1-5 “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”

I was reminded by this passage that through Christ I can “rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (vs. 2), and I think by this Paul means that I can rejoice in the knowledge that God will manifest His glory through me and in my life. In fact, later in this same epistle Paul describes the ultimate triumph of God's work in us as our being glorified. For example:

NKJ Romans 8:15-18 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.' 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs-- heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”

NKJ Romans 8:28-30 “28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

All things, including tribulations and suffering, are a part of God's plan to glorify us, that is, to reveal His glory in us. Although this ultimately happens in the resurrection (as the context in Romans 8 makes clear), it is happening to some degree even now, which is what I believe Paul is saying in Romans 5. I think he is trying to tell us that, as we learn to go through trials in faith, we see God being glorified in us more and more, and this gives us a foretaste of the coming glory that will be revealed in us. When Paul tells us that “we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope” in verse 3-4, the hope he is talking about is the “hope of the glory of God” he has mentioned in verse 2. So, the more we see God being glorified in and through us as we faithfully endure trials, the more we increase in the certainty that His promise of future glorification is, indeed, true.

There is a cycle revealed in Romans 5:1-5, one through which God has taken me many times before and with which I have become quite well acquainted. So perhaps an illustration of how the cycle has worked in my own life would help to explain what I mean more clearly. It comes from a time when I was just a kid, about twelve years old. I went with my family to a state park in southern Indiana that had a cave that went through a hillside and came out the other side. I think it was actually an abandoned attempt at building a railroad tunnel at one time. At any rate, the tunnel was just long enough that when you were in the middle of it you were in complete darkness and could see no light coming from either end. After having gone through the tunnel a couple of times with a flashlight, I decided – I vaguely remember a dare – to try to go through the tunnel with no light at all. Well, about half way through, as I was in the darkest part of the tunnel, feeling my way along, I remember being gripped by fear and worrying that maybe I would get lost somehow and no one would ever find me. And I thought about turning back. But what kept me going was that fact that I had been through the tunnel before, and I knew that if I just pressed on there would be a light ahead.

This is the same way with trials in my life. I have been through the tunnel before many times, and I know that, despite how dark things may be at any given time, there is always a light at the end! It is the “hope of the glory of God,” and it keeps me going, just as Paul said it would. Indeed, there is always a light at the end of the tunnel of every trial for the Christian, and it is the joy set before us as we see the glory of God more fully manifested in our own lives. May we ever seek this joy in Him! And may we accept the fact that it comes with suffering, even such suffering as depression. You see, even depression – however terrible it may be to endure – can be a lens through which we may see more clearly the glory of God being manifested in our lives, and this can bring us great reason for joy even in the midst of heartache.

Christmas Giveaway - The Fatal Flaw or Two Journey Books

2011-11-28T12:22:00.001-06:00

This year the Reformed Baptist Blog would like to thank our readers by offering an opportunity to two of the blog's email subscribers to receive free books for Christmas this year. One of our readers will receive a free copy of Dr. Jeff Johnson's book The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism, which I believe is the single best book on the subject from a Reformed Baptist perspective. It is also a good book for understanding Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective.

Another of our readers will receive a free copy of two of Dr. Richard Belcher's Journey books. They will include the first two books in the series, A Journey in Grace and A Journey in Purity (see here for more information). If you already have the first two books, then we will allow the substitution of any two of the other books in the series. I suspect that once you have read a couple of the Journey books, you will want to read more of them and will recommend them to others as well. As a pastor, I have found that folks have really been helped by them and have found them enjoyable reading as well.

On December 12 I will draw from the addresses included in the email subscriber list from FeedBurner. So, if you want to have a chance to receive these books, then make sure you sign up as an email subscriber to the blog using the Subscribe in a reader link on the right panel of this page. And make sure you click the "Get Reformed Baptist Blog delivered by email" option. Current email subscribers are already in the running.

Answering Bart Ehrman

2011-11-18T16:43:00.007-06:00

Ps 12:6-7, Isa 40:8, Matt 5:18 and Luke 16:17 directly or indirectly refer to God’s promise to protect and sustain the written revelation of God. Yet, Bart Ehrman has sold thousands of books (e.g., Forged, Misquoting Jesus and God’s Problem), and has gained the approval of National Geographic, the History Channel and the Discovery Channel by denying the faithful transmission of New Testament text. Ehrman not only claims that the Greek New Testament text has been corrupted, but that all the extant manuscripts are polluted to the point that it is impossible to reconstruct a trustworthy critical Greek text of the New Testament.

Ehrman is quick to point out that there are around 400,000 variants within the extant New Testament Greek manuscripts, and that there are no two manuscripts which perfectly agree with each other. Given that the autographs (the original documents) have been lost, and given the fact that there are no error free Greek manuscripts, it may appear that Ehrman is right. As we analyze the historical and textual evidence, are we to conclude that God has failed in fulfilling His promise to perverse His Word? Some seek to save God’s reputation by closing their eyes to the textual evidence and denying that there are any textual problems. Yet, we do not have to close our eyes to the textual evidence to believe in the supernatural preservation of God's Word. The evidence is on our side.

Ehrman stands in opposition to the consensus of the community of textual scholars and the overwhelming textual evidence. Yes, there are approximately 400,000 variant readings, and there are no two identical manuscripts, but no ancient piece of literature can boast of a more faithful transmission than the Scriptures. First, no other ancient book has more extant manuscripts than the New Testament—close to 6,000. Second, no other ancient work has extant manuscripts that are so close to the original autographs—P52 dates between 100-115 AD, and we have a host of papyri manuscripts that date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries. Third, of the 400,000 variants, 75 percent are spelling errors, which do not do any damage to the faithfulness of the Greek text. Fourth, another 24 percent of the variants are concerned with word order, but this too does not create much of a problem seeing that the subject of each sentence in the Greek is determined by word endings rather than by word placement. Fifth, that leaves only 1 percent (around 400) of variants that are of any importance, yet of those 400 variants, the majority are concerned with minor issues such as gospel harmonization. Sixth, only around 15 percent of the 1 percent of variants (about 50) is considered of any major significance, yet there is no doctrinal compromise in any of the variant readings. The virgin birth, the Trinity, the gospel and every other doctrine stands firm in the textual evidence.

Considering that there are 27 books and approximately 180,000 words in the New Testament, it is amazing that there are only 50 variants of any major concern. The evidence is amazing! The harmony between the manuscripts and textual families is amazing! Thus, it is my belief that only supernatural providence can account for such accurate and thorough preservation of the Scriptures.

Note: The above material is taken from an appendix to the forthcoming Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism, to be published by Solid Ground Christian Books.

e-Sword Has Been Updated to Version 10.0.5

2011-11-15T12:42:00.001-06:00

e-Sword, what I recommend as the best free Bible study software program, has been updated to version 10.0.5. Here is the description of the update from the e-Sword website:

e-Sword version 10.0 changes from 9.9

The Journal Notes, Study Notes and Topic Notes editors have been completely redesigned! You can now insert pictures, create tables, format with columns, have headers and footers, even work in print layout! There are dozens of new and improved features in the editors for you to enjoy working with.

A new Reference Library feature is now built into the program. With it you can view all Topic Notes and the new Reference Books modules downloaded from the e-Sword web site, as well as those created by others. No longer are these mixed in the Topic Notes editor with your own personal notes.

A new SermonAudio.com feature is now built into the program. Working with the folks at SermonAudio.com, we have provided an easy way for you to listen to nearly a half million sermons on any passage of the Bible!

The Resources feature has been updated to allow the management of Topic Notes and Reference Books.

If you haven't already tried e-Sword, I suggest you check it out.

Veterans Day Salute to the Men Who Served Aboard the USS Caron

2011-11-11T12:55:00.011-06:00

Today I just want to take a few minutes to thank my fellow veterans for their service. I pray that God will bless you and keep you, and for those of you who have not yet come to trust in Christ as your Lord and Savior, I pray that God will open your hearts to the Gospel soon. I pray that you might come to believe that Jesus died on the cross for sinners such as you and me, so that we might have forgiveness of sins and peace with God, and that He rose from the dead that we might have everlasting life. I also offer you my testimony as to how the Lord Jesus saved me and pray that He will open your eyes to the truth just as He did mine. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to know more.

I also want to take some time to offer a special salute to the many men who served aboard the U.S.S. Caron (DD 970, pictured left) during her relatively short history. I count it one of the privileges of my life not only to have served with so many fine sailors in the U.S. Navy, but especially to have served aboard the Caron during the Reagan administration and at the height of the Cold War. Here is a brief history of the Caron:

During Caron's more than 20 years of service, she was involved in nearly every conflict that the U.S. had been involved in since her commissioning. Caron was in Grenada, Gulf of Sidra, Beirut, Black Sea, CentAm SpecOps, Gulf War and Haiti. Caron was the first warship to fire Tomahawk missiles in two separate combat engagements when she fired twelve missiles on 17 January 1993, destroying a nuclear weapons development facility outside Baghdad.

1974: Laid Down.
1977: Commissioned.
1979: Black Sea Ops with USS McCandless FF-1084. Soviets stage a mock missile attack against Caron.
1983: Operation Urgent Fury. Caron fires 5" guns in combat.
1983-1984: Multi-National Peacekeeping Force Beirut, Lebanon. Caron fires guns in multiple engagements.
1985: Classified Operations in Central America (SpecOps)
1986: Operation Attain Document I, II, III, Operation El Dorado Canyon and Operation Prairie Fire against Libya.
1988: Black Sea Ops. Caron is rammed by Soviet Mikra II Class frigate.
1991: Operation Desert Storm. Fired Tomahawk missiles in engagement with Iraq.
1993: Fired tomahawk missiles in engagement with Iraq.
1993: Enforced UN sanctions against Haiti.
1996: Operation Southern Watch in Persian Gulf.
2001: Decommissioned.
2002: Sunk near Puerto Rico.

I served aboard the Caron from 1985-1987, during which time the Lord Jesus saved me and I met my wife, Kim, in Haifa, Israel. So, as you can imagine, the Caron holds special memories for me. In fact, when I heard the U.S. Navy had sunk her after demolitions testing in 2002, I am not ashamed to say that I actually cried.

The Caron was a very special ship for another reason, though, since she was a spy ship, a fact that meant she was often in dangerous situations, particularly during the Cold War era. In fact, the May 1988 edition of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists devoted an article to the Caron's role as a spy ship, with a particular focus on her Black Sea operations. Although I don't think the article is fair in its assessment of the Caron's operations in Soviet waters, the article does get the facts about her basic configuration, mission, and operations right, as when it states:

The Caron is a specially and uniquely appointed spyship; it is a modern day Pueblo. Its very configuration and mission deny it rights that might be accorded to other ships. Since its commissioning in October 1977, it has been loaded with signals intelligence sensors. It is the Navy's premier ship equipped with the "Classic Outboard" system, which performs over-the-horizon targeting and surveillance. It was the first ship to be equipped with digital computers directly linked to its sonar and other sensors.

Since 1980 the Caron has led 24 intelligence collection missions for the Atlantic Fleet. In 1980-81, the vessel was dispatched above the Arctic Circle and into the Baltic Sea to follow the Kiev aircraft carrier battle group and practice new over-the-horizon targeting and surveillance techniques against the Soviet Union. Besides its latest escapade [referring to the 1988 ramming of the Caron by a Soviet frigate in the Black Sea], the Caron has conducted three other Black sea surveillance operations [during which I was aboard], including the incident in March 1986 in which it and the U.S.S. Yorktown came within six miles of the Soviet coast.

But the lion's share of the Caron's work has been in the Third World -- off the coast of Central America, in the eastern Mediterranean, and around Libya -- where the ship has conducted 16 separate intelligence missions since 1980. The Caron was the first ship to arrive on station in the Caribbean for operation "Urgent Fury," the 1983 invasion of Grenada. The Caron has spent more time off the coast of Nicaragua than any other U.S. Navy ship since Ronald Reagan took office. In 1981, the Caron was the first ship to track Libyan Fitter fighters reconnoitering U.S. Navy operations. In 1986 the Caron was the first to cross the "line of death" into the Gulf of Sidra before the bombing of Libya.

The article then goes on to give a (partial) timeline of the Caron's operations. To give you an idea of the some of the things the Caron was called upon to do, I offer their timeline for the year 1986, during which time I was aboard as part of the Combat Systems Division:

January 1: Caron begins four months of duty in various "Operations in the vicinity of Libya," including Gulf of Sidra operations January 7-February 1 and February 7-17.
March 10-17: Caron takes time out of Libya surveillance to conduct Black Sea operations with the U.S.S. Yorktown (CG-48), entering on March 10. On March 16 the ships come within six miles of the Crimean Peninsula near Sevastopol. There are three Black Sea deployments in 1986.
March 18: The Soviet Union delivers a note to the U.S. embassy in Moscow protesting the incursion of two U.S. Navy vessels into Soviet territorial waters. A White House spokesman says the vessels were testing the "right of innocent passage," and insists it was not meant to be "provocative or defiant" deployment.
March 22-29: Caron serves as flagship for Destroyer Squadron 20 which leads a three-ship surface-action group to be the first vessel to cross the "line of death" in the Gulf of Sidra.
April 16: Caron ends its operations in the vicinity of Libya.

Although the information that is publicly available is somewhat sketchy, it is clear the type of ship the Caron was and why the many men who served aboard her over the years are so proud to have done so. Especially during the Cold War, the men who served aboard the Caron truly were on the leading edge of America's military providing an invaluable service to their country. The ship's motto was "Vision, Victory, Valor," and her crew always sought to live up to these ideals.

Here are some photos to help you get a better picture of the Caron.

The photo above shows the Caron "haze gray and underway" in calm seas.

The photo above shows the Caron turning.

The photo above shows the Caron in the Panama Canal, a trip I sadly missed.

The photo above shows a Soviet frigate coming in close to the Caron during Black Sea operations.

The photo above shows the Caron firing an anti-submarine rocket (ASROC) from the launcher mounted on the forecastle (that box-like launcher on the front end of the ship shown in several photos above). My job, as a part of the Anti-Submarine Warfare section of the Combat Systems Division, was to operate and maintain the ASROC launcher.

The photo above shows the Yosemite Sam one of my shipmates painted on the side of our ASROC launcher.

The photo above shows the Caron in some rough seas.

The photo above shows a lifering on the aft end of the ship while underway.

The photo above shows the Caron being used for explosives testing off the coast of Puerto Rico shortly before she was sunk on December 4, 2002.

The two photos above show the Caron in her final moments. What sad pictures!

The photo above shows one of my shipmates, Gary Harvey, who was one of the key men the Lord brought into my life to share the Gospel with me and to lead me to faith in Christ. What a happy picture!

Voddie Baucham Talks to Men About the Command to Love Their Wives

2011-10-22T21:44:00.000-05:00

All I have to say is, "Right on, Voddie!"

Free Audio And Video Series From R.C. Sproul

2011-10-15T19:23:00.001-05:00

Ligonier Ministries is offering many of R.C. Sproul's audio and video teaching series online for free here. The many series available for free include his classic Biblical and theological teaching on being chosen by God, the holiness of God, the providence of God, justification by faith alone, and the Trinity.

There are also many series available on apologetic issues. You will definitely want to check out these free resources from one of this country's greatest Reformed teachers.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Psalm 119

2011-10-13T16:05:00.004-05:00

In this post I would like to shift focus to another psalm. Psalm 119 has several stanzas in which the author describes a struggle with what we would call depression, but we will focus our attention on the Daleth stanza in verses 25-32:

NKJ Psalm 119:25 “My soul clings [דָּבַק, dāḇaq] to the dust; revive me according to Your word.”

Here the Psalmist describes how low he feels with the graphic metaphor, “my soul clings to the dust.” It is similar to the metaphor I have sometimes heard and used, “I'm so low I feel I've been sucking the mud.” The NIV translates the idiom, “I am laid low in the dust.” However, it is also possible that we should understand the Psalmist as Charles Spurgeon suggests:

He means in part that he was full of sorrow; for mourners in the east cast dust on their heads, and sat in ashes, and the Psalmist felt as if these ensigns of woe were glued to him, and his very soul was made to cleave to them because of his powerlessness to rise above his grief …. Whatever was the cause of his complaint, it was no surface evil, but an affair of his inmost spirit; his soul cleaved to the dust; and it was not a casual and accidental falling into the dust, but a continuous and powerful tendency, or cleaving to the earth. But what a mercy that the good man could feel and deplore whatever there was of evil in the cleaving! The serpent's seed can find their meat in the dust, but never shall the seed of the woman be thus degraded. (Treasury of David, e-Sword)

The word translated revive is the piel of חָיָה (ḥāyāh), which means to “preserve, keep alive … [or] bring (back) to life” (Holladay #2491, BibleWorks). Thus the Psalmist feels as though he is dying and thus needs reviving, although we shall see in verse 28 that he appears actually to be extremely distressed or depressed.

Thankfully, however, he knows that the answer to his woes is to be found in seeking the Lord in prayer and in His Word. And he also knows he needs to abandon control of his own life to the Lord, as the next verses make clear.

NKJ Psalm 119:26-27 “I have declared my ways [דֶּרֶךְ, derek, path], and You answered me; teach me Your statutes. 27 Make me understand the way [דֶּרֶךְ, derek, path] of Your precepts; so shall I meditate on Your wondrous works.”

When the Psalmist says that he has declared his ways, he seems to mean that he has confessed his own sinful ways to God (see also vs. 29). But as with all true confession and repentance, the Psalmist is not satisfied unless he learns to follow the right way. Thus he asks God to teach him and to give him understanding of His Word as he meditates on it. Perhaps the depression the man is experiencing is due to God's discipline for his sins, but whatever the reason, the answer is found in trusting the Lord to speak to him through His Word and thus to help him turn his life around.

NKJ Psalm 119:28 “My soul melts [דָּלַף, dālap̱] from heaviness [תּוּגָה, tûg̱āh]; strengthen me according to Your word.”

Here is another vivid metaphor by which the Psalmist describes his depression. He refers to his weeping as though his soul is melting away with each teardrop. The Hebrew word, דָּלַף (dālap̱), literally means to drop or drip and can refer to a leak in the roof of a house (BDB #2150, BibleWorks). Have you ever felt – or could you imagine feeling – as though your very soul was leaking out of your body with every tear that falls? This is what the Psalmist felt like, and it is a description of a very heavy heart indeed! This is no doubt why the NKJV translates the first line as “My soul melts from heaviness” (italics mine). However, the Hebrew word is תּוּגָה (tûg̱āh), which would better be translated as grief. In fact, The Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates states of this word that:

It refers to the emotion and process of feeling a great loss and loneliness (Psa 119:28). A son who is a fool creates grief in his parents (Pro 10:1; 17:21. For the wicked, even the end of joy is grief (Pro 14:13). (e-Sword)

At any rate the NIV translation of the opening line as “My soul is weary with sorrow” is a poor one because it misses the metaphor of the soul as “melting away in the trickling down of tears” (Keil & Delitzsch, e-Sword).

But notice again that in the very next line the Psalmist asks God for help, and he specifically asks Him for help according to His Word. As Charles Spurgeon put it:

He had found out an ancient promise that the saints shall be strengthened, and here he pleads it. His hope in his state of depression lies not in himself, but in his God; if he may be strengthened from on high he will yet shake off his heaviness and rise to joy again. Observe how he pleads the promise of the word, and asks for nothing more than to be dealt with after the recorded manner of the Lord of mercy. (Treasury of David, e-Sword)

I hope all of us will also confidently trust in the Lord and His promises when we are so far down in the dumps! If we struggle to trust Him this way, then we need to ask all the more, “strengthen me according to Your word.”

NKJ Psalm 119:29 “Remove from me the way [דֶּרֶךְ, derek, path] of lying, and grant me Your law graciously.”

Earlier the Psalmist had confessed his ways to the Lord (recall vs. 26). Here he gets more specific and confesses a struggle with lying. But once again he is not content just to ask the Lord to take lying away from him. He knows that in its place must come the Word of God, which is why he immediately adds, “and grant me Your law graciously.”

It is also possible that the Psalmist has in mind hypocrisy in general, which is the way the ESV seems to take the verse when it translates the opening line, “Put false ways far from me.” Either way, it is easy to see why he says what he says in the next verse.

NKJ Psalm 119:30 “I have chosen the way [דֶּרֶךְ, derek, path] of truth [אֱמוּנָה, ’emûnāh, or faithfulness]; Your judgments I have laid before me.”

The Psalmist has not only chosen to put lying behind him with God's help, he has also chosen to live his life according to God's truth and to keep it before Him. This is what the metaphor of walking in a particular way means. It means that one has chosen to live in a particular way. In this case, it reflects the choice to live in the way of truth as found in God's Word. This recalls his earlier desire to understand and meditate on God's Word and on His works revealed therein (vs. 27).

NKJ Psalm 119:31 “I cling [דָּבַק, dāḇaq] to Your testimonies; O LORD, do not put me to shame!”

Here the Psalmist uses the repetition of a key word to help reinforce his point about his commitment to God's Word. He began the psalm by saying, “My soul clings [דָּבַק, dāḇaq] to the dust,” and now he uses the same Hebrew word to declare, “I cling [דָּבַק, dāḇaq] to Your testimonies.”

Here some modern versions – in their desire to avoid repetitious language – translate this word with different English words and actually miss a key emphasis of the author (see, e.g., the NIV and NASB). But in this instance, at least, the NKJV does better by translating the Hebrew word the same way in both places, enabling us to see how the author applies the remedy to the specific problem mentioned earlier. In this way the Psalmist shows us that the remedy for a soul that clings to the dust is to cling just as tightly to God's Word! How sad it is when we neglect God's Word in our times of sorrow and depression! The Psalmist no doubt felt the same temptation, which is why he resolves in this psalm not to neglect God's Word and constantly asks for God's help to understand it, to meditate on it, and to live faithfully according to it.

I think this is also why the Psalmist cries out, “O LORD, do not put me to shame!” He does not want to experience the shame that will come from abandoning God's way and God's Word in the midst of his depression. Apparently, the only thing worse for him than the terrible sorrow he is feeling would be to falter in his walk with God and in his witness for God.

NKJ Psalm 119:32 “I will run the course [דֶּרֶךְ, derek, way or path] of Your commandments, for You shall enlarge [רָחַב , rāḥaḇ] my heart.”

Here again the Psalmist uses metaphorical language, this time to describe his resolve and his confidence that God will indeed answer his prayer and enable him to live as he should. In the first line he says not just that he will walk in the way or path of the God's commandments, but that he will run in them! But what does a person in ancient Israel need if he is going to run along the mountainous terrain? He needs a large or wide path! And this is what leads to the metaphor in the next line, where the NKJV has quite literally translated it, “for You shall enlarge my heart” (see also the ESV and NASB). The Complete Word Study Dictionary says of the Hebrew word that it is:

A verb indicating to enlarge, to extend; to open wide. It means to gain living space, territory (Gen 26:22); especially as the work of the Lord (Exo 34:24; Deu 12:20; 19:8). The psalmists praise God for enlarging them, giving them strength (2 Sam 22:37). It is used of giving a person space, relief in a time of danger (Psa 4:1). (e-Sword)

Here the Psalmist seems to have in mind the idea that God will enlarge his heart so that it will be big enough to take in all the teaching of His Word and so that it will increase in its ability to live in accordance with it. The point the Psalmist is making here is clear enough, namely that he will be very successful navigating the course of his life in accordance with God's Word because he knows God will help him by giving him the heart to do so. This, he believes, will be the best medicine for his depression, a life lived in increasing faithfulness to God. I hope we will learn the same lesson. I hope we will learn that, especially when we are depressed, our greatest need is to seek God in prayer and ask His mercy and help to depend upon His Word rather than allowing our our feelings or circumstances to distract us from it.

A Thought-Provoking Video About the American Holocaust and Its Cause

2011-10-04T18:54:00.000-05:00

I found this video quite powerful and though-provoking. Let me know what you all think.

Sermons From Reformed Baptist Blog Pastors

2011-09-29T17:33:00.002-05:00

For readers of the blog who may be interested, here are links to sites containing sermons from the various members of the blog. Although I am the founder of the blog, and its primary author up to now, I will post my link last, following an alphabetical order in presentation:

First, for sermons by Dr. Richard Belcher, I offer two links. For his Covenant Baptist Church sermons, see here. And for his SermonAudion.com sermons, see here.

Second, for sermons by Dr. Jeff Johnson, see the sermons page for Grace Bible Church here.

Third, for sermons by Kerry Miller, see the sermons page for Christ Bible Church here.

Fourth, for sermons by me – Keith Throop – see the SermonAudio.com page for Immanuel Baptist Church here.

I hope and pray that you will be edified as you listen to preaching from men committed to the principle of Sola Scriptura and to the Doctrines of Grace. Please feel free to contact any one of us with questions or comments.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Psalm 42

2011-09-27T10:01:00.005-05:00

Today I would like to offer the first of two posts dealing with passages in which the Bible speaks directly to the issue of depression in the life of a believer. There are a number of places in the Psalms in particular that deal directly with depression in one form or another, but I will focus my attention on just two of them. In this post I will discuss Psalm 42, and in the next post I will highlight a portion of Psalm 119.

Let's turn our attention now to Psalm 42, in which the Sons of Korah vividly describe a believer's battle with deep depression.

NKJ Psalm 42:1-3 “As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. 2 My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. When shall I come and appear before God? 3 My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually say to me, 'Where is your God?'”

Here the Psalmist describes what would seem to be a continual discouragement or depression, for he speaks of crying day and night. But, as if that wasn't bad enough, while he struggles with depression there are people continually speaking discouraging words to him. They have seen how blue he is, and it has apparently led them to question where God is in his life. The situation seems to be one in which they are essentially saying, “If your God is so great, then why are you so sad?” After all, the Psalmist does thirst for God and seek Him, but he still finds no comfort. And as others see this struggle, they keep on tempting him to question God's love and care for him, for what else could they mean in such a situation when they say, “Where is your God?” Yet, despite these trying circumstances, he doesn't stop thirsting for God.

NKJ Psalm 42:4 “When I remember these things, I pour out my soul within me. For I used to go with the multitude; I went with them to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept a pilgrim feast.”

Here the Psalmist recalls his previous experience of joy in the Lord, when he used to join everyone else in the house of God “with the voice of joy and praise” as opposed to crying out in sorrow and discouragement through constant tears. He had even led the people in worship, which makes sense, because the psalm is attributed to the Sons of Korah, who were among those to whom King David had given this task (1 Chron. 6:31-38). But the important thing for us to notice here is that this individual is described as not taking part in corporate worship, although the authors don't say precisely why. Perhaps he was unable to be there due to circumstances beyond his control, although he still longed to go. Or perhaps he was like so many believers today who avoid being with God's people when they are depressed. Either way it is not a good thing, especially since, being apart from fellow believers, the Psalmist is only hearing discouraging words (“Where is your God?” vs. 3) rather than finding comfort and encouragement with God's people. No wonder the author of Hebrews later warned Christians not to avoid gathering together even when they are going through trying times (Heb. 10:32-34; 12:4). Indeed, he thinks that regular gathering for worship and mutual encouragement is even more necessary in such times:

NKJ Hebrews 10:23-25 “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.”

At any rate, the Psalmist remembers a time when he felt close to God, and he longs for such a time again, as the next verse indicates:

NKJ Psalm 42:5 “Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him for the help of His countenance [פָּנֶה, pāneh, literally face, commonly occurring in the plural, i.e. פָּנִים, pāniym].” [Note: He repeats this self-talk in vs. 11, except for a significant change, which we will see examine below.]

Notice that, since the Psalmist is not with God's people in order to hear them speak words of encouragement, he preaches to himself! Martyn Lloyd-Jones helpfully expounds upon this same point in his classic book, Spiritual Depression, which is based primarily on this psalm:

Have you realized that most of your unhappiness in life is due to the fact that you are listening to yourself instead of talking to yourself? Take those thoughts that come to you the moment you wake up in the morning. You have not originated them but they are talking to you, they bring back the problems of yesterday, etc. Somebody is talking. Who is talking to you? Your self is talking to you. Now this man’s treatment [in Psalm 42] was this: instead of allowing this self to talk to him, he starts talking to himself. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul?” he asks. His soul had been depressing him, crushing him. So he stands up and says,: “Self, listen for moment, I will speak to you.” (pp. 20-21)

Charles Spurgeon is also very good in applying this text in his classic commentary on the Psalms, The Treasury of David, which I recommend as great devotional reading. Listen to what he says:

As though he were two men, the Psalmist talks to himself. His faith reasons with his fears, his hope argues with his sorrows. These present troubles, are they to last for ever? The rejoicings of my foes, are they more than empty talk? My absence, from the solemn feasts, is that a perpetual exile? Why this deep depression, this faithless fainting, this chicken-hearted melancholy? As Trapp says, “David chideth David out of the dumps;” and herein he is an example for all desponding ones. To search out the cause of our sorrow is often the best surgery for grief. Self-ignorance is not bliss; in this case it is misery. The mist of ignorance magnifies the causes of our alarm; a clearer view will make monsters dwindle into trifles. (e-Sword)

I would only point out that, while it is true that the Psalmist questions himself as to why he is so downcast, the emphasis is not placed on the reasons or circumstances that have led to his depression so much as it is placed upon not allowing any circumstance or cause for discouragement to overwhelm him when he does, in fact, know God. In other words, the Psalmist seeks to lift himself out of the pit of depression by reminding himself that there really is reason to hope in God, despite what his feelings are telling him.

Notice also that this depressed individual resolves to once again praise the Lord, and he even begins to pray to God and to praise Him in the very next verse (and, of course, the whole Psalm is itself intended for public worship and praise as well). But here it is significant that he says that he will praise God for “the help of His countenance.” This language recalls the blessing the priests were to pronounce over the people as a promise from God:

NKJ Numbers 6:23-27 “23 Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying,'This is the way you shall bless the children of Israel. Say to them: 24 “The LORD bless you and keep you; 25 the LORD make His face [פָּנֶה, pāneh] shine upon you, and be gracious to you; 26 the LORD lift up His countenance [פָּנֶה, pāneh, literally face] upon you, and give you peace.”' 27 So they shall put My name on the children of Israel, and I will bless them.”

It is noteworthy that the Sons of Korah place this same vocabulary in the mouth of the depressed person in this psalm. I think they intend to picture him as laying hold of these promises of God and preaching them to his own soul. And, even though he does not sense God's presence at the present time – indeed he feels far from God – he nevertheless places his hope in the fact that God will again “lift up His countenance” upon him. He thus places his trust in God and His Word rather than in his own circumstances or feelings, doesn't he? And here we find a key weapon in battling depression, the Word of God! Indeed, this is the very reason why we are spending so much time searching the Word of God in this series of posts!

NKJ Psalm 42:6 “O my God, my soul is cast down within me; therefore I will remember You from the land of the Jordan, and from the heights of Hermon, from the Hill Mizar.”

This verse appears to place this struggling saint in the far northern reaches of Israel, north of the Sea of Galilee, where Mount Hermon and the headwaters of the Jordan are located. This may also be why he spoke in verse 4 of remembering having previously gone “to the house of God, with the voice of joy and praise, with a multitude that kept a pilgrim feast,” because now he is said to be far from there. He could still experience fellowship and corporate worship with God's people, but it just isn't the same as when he was able to go to the sanctuary of the Lord in Jerusalem.

But notice also that is he talking to God again, telling Him about how his soul is “cast down” within him. No matter how far away he feels he is from God – or from feeling good – he still clings to his relationship with God. And he persists in prayer, another indispensable weapon for battling depression.

NKJ Psalm 42:7 “ Deep calls unto deep at the noise of Your waterfalls; all Your waves and billows have gone over me.”

I think Thomas Constable has captured well the basic meaning of the metaphorical language in this verse:

The writer viewed his troubles like waves cascading down on him, as if he were standing under a waterfall. He compared the noise of the waves to his troubles that he personified calling to one another to come overwhelm him. (Online Bible Study Notes on the Psalms)

The metaphor that pictures troubles as an overwhelming flood or like the sea raging around a person is common in the Bible (see, e.g., Psa. 32:6; 46:2-3; 69:1-2) and is an apt description of the way depression seems to overwhelm us.

NKJ Psalm 42:8-9 “The LORD will command His lovingkindness in the daytime, and in the night His song shall be with me – a prayer to the God of my life. 9 I will say to God my Rock, 'Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?'”

Once again the Psalmist reminds himself that, despite his feelings, God really does love him, and he determines to persist in praise and prayer, singing to God and calling on Him. And he will continue to seek an answer from God.

NKJ Psalm 42:10 “As with a breaking of my bones, my enemies reproach me, while they say to me all day long, 'Where is your God?'”

Following the mention of the oppression from his enemies in verse 9, this poor saint speaks of the effect of their insults as being so painful they are like someone breaking his bones. He especially doesn't like it when they mockingly ask him, “Where is your God?” In fact, this is the second time he has brought it up, having already said in verse 3, “My tears have been my food day and night, while they continually say to me, 'Where is your God?'” So we get the impression that, on top of everything else, this person apparently feels as though he is being a very bad witness for the Lord. Many a modern believer who struggles with depression may feel the same way, as though he is being a bad witness for Christ because he struggles to hang on to the joy Christ has promised for His followers. It is understandable that a believer would feel this way, but it isn't necessarily true that he is being a bad witness at such times, at least not if he continues to trust in the Lord even through such a terrible trial. Indeed, isn't the believer pictured in this very psalm an example of how one may be a good witness for God even in the midst of depression?

NKJ Psalm 42:11 “Why are you cast down, O my soul? And why are you disquieted within me? Hope in God; For I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance and my God.”

Notice the difference between the Psalmist's self-address earlier in verse 5 and here in verse 11:

In verse 5 he said, “I shall yet praise Him for the help of His countenance [פָּנֶה, pāneh].”

In verse 11 he says, “I shall yet praise Him, the help of my countenance [פָּנֶה, pāneh] and my God.”

Because he knows God will again lift up His countenance upon him, the Psalmist also knows that his own countenance will be better as well. When God's face again shines upon him, his own face will again shine toward others. Notice that the Psalmist also ends by referring to the Lord as “my God.” He will not turn away from God in his difficulties; he will continue to turn toward Him.

In seeking to further apply this psalm, it is worth observing that the Sons of Korah ask the all important “why” question about depression, and that this question leads them back to God. In fact, they have the main character of the psalm asking “why” at least six times (vs. 5 [2x], 9 [2x], 11 [2x]). And they have him asking himself the crucial question “Why are you cast down, O my soul?” at least twice ( vs. 5 and 11, if you don't take Psalm 43 as belonging with this one and add 43:5).

Ed Welch has written an insightful article entitled Words of Hope for Those Who Struggle With Depression, in which he speaks of the potential importance of asking this question. He warrants significant quotation:

As you think about the meaning of your feelings, you will notice that, rather than leading you to more and more despair, the path leads you to the triune God. More specifically, it will lead you to the question, Will you live for God or will you live for yourself and the things you worship? Sometimes it takes awhile to get to this most critical of questions, but it is always there. Usually, all you have to do is ask yourself the “why” questions of a three-year-old.

“I can’t go on.”
“Why?”
“Because I am so tired and I can’t take the pain any more.”
“Why?”
“Because I feel like I am alone.”
“Why?”
“Because … I don’t believe that God is with me.”
“Why?”
“Because … I don’t trust him. I trust in my interpretation that comes from my feelings.”

“Why” questions should lead you to God. You will get tired of the questions by the time you get to the second one, but keep them coming. At the end of your questions say to Him, “Jesus is my Lord, I confess my unbelief, and I trust You.”

Trust, confession of sin, and following Christ in obedience — sound familiar? These are the staples of the spiritual life. When you get under the surface, these are the things that are important for everyone. You will find that they work.

If these seem superficial, then you are numb to the secrets of the universe and you need to go back to listening. Don’t trust what your emotions are saying on this one. These may be simple, but they are not simplistic. They are the foundations for life itself. They are the primary ways we respond to God. (Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2000, p. 44)

Yes, the ultimate answer for dealing with depression is to trust the Lord. It really is that simple … and that hard! That is why we cannot do it without the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit. Thank God, then, that His Spirit really is present in each and every believer to give us the faith we need to face any and every trial, even the terrible trial of depression.

Dr. Bob Gonzales on the Validity and Value of Confessions

2011-09-22T14:46:00.002-05:00

To continue the theme begun by Jeff Johnson regarding the importance and necessity of confessions (here and here), I would like to bring to your attention some articles by Bob Gonzales at his new blog, It Is Written, where he has been writing a series of posts on the validity and value of confessions. There are three:

1) The Validity & Value of Confessions: Defining Terms

Bob reworks Philip Schaff’s definition of a creed and offers this modified definition:

A creed or a confession of faith is the church’s doctrinal standard in written form, identifying and expounding those doctrines of Scripture that are essential for salvation, as well as those doctrines of Scripture that are necessary for the spiritual well-being of the Christian and of the church.

Sounds good to me!

2) The Validity & Value of Confessions: Biblical Basis

After stressing the importance of our publicly confessing our faith, based upon such passages as Matt. 10:32-33 and Romans 10:9-10, Bob states:

How does this square with the claim that faith and religion are personal and private matters? Many people today, especially politicians, claim to have faith and religion; yet they studiously avoid any public affirmation of what that means. Contrary to this practice, the Bible calls God’s people to confess their faith unashamedly and publicly. This is precisely what we do by publishing and affirming a written confession of faith. We are proclaiming to the world and to one another both the reality and the substance of what we believe.

Bob establishes three points summarized by him thusly:

To summarize, a confession of faith is valid because (1) the Bible commands the public affirmation of our faith, (2) the Bible commends the interpretation and application of Scripture, and (3) the Bible contains seminal creeds and confessions of faith. Far from discouraging creeds, the Bible validates their composition and use.

These points are based firmly upon a Scriptural foundation and are clearly and succinctly argued.

3) The Validity & Value of Confessions: Objections Answered

In this post Bob responds to three common objections to the use of creeds or confessions: 1. "Confessions undermine the authority of Scripture." 2. "Confessions contradict the sufficiency of Scripture." 3. "Confessions intrude upon liberty of conscience."

After responding to each objection, Bob rightly concludes that "a public confession of biblical truth in the form of a creed need not in principle undermine the authority of God’s Word, contradict the sufficiency of Scripture, or infringe upon liberty of conscience."

I highly recommend reading this brief but thorough series, and I hope I have whet your appetite to do so. Together with what Jeff has written on our blog, I think you will be well prepared to defend the necessity of the appropriate use of confessions by the churches even in – or perhaps especially in – our pluralistic and relativistic age.

Update 05 October 2011

Bob has added another post in the series:

4) The Validity & Value of Confessions: Their Usefulness

In this post Bob offers three primary reasons for the usefulness of confessions: 1. "A Confession Provides a Standard for Intra- and Inter-Church Fellowship." 2. "A Confession Provides a Standard for Church Discipline and for Defending the Faith." 3. "A Confession Provides a Summary of Biblical Doctrine for Evangelism and Education."

Countering Anti-confessionalism – Part 2

2011-09-16T23:23:00.007-05:00

Part 1, which dealt with the nature of mysticism and its introduction into Christianity, was posted last week here. This post concludes the two part series.

The Introduction of Existentialism into Christianity

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the Father of Modern Liberal Theology, sought to reconcile postmodernism (the ineffable nature of ultimate reality) with Christianity. Schleiermacher reasoned that if knowledge of ultimate reality (God) is locked behind a transcendental wall, then the Bible could not have had a divine or supernatural origin. Consequently, Schleiermacher denied the supernatural elements of the Scriptures. Once he removed the inspiration of Scripture, Schleiermacher did away with the miracles as well. According to Schleiermacher, because the Bible is uninspired, it is fallible. In the process, Schleiermacher became one of the major contributors of Higher Criticism, which flowed out of Germany in his day.

The Higher Criticism of Schleiermacher greatly influenced the Lutheran Church throughout Europe to such a degree that Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) was outraged at the spiritual lifelessness of the Danish National Church. Danish citizens were Lutherans by birth, and thus they saw no need for a personal and subjective knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. But Kierkegaard knew that Christianity was to be more than just a name; it was to be a relationship. It was not the objective facts that were important, but the subjective reality. Objectively it may be impossible to prove Christianity, but, even if it could be proven, this would not establish a subjective relationship with the Lord. According to Kierkegaard, what was important was the new birth. People needed to experience Jesus Christ experientially. How would this existential experience come? By faith, he determined. According to Kierkegaard, faith transcends reason and sense perception and provides an existential experience for the believer. Kierkegaard adopted the confession of Tertullian, “credo quia absurdum” (I believe because it is absurd). In this creed, Kierkegaard meant that the gospel message is neither rational nor supported by empiricism, yet faith does not need a reason or proof to believe. Faith is its own proof. In fact, according to Kierkegaard, this is the very nature of faith – a leap into the darkness. Faith leaps the believer over the transcendental wall, which separates finite man from the true knowledge of God.

Karl Barth (1886-1968) also reacted against the liberal theology of Schleiermacher, but sadly accepted the claims of Higher Criticism in his Neo-Orthodoxy. Barth, along with Brunner, Bultmann and Tillich, sought to save Christianity from the theology of liberalism while accepting the foundation of liberalism – Higher Criticism. The solution, according to these German theologians, was found in the philosophical writings of Kierkegaard – existentialism. Existentialism allows spiritual truth to be ascertained independently of an infallible book.

According to Barth, God's revelation is His Word and His Word is not the Bible, but the person of Jesus Christ. To understand God's revelation is to understand the Lord Jesus. Without an experiential knowledge of Jesus, there is no real apprehension of the revelation of God.

What about the Bible? Emil Brunner (1889-1966) claimed that just as a record has all kinds of noises and static along with the sound of a voice, the Bible has all kinds of sounds (errors) along with the voice of God. That is, the Bible contains God's Word, but is not God's Word. The key is to listen to the voice of the Lord and not to the static.

Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976) was even more consistent with his postmodern form of Christianity. He agreed with Barth and Brunner that the main concern in Christianity is faith in Christ, yet belief in the historical Jesus was optional. In his demythology Bultmann sought to remove the apparent myths from within pages of Scriptures. It is the spiritual truth behind the story that matters, not the historicity of the story. The story of the resurrection, for instance, is not a historical fact as much as it is a symbolic story capturing the new life and hope believers have in Christ.

If the Bible is a fallible book that contains the voice of the Lord, how is the reader able to discern the voice of the Lord from all the errors and myths? According to Paul Tillich (1886–1965), truth is ascertained through a dialectic hermeneutic (a three tier method of interpretation). Like Hegel’s dialectics of thesis, antithesis and then synthesis, Tillich claimed that spiritual truth is discovered through the Bible, culture and church history. Throughout church history, doctrine has been formed, shaped and reshaped by various cultural concerns and controversies, and as new cultural concerns and controversies arise, new conclusions will be drawn. And since history is not fixed, doctrine will always be fluid and changing.

The Emergent Church

Brian McLaren (1956-current), one of the more prominent leaders in the Emergent Church, has adopted this postmodern view of Biblical interpretation and has consequently brought postmodernism, existentialism and neo-orthodoxy to their natural conclusion – a Christianity with no absolutes that embraces all religious faiths, a type of pluralism.

McLaren argues in his book, A New Kind of Christian, that the problem with traditional Christianity is its antithetical view of truth – where truth is viewed as existing as a point on a horizontal line. This method of interpretation, McLaren claims, divides Christians (Catholics and Protestants, Calvinists and Arminians, etc…). For instance, Catholics argue that their interpretation is right on justification, while Protestants claim the same. According to McLaren, the problem with one side being right and the other side being wrong is that it is impossible for either side to have an infallible interpretation of Scripture. The reason both interpretations are fallible is that every interpretation is bound to the limitations of culture, history and language. Man can never rise above his own finiteness and limitations. According to McLaren, since no single interpretation (Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist, Arminian, etc…) is infallible, none can be authoritative. The only authoritative position is God’s position.

But, does not the Bible reveal God’s position? According to McLaren, not necessarily; but even if it did, finite man would still be unable to discern it. Absolute truth is stuck behind a transcendental wall that even those who read the Bible are unable to scale.

If authority always remains behind an impregnable wall, what use is the Bible? According to McLaren, the Bible was never meant to communicate absolute truth, but it does provide a reference point to help steer believers in the right direction. Rather than faith being like a building – having a single reference point or a single foundation, faith has multiple anchor points like a spider-web. The Bible (at least an interpretation of the Bible), church history, culture and spiritual experience all influence a person’s faith. Since there are multiple and even conflicting anchor points, truth will always remain relative.

Furthermore, according to McLaren, doctrinal absolutes are not even important. “I believe people are saved not by objective truth, but by Jesus. Their faith isn’t in their knowledge, but in God."[1] Relativism opens the doors to all types of religious beliefs, doors which McLaren is not afraid to open. In his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren asserts:

I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts … rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on … To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are), to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord.[2]

In An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Barry Taylor confirms McLaren’s position: “We live in a post-Nietzschean world of faith and spirituality. Nietzsche’s declaration that God is dead still holds true, since interest in all things spiritual does not necessarily translate to a belief in a metaphysical God or the tenets and dogmas of a particular faith.”[3]

The Influence of Mysticism

The Emergent Church is nothing more than a form of mysticism and existentialism – an attempt to find meaning without absolutes. To think that the rest of Christianity has remained uninfluenced by postmodernism and existentialism is naïve. Churches across the globe have turned away from experience rooted in doctrine to experience rooted in mysticism. Sermons have shifted away from theology (how to know and love God) to motivational speeches (how to have your best life now). When theological terms are used, they remain vague and subject to diverse interpretations. Music has taken priority over preaching. The rich and doctrinal lyrics of the old hymns, which focused upon the work of Christ, have been replaced with a few superficial and repetitious words that focus upon the emotions of the worshiper. Contemporary worship has turned into individuals marinating in their own affections and love towards a vague God, rather than the church corporately praising the God of the Bible for His love as manifested in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The reason mysticism is so popular in churches is not necessarily because it offers meaning and hope in a postmodern climate of meaninglessness and despair, but because it is able to make unspiritual people feel spiritual. These mystical experiences are real for the worshiper and are easily created by the worship team. Dim the lights, get people excited by the beat and rhythm of the music, throw in a few religious terms, turn the focus to the emotions of the worshiper, and then presto – people feel spiritual. Another reason mysticism is effective is because man is religious by nature and has an innate desire to worship. Create the right atmosphere and then give Pagans an idol or give Americans a cool Jesus, and they will worship. To see this superficial worship, all you have to do is follow your unconverted friends to church and watch them raise their hands as they lose themselves in the “act of worship.” This is not to say that the true Christian in the same aisle is not worshiping the real Lord Jesus. But his neighbor’s false worship can be created simply by manipulating the atmosphere. Hold back theology and give people emotionalism, and people will enjoy a mystical experience that feels spiritual.

The Corrective to Mysticism

Of course, there are some parallels between mystical theology and biblical Christianity. A saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ includes more than a cognitive understanding of the biblical truth declarations (James 2:19). By faith, people experience a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus (Eph 3:14-19). This saving knowledge brings about inexpressible love, joy and peace. In addition, this experiential knowledge of Christ Jesus comes only by spiritual illumination. Thus, a personal knowledge of the Lord is incommunicable – for it impossible to share our experiential knowledge of Christ Jesus with others.

With this said, biblical Christianity is not mysticism or even a form of mysticism. The fundamental difference is that saving faith and an experiential knowledge of Christ Jesus do not come from an existential experience that transcends cognitive and rational thought. There is no leap of faith into the darkness, but rather a leap of faith into the light of God’s Word. Saving faith comes only by hearing and hearing comes only by the articulated Word of God being clearly proclaimed (Rom 10:17). To know Christ initially, and to grow in the knowledge of the Lord, requires knowledge of the Scriptures (John 17:17). Doctrine, even deep doctrine, is vital to the Christian life (2 Th 2:13). Therefore, if the church really wants to help aid people in worship and spiritual growth, then they will place the focus upon God’s written Word.

The error of mysticism and existentialism is that they are founded upon the false presupposition that God is ineffable (unknowable). Yes, we are bound to our own finiteness, but this does not rule out the possibility of divine communication between God and man. First, man has been created in the image of God, which provides common ground between an infinite God and finite man. Because of this common ground, not only is man able to communicate with God, God is able to communicate with man. Second, God has communicated to man in natural and special revelation (Ps 19:1-6). Therefore, God is not unknowable.

Furthermore, divine revelation is universally understandable, leaving all without excuse (Rom 1:20). What about the noetic effects of the fall (the results of depravity upon the mind)? Does not Scripture say that the natural man is unable to discern spiritual truth (1 Cor 2:14)? Yes, fallen man has been alienated from the life of God and has no personal knowledge of Him. Consequently, due to the depravity of his heart, man will remain incapable and unwilling to place his faith and confidence in God. But this does not mean that fallen man cannot rationally understand the truth-claims of Scriptures. The Bible is neither irrational nor contrary to sense perception. In fact, the biblical worldview is the only worldview that makes sense of reality as perceived by the empirical senses. Further, it is the only worldview that is rationally consistent with itself. The problem with fallen man is not a lack of evidence or a lack of understanding of the truth, but a lack of appreciation and love for the truth. The light has come into the world, and the Bible says that man loved darkness rather than the light (John 3:19). The problem with man’s thinking lies in his lack of submission, not in a lack of proof. Man loves himself. Man loves his perceived notion of autonomy. Man loves his sin. Therefore, man would rather believe a lie or accept an inconsistent worldview, than to submit to a holy God (2 Th 2:10-11). Man is bound to his depraved heart. This unsubmissiveness is the problem, which is why the Lord said that even if a person were raised from the dead it would not convince a sinner to repent (Luke 16:31). The point is that divine revelation is effective in communicating truth to fallen man even if he does not accept it. Man’s knowledge of and rejection of the truth will be the very thing that condemns him in the Day of Judgment.

A Case for Confessions

The remedy for mysticism is not to eliminate emotions and experiences from the Christian faith. This would lead to dead orthodoxy indeed. Emotions are vital to the Christian faith, and there is no salvation without an experiential knowledge of Christ. The answer is to make sure that our experiences and emotions are rooted in biblical truth. This is because God has chosen to change the heart by the truth. Perhaps if there were ever a time when the church needed to stand strong upon the truth, especially the gospel, it is now. The church needs to know what she believes and be ready to confess and defend her faith before the world.

In conclusion, even though everything in the universe is in flux, God is constant, for the great I AM never changes. God is the ultimate reference point, and the absolute and unchanging God has broken through the transcendental wall that separates the infinite from the finite and has clearly spoken to us in His Word. Being made in the likeness of God, we are proper recipients of this communication. Yet because of the fall, we are also capable of misreading it as well. Because the Bible can be both understood and misunderstood, truth is not relative as McLaren supposes. Rather, truth and error are antithetical, and an interpretation of Scripture is either right or wrong. Either people understand the intended meaning of Scripture correctly or they don't.

Because truth is knowable and absolute, confessions of faith are all the more important. If it was impossible to understand the Bible, or if it was impossible to misunderstand, then no confession of faith would be needed. But, seeing that there are both correct and incorrect interpretations, it is essential to know what a church believes in order to compare their confession with the Word of God. Every church member or potential church member has the right to know how the church interprets the Scriptures. It is not sufficient, with all the false teaching floating around, for churches just to say they believe the “Bible” or simply “love Jesus.” That kind of generic confession says little. It is the truth which saves, and it is the truth which sanctifies. It is time for the local church to stop hiding behind vague generalities and undefined religious terms for the sake of unfounded mystical experiences, and it is time to start clearly stating what they believe.

Notes:

[1] http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/000221.html

[2] A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 260, 262, 264.

[3] Taylor, Barry, “Converting Christianity” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, edited by Doug Pagitt& Tony Jones (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 165.

Bob Gonzales Has a New Blog With Free Scholarly Articles for Download

2011-09-15T10:40:00.002-05:00

Many of this blog's regular readers already know that Bob Gonzales, Dean of the Reformed Baptist Seminary, is one of my favorite theologians, so you won't be surprised to find that I want to help promote his new blog. The blog is called It Is Written, and Dr. Gonzales describes its purpose thusly:

It Is Written exists to promote the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) and its corollary principle semper reformanda (always reforming). I’m basically Reformed and Baptist in my theological orientation. But more importantly, I’m a Bible believing Christian who affirms the verbal and plenary inspiration of both the Old and New Testaments of Holy Scripture (66 books) in their original autographs. I believe that the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant in all their parts and are, therefore, trustworthy and authoritative in all that they affirm concerning history, science, doctrine, ethics, religious practice, or any other topic. Moreover, I believe that salvation always has been and always will be through faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. These convictions have been articulated well the great Reformed Confessions of Faith, especially, in the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, which is the confessional standard of the seminary where I serve. But I don’t believe the Holy Spirit’s work of illuminating the church stopped in the seventeenth century. He’s continues to teach the church, and I continue to learn more of his Word even through other theological traditions. My prayer and hope is that God might be pleased to use the content posted on this blog to promote a stronger commitment to the Scripture’s supremacy over all thought and life–to the end that we might more fully glorify and enjoy him in all that we do!

I am grateful for the blog and for the articles Dr. Gonzales has made available there. So far he has ten of his articles available:

“The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God Make a Primeval Covenant with Adam?” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 4:2 (Jan 2008).

“Where Sin Abounds: The Spread of Sin and the Curse in Primeval History,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 5:1 (Jul 2008).

“Faults of Our Fathers: The Spread of Sin in the Patriarchal Narratives and Its Implications,” Paper Presented at the 2010 ETS Southeastern Regional Meeting.

“Man-God’s Visible Replica & Vice-Regent,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review (2008).

“Man’s Constitution as a Physical-Spiritual Unity,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 6:1 (Spring 2009).

“Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew, Part 1: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Ministry,” The Founders Journal 79 (Winter 2010).

“Giving Proper Due to the People in the Pew, Part 2: A Biblical Defense of Lay-Evangelism,” The Founders Journal 83 (Winter 2011).

“Judgment Begins at the House of God: A Theology of Malachi,” Reformed Baptist Theological Review 6:2 (Fall 2009).

“Interpretation of Canticles” (Unpublished, 2007).

“Fullness of Joy: The Old Testament Believer’s Hope in the Afterlife” (Unpublished, 2011).

I recommend checking out It Is Written. I know I will be a regular follower of the blog.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Summary of Case Studies

2011-09-14T11:35:00.005-05:00

After examining seven Scriptural case studies concerning depression in the first seven posts of this series, I would like to take this post just to summarize some of the findings gleaned from these studies before moving on to some passages that deal more directly with the issue.

After examining seven Scriptural case studies concerning depression, I would like to take time just to summarize some of the findings gleaned from these studies before moving on to some passages that deal more directly with the issue.

First, we have seen that depression can be the result of persistent sins such as anger and jealousy. And this can be true even in the case of hardhearted, unrepentant sinners, such as Cain was, not just in those who may struggle with a guilty conscience because of unconfessed sin. In people such as Cain, depression results from their own self-centered thinking and their resentment at not being perceived or treated as they think they should be.

Second, we have seen that depression can also be caused by a guilty conscience, as in the case of David. Indeed, there are many people that suffer from depression due to lingering guilt because they either have not yet found redemption in Christ or because they have harbored unconfessed sin in their hearts.

Third, we have seen that sin may not have any direct causal relationship to depression at all but that depression may be experienced simply because we live in a fallen world where terrible things happen, as in the case of Job. Depression may thus be experienced in the midst of great trials or as the result of terrible physical or emotional trauma. But his case also teaches that we must avoid sinning in response to depression by becoming angry or bitter toward God. Here Jeremiah serves as an example to remind us that we must continue to trust God as our loving and gracious Lord despite what sorrows we may face in this life.

Fourth, Job's case also demonstrates that depression may be experienced as the result of intense spiritual warfare as we seek to do what is right before God. Or again, as in the cases of Moses and Elijah, depression may stem from the constant strain of stress in our lives as we seek to serve God in a hostile world and in very difficult circumstances.

Fifth, we have also seen that depression may be a very valuable aid to us because God uses it in the lives of believers to teach them faith and obedience, to make them more like Christ and to glorify Himself more fully in their lives. Indeed, if we desire to be like Christ, then we should expect to suffer as He did, even to the point where we might also be characterized as men or women “of sorrows.” After all, if Jesus learned obedience through the things which he suffered (Heb. 5:8) – including struggles with depression and sorrow – then shouldn't we expect the same? And shouldn't we also be encouraged to know that, just as Jesus in this way became our sympathetic High Priest, we in this way might also be more useful in helping others who struggle with depression?

We have been called to follow Christ on the path to glory, but that path includes suffering, suffering through which we may count on the Spirit's strengthening and assuring presence. Remember Paul teaches us that “the Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs – heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (Rom. 8:16-17).

Perhaps, then, we must learn to think of depression in the same way that Peter says we should think of other sufferings for Christ when he writes, “Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened to you; but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings, that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy” (1 Pet. 4:12-13).

We shall deal with the Bible's teaching concerning trails more fully later in this series, but stay tuned as we shall next turn our attention to passages that deal more directly with depression.

Countering Anti-confessionalism – Part 1

2011-09-09T17:08:00.005-05:00

Much of contemporary Christianity has forsaken its roots and has become overtly non-confessional. Churches are no longer Baptist, Presbyterian, or Methodist, but rather they have become non-denominational and even inter-denominational. First Baptist Church has changed its name to The Journey, and the Bible Church has become the New Life Church. The Church on the Rock came out of the Assembly of God, but who is to know? Churches are afraid to define themselves and tell people what they believe. Doctrinal ambiguity has replaced the old confessions of faith, and contemporary Christianity seems quite content with identifying itself with only vague generalities. The goal is to experience “Jesus,” and find personal meaning and purpose without any clear definitions. This exchange of confessions for concessions is the new mystical theology of today’s Christianity.

There seems to be several reasons why contemporary Christianity has replaced their doctrinal confessions with vague and loose generalities: (1.) indifference, (2.) ignorance, (3.) pragmatism, and (4.) mysticism. Of these four reasons, mysticism is the one we want to expose in these posts. It is not as if the other three reasons are not relevant, but it appears that mysticism is the real root behind the other three reasons. Before we jump into mysticism, let us quickly highlight the first three reasons confessions have dropped from contemporary Christianity.

1. Indifference

Some Christians do not see any value in confessions of faith. It is not as if these believers are against confessions, they just haven’t given them much thought. The thinking goes like this: doctrine is not all that important, as long as people love Jesus. When looking for a new church to join, those in this group are not concerned about the doctrinal standards of the church, as much as they are learning about the church’s children’s programs and musical style of worship. What marks a good church is not its beliefs, but their attractive programs.

2. Ignorance

Generally, this group consists of those who pride themselves in making the “Bible” their preferred confession of faith. “No creed but the Bible” is their creed. Those who pride themselves in this type of anti-creedal position generally think a creed or confession suppliants the Word of God as the ultimate authority of faith and practice. This viewpoint may come from a well-intentioned heart, but it also stems from an uninformed mind. As B. H. Carroll explained, “There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied.”[1] Carroll’s point is that it is impossible not to have a creed or a confession. Just because a church refuses to adopt a confession or put their beliefs in writing does not mean that they are not still creedal because they still have their own interpretation of Scripture. To say, “I have no creed but the Bible,” is like saying my only creed is my understanding of the Bible, yet refusing to actually elaborate upon your understanding of the Bible.

3. Pragmatism

Another reason that churches do not want to define themselves doctrinally is because public confessions are thought to be too restrictive. Confessions get stored in the attic because the goal is to grow! Thus, the more inclusive the church is the better. To accommodate today’s objective the church’s creed is now: “Open Minds, Open Hearts and Open Doors.” This creed is inclusive and shuts no religious person out. This type of ecumenical openness comes from a refusal to make a public stand for the truth. For a church to say they have an “open mind” is to say that they have not come to any conclusions as of yet. All visitors with their diverse opinions and diverse lifestyles are welcome to join in the ongoing discussion. To confirm and expose the depravity of man, for instance, may offend seekers and prevent them from coming to church and experiencing “Jesus” in worship. Thus, it is best to minimize doctrinal truth and keep “love” (a subjective emotion) and a wishier-washier Jesus as the focal point. These pragmatic ends, then, are the best way to grow the church and connect people with the love of Jesus.

4. Mysticism

One of the main problems, if not the main problem, behind today’s anti-confessional Christianity is mysticism. Mysticism is an attempt to find meaning without definitions. It seeks an existential experience for self-validation or a personal experience “that speaks to me” outside of Scripture. Because of a desire for something new or directly personal, doctrine only gets in the way. For churches to help bring people (sinners included) into a worshipful experience, the focus must not be based upon articulated truth, but upon the emotions of the worshiper. There need not be any doctrinal foundation behind the emotions as long as the emotions are authentic. When words are used, it is not their objective meaning that is important, but rather their subjective connotations. Vague religious terms, such as god, spirit, Jesus, and even the word gospel are fine as long as they are not clearly defined. It is better to allow the worshiper to attach his own meaning to these religious terms; and as long they remain vague, they can convey something that is transcendental and supernatural. And again, the more spiritual, transcendental, mystical and vague the worship lyrics and the sermon are, the more likely it is to stimulate an emotional and ineffable experience for the worshiper. The goal starts out as wanting to have a spiritual connection with God, but the experience itself is sought out more than God Himself. “Here I Am to Worship,” as the song goes, could lead to this type of self-focus. It is this drive and desire for a mystical experience today that acts as a thick, dark cloud seeping into the cracks of the contemporary church with the advertisement to bring about authentic worship. For mysticism to work, clear doctrinal teaching must be left as a thing of the past.

The Nature of Mysticism

Mysticism may sound like a mysterious and difficult subject to get a handle on, but in reality, the basic tenets of mysticism are straightforward. In all the various forms of mysticism, there are three basic ideas. (1.) Ultimate reality (ontology) is ineffable or unknowable (transcending human language and rational thought). (2.) The only way to know (epistemology) this ultimate reality is by some form of existential experience (by existential experience I mean an experience that transcends the rational process of cognitive thought). (3.) Once Mystics/worshipers have experienced the ultimate reality, it is impossible for them to communicate or share this experience with others—for it remains ineffable and thus mysterious. Different types of mysticism have different labels for this “ultimate reality” and various methods of achieving this existential experience, but they all seek some form of connection with the ultimate reality that transcends the cognitive thought process. The bottom line is that mysticism allows the worshiper or religious seeker to have an experience without having to back it up objectively from Scripture.

The Introduction of Mysticism into Christianity

Christian Mysticism is rooted in the notion that the real nature of God is ineffable or indefinable. That is, God is so utterly different, separate and transcendent, that the slightest knowledge of God is completely unattainable. God’s knowledge of Himself and our knowledge of God are equivocal (entirely different).

Plato was one who believed that the essence of God could not be explained: “Now to discover the Maker and the Father of this Universe were a task indeed; and having discovered him, to declare him to all men were a thing impossible.”[2] Prior to Plato, Xenophanes likewise claimed, “There never was, nor ever will be, any man who knows with certainty the things about the gods and about all things which I tell of. For even if he does happen to get most things right, still he himself does not know it. But mere opinions all may have.”[3]

For the Church Fathers, there seemed to be something noble in this line of reasoning. What is more glorifying to God than to exalt Him to the highest extent? God is not like man; He is absolute, eternal and transcendent. God is infinite; man is finite. Is this not the teaching of Scripture? Because of these presuppositions, many early theologians went on to teach that God’s essential being was utterly unknowable. Gregory of Nazianzus believed, “It is difficult to conceive of God, but to define Him in words is an impossibility.”[4] Justin Martyr viewed the names of God, such as ‘Father,’ ‘God,’ and ‘Lord’ as only vague shadows, “derived from his good deeds and functions,”[5] rather than a true depiction of the real nature of God. Athanasius agreed, “He is exalted above all being and above human thought.” Origen, Eusebius, and many others followed suit with this way of thinking, culminating with the greatest of all the early Church Fathers – Augustine. In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Augustine speculated: “For who can declare the Truth as it actually is? I venture to say, my brothers, perhaps John himself has not declared it as it actually is, but, even he, only according to his powers. For he was a man speaking about God – one inspired, indeed, by God but still a man.”[6]

This foundation of ineffability established by the Patristic Fathers drove mystical theology into the dark ages. If God is unknowable, and if Scripture fails in communicating His nature, then there must be another, more mystical way of ascertaining the real knowledge of the Divine. Pseudo-Dionysius (4th to 5th cen.) is considered to be the Father of Christian Mysticism, followed by Bernard of Clarivaux (1090-1153), Francis of Assisi (1182-1226), Bonaventure (1221-1274), and Meister Eckhart (1260-1328). Even Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) developed a mystical theology that required the seeker to lay down the Scriptures and close off the mental faculties in order to enter into a mystical experience with the Divine. For instance, Bonaventure speaks for all these Medieval Mystics when he remarked:

Do thou, O friend, push on boldly to the mystic vision, abandon the work of the senses and the operations of the reasoning faculty, leave aside all things visible and invisible, being and nonbeing, and cleave as far as possible, and imperceptibly, the unity of Him who transcends all essences and all knowledge.[7]

Existentialism

Mysticism may have laid low slightly during the Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment, but it has come back to life and regained popularity and academic clout by revamping itself under the name of existentialism. Existentialism is not a belief system or an ideology that encompasses any one particular set of core beliefs. Existentialists can be atheists, theists, deists, pantheists, materialists, hedonists, or a proponent of any other philosophical system of reality. This is because existentialism is not bound to any particular ontological system, but rather is a method of epistemology or the doctrine of knowledge.

Epistemology is concerned with how finite individuals can ascertain universal truth. The other two major methods of epistemology are rationalism and empiricism. Rationalism says that truth is ascertained by the use of reason and the laws of logic. Empiricism says that truth is ascertained by the use of sense perception and personal experience.

Postmodernism

It is impossible to understand existentialism without understanding what has also led to postmodernism. This is not just because existentialism originated out of the same environment as postmodernism, but also because it is within postmodernism that existentialism flourishes today. Technically speaking, Postmodernism is considered a condition or assessment of society. It has followed on the heels of the age of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. Supposedly, for the last quarter century we have been living in the Postmodernism Period. Yet, if we define postmodernism as a philosophical rubric of thought that denies the possibility of knowing ultimate truth, then the foundations of postmodernism reaches back into the Modern Period was man become increasing skeptical. In this sense, I use the term postmodernism not to identify a period of time, but as an epistemological framework that denies the possibility of man ascertaining absolute truth. Accordingly, postmodernism is fallen man giving up on absolute truth while still holding onto a false notion of personal and individual autonomy when man started denying knowability of absolute truth. Postmodernism is at least honest with itself; if there is no divine revelation, then there is not universal truth and no ultimate purpose and meaning in life. In short, postmodernism is a presupposition that ultimate reality (God) is ineffable and any attempt to ascertain unto this knowledge is futile. Man is bound to his own finiteness, which leads to meaninglessness and hopelessness. Postmodernism is basically despair. And this despair is the nature result of humanism – man’s attempt to anchor his knowledge of how he knows what he knows in himself.

The Death of Rationalism

During the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, man felt confident that every bit of truth could be ascertained by use of reason and the empirical senses. Knowledge would increase until there was literally nothing else to learn.

The quintessential rationalist was Rene Descartes (1596-1650). By the reasoning process alone, Descartes believed man was able to prove the existence of the ultimate reality – God. Descartes started by doubting the existence of everything, even his own existence. Yet, in doubting, he could not doubt his own existence, or otherwise he would not be able to doubt. Thus, he claimed, “cogito ergo sum” – I think (I doubt), therefore I am. Secondly, seeing that doubt is uncertainty and uncertainty is an imperfection, he concluded that he was imperfect. Yet, since it is illogical for something greater to come from something lesser, he concluded that the idea of the perfect and ultimate being – God – could not have arisen from himself, seeing that he was imperfect and a lesser being. In short, by the use of reason alone, Descartes attempted to establish universal truth without the aid of sensory perception.[8]

John Locke (1632-1704), the great empiricist, took a dagger to the very heart of rationalism by claiming that deductive reasoning is impossible without ideas and ideas are impossible without sense perception. According to Locke, ideas are not preprogrammed (a priori) in the mind, but rather they are gained by experience and sense perception. People are born with a tabula rasa (blank tablet) and ideas are collected only by experience. Deductive reasoning may process those ideas into knowledge, but again not until those ideas have been ascertained by the five senses. This means, according to Locke, that man’s knowledge is limited to what the five senses are able to discern. That which transcends the sensory perception (e.g., God) will always remain unknowable.

The Death of Empiricism

David Hume (1711-1776) claimed that it is empirically impossible to determine any universal truth because it is impossible to observe causality. Science is based upon the relationship between cause and effect. Yet, science cannot prove causality by observation. By examination, we may notice that “A” takes place before “B,” but this does not prove that “A” is the cause of “B.” Even if we observe that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius every time, that does not mean that heat was the cause of the water boiling. Who is to say with one hundred percent certainty that the next time water boils, it may do so without heat? Europeans used to think that doves where all white, that is until they learned that in Australia black doves existed. To know anything truly, we must know it exhaustively. Without universal knowledge to begin with, which finite man can never obtain from his limited reference point, universal truth will always remain unknowable.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was even more influential in placing the knowledge of ultimate reality out of reach. In his book The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant reasoned that there are two limitations on what we can know. The first is the totality of what exists and the second is the totality of what we are able to apprehend. According to Kant, if something does not exist, it is unknowable. More importantly, even if something does exist (e.g., God) and if we are unable to apprehend it, it remains unknowable. Kant divided existence into two spheres, the noumena – the world as it actually is, and the phenomena – the world as it appears to us. According to Kant, we can never know the world as it truly is, but only the phenomena world of appearance. Eyes are able to perceive visual images of reality, ears are able to apprehend various sounds of realty, and the other three senses are able to discern more information, but only according to their abilities. Who is to know if there are other dimensions of reality that remain hidden? In essence, Kant established a transcendental wall that prevents man from ever truly knowing reality – that is, reality as it truly exists.

The Death of Absolutes

Throughout history, people have thought antithetically – if something is true, the opposite is false. This is basic logic 101. Georg Hegel (1770-1830), however, turned everything upside down with his dialectic method of reasoning. According to Hegel, as with Kant, it is impossible to know reality as it truly exists. The only knowledge we can hope for is knowledge of the world as it appears, and the world of appearance is a world of constant change. There is nothing in the universe that is fixed and permanent – everything is in flux. If everything is changing, then man’s concept of reality must always be changing as well. According to Hegel, man learns by contrast and comparison, and then drawing a conclusion. Yet, once that conclusion is made, it will be contrasted again with new information that leads to a new conclusion, with a progression that never ends. Thus, what use to be black and white, is now relative – depending upon where you stand in progressive history.

Albert Einstein (1879-1955) gave scientific support to Hegel's dialectics with his theory of general relativity. Hegel changed reasoning from a straight-line of thesis and antithesis to a pyramid adding a third point – synthesis. In the same way, Einstein saw a third point existing in the universe. In addition to time and space, Einstein added a space-time continuum. Before Einstein, scientists considered the speed of light as traveling in a one-dimensional straight line through space and time. In the theory of general relativity, Einstein claimed that due to the graviton of large bodies, light curves as it travels through space and time. Because of the curvature, the speed of light is faster at the edge of the universe. What once seemed to be a constant speed of 186,282 miles per second now turns out not to be as fixed (absolute) as scientists once supposed.

How fast does a .30-06 caliber bullet travel? 2,950 feet per second may be the answer. It depends on the reference point at which the speed is calculated. Are we standing on the surface of the sun and with the speed of the earth calculated into the equation, or should we calculate the speed from a neighboring solar system? Since nothing is fixed and there is no ultimate reference point, everything is relative. Just because this might be the way you see the world, does not mean that this is how Johnny sees it, and who is to know how the world actually even exists?

The Death of God

Because of this transcendental wall hindering finite man from seeing ultimate reality as it is in itself, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) concluded, “God is dead.” By this statement, he did not mean that God did not exist, but that we being finite have no way of knowing. We are bound to our finiteness in a world that is ever changing with no ultimate reference point. Thus, we are bound to a fragmented knowledge based upon our individual perception of reality.

The Death of Meaning

If there is no ultimate truth, then there is not ultimate meaning or purpose behind anything. In the end, postmodernism leads to nihilism. For instance, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) claimed that “existence precedes essence,” and this rules out any ground for meaning. Nihilists believe that each individual is randomly “thrown” into an unresponsive and meaningless universe without any hope of knowing why.

The Birth of Existentialism

Nevertheless, man, even the philosopher, cannot live without meaning or purpose. To live consistently with the conclusions of postmodernism is an impossibility. Those who have attempted to do so have often ended their lives in despair or suicide. If there is no meaning in life, and if man cannot live without meaning, what is man to do? The answer is to create meaning. Thus Nietzsche, after claiming that God was dead, went on to say that we are now forced to create our own god. Sartre, likewise, concluded that since life is meaningless, we must choose to construct our own meaning. Some existentialists have chosen hedonism (Onfray), others pragmatism (Dewey), power (Nietzsche), pantheism (Jaspers) or theism (Kierkegaard).To prove to others that their version of meaning is truly meaningful is impossible and unimportant. The main drive for existentialists is to individually discover personal identity and meaning for themselves. This is existentialism – establishing meaning in a world without meaning with the knowledge that there is no rational or empirical foundation for that meaning.

Part 2 will focus how Existentialism was introduced into Christianity, the appearance of the Emergent Church, the influence of mysticism and, finally, the corrective to mysticism and the case for confessions.

Notes:

[1] B. H. Carroll, “Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” in Baptists and their Doctrines, eds. Timothy and Denise George (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 81.

[2] Plato, “Timaeus,” in The Dialogues of Plato, Translated by B. Jowett. (New York, NY: Random House, 1937), 12.

[3] As cited in Frame, John. The Doctrine of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002), 107.

[4] Gregory of Nazianzus “Oration 28” New Advent.Web. March, 2011

[5] Bavinck, Herman ,The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh, GB: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979), 21.

[6] Augustine, “Com. on St. John,” Tr. I. 1., cited in Rolt, C. E. ed. Dionysius the Areopagite on the Divine Names and The Mystical Theology (Berwick, MA: Ibis Press, 2004), 40.

[7] Ibid., 140-141.

[8] See Rene Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, Cambridge: 1993).

Welcoming Jeff Johnson to the Blog

2011-08-25T12:56:00.001-05:00

I am happy to welcome Jeff Johnson to the blog. Jeff has been the primary teaching elder at Grace Bible Church in Conway, Arkansas, for the last 11 years, and he and his wife, Letha, have a son named Martyn.

Jeff graduated from Central Baptist College with a B.S. in Bible and earned his M.Rel. in Biblical Studies and a Th.D. in Systematics from Veritas Theological Seminary.

Jeff is also the author of The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism (perhaps the single best book on the issue from a Reformed Baptist perspective, in my opinion) and the forthcoming books Behind the Bible: Introduction to Textual Criticism and The Church: The Nature, Purpose, Functions, Worship, Membership, Discipline and Authority of the Local Church.

I look forward to any future contributions Jeff may wish to make to the blog.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Case Study #7

2011-08-19T22:24:00.002-05:00

The final case study I would like to examine may surprise many of the blog's readers. I want to set forth the example of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as one who I believe encountered depression as well. For instance, I think it is safe to say that Jesus experienced depression as He faced His coming betrayal and death on the cross, where He would experience the Father's wrath being poured out on Him:

NKJ Matthew 26:36-37 “Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, 'Sit here while I go and pray over there.' 37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.”

I hope we can agree that being “sorrowful and deeply distressed” would qualify as depression. And the fact that Jesus could or would experience such depression shouldn't surprise us, since it is one of the ways in which He was tempted as we are, yet overcame so that we can know that we have a Great High Priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses (Heb. 2:17-18; 4:14-16). Indeed, we could even say that it was prophesied that He would be a man familiar with depression, as Isaiah said:

NKJ Isaiah 53:3-4 “He is despised and rejected by men, a Man of sorrows [meaning that sorrows would be characteristic of His life] and acquainted [יָדַע, yāḏa] with grief [meaning that He would be experientially familiar with grief]. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him. 4 Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.”

Why was Jesus to be a man familiar with sorrow and grief? Why was He to experience what we would call depression? Because He was to carry our sorrows and griefs. It was a part of His role as our Great High Priest who would offer Himself for our sins. But this means that depression was a part of God's plan for Jesus all along, doesn't it? And I would submit to you that the same may be true for some of us as well.

Of course, all of us will experience some depression, sorrow, and grief living in this fallen world, but it could be that God has planned that some of us should be more acquainted with depression that others, as Jesus was. Regardless how much depression God does or does not have planned for us, however, we should look to Jesus as an example of how to face it. This leads us back to Matthew 26:

NKJ Matthew 26:38-41 “Then He said to them, 'My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.' 39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.' 40 Then He came to the disciples and found them asleep, and said to Peter, 'What? Could you not watch with Me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.'”

Observe the way in which Jesus handled His depression. He did at least two things:

First, Jesus shared how he was feeling with those close to Him. He told His inner circle of disciples, Peter, James, and John (vs. 37), not only that He was extremely sorrowful, but also that He was so sorrowful that he felt He could die (vs. 38). Now that is depression! In fact, a parallel passage tells us that the weight of the depression was so great that it affected Jesus physically. This is found in Luke's account:

NKJ Luke 22:40-44 “When He came to the place, He said to them, 'Pray that you may not enter into temptation.' 41 And He was withdrawn from them about a stone's throw, and He knelt down and prayed, 42 saying, 'Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.' 43 Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. 44 And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.”

Dave Miller of Apologetics Press has written the following in an online article entitled, Did Jesus Sweat Blood?:

A thorough search of the medical literature demonstrates that such a condition, while admittedly rare, does occur in humans. Commonly referred to as hematidrosis or hemohidrosis (Allen, 1967, pp. 745-747), this condition results in the excretion of blood or blood pigment in the sweat. Under conditions of great emotional stress, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can rupture (Lumpkin, 1978), thus mixing blood with perspiration. This condition has been reported in extreme instances of stress (see Sutton, 1956, pp. 1393-1394). During the waning years of the twentieth century, 76 cases of hematidrosis were studied and classified into categories according to causative factors: “Acute fear and intense mental contemplation were found to be the most frequent inciting causes” (Holoubek and Holoubek, 1996). While the extent of blood loss generally is minimal, hematidrosis also results in the skin becoming extremely tender and fragile (Barber, 1953, pp. 74-75; Lumpkin, 1978), which would have made Christ’s pending physical insults even more painful.

From these factors, it is evident that even before Jesus endured the torture of the cross, He suffered far beyond what most of us will ever suffer. His penetrating awareness of the heinous nature of sin, its destructive and deadly effects, the sorrow and heartache that it inflicts, and the extreme measure necessary to deal with it, make the passion of Christ beyond all comprehension.

Now, back in Matthew 26, notice also that when Jesus asked Peter, James, and John to stay and watch with Him, He expected that they would stay alert and be in prayer, not only for Him but also for themselves (vs. 41). Sadly, they let Him down in this instance, which may actually have added to the depth of sorrow He felt. But this didn't stop Him sharing His struggle with them anyway.

But do we share our depression with others? Some of us do, but in my experience many of those who struggle most with depression never talk about it with their brothers and sisters in the Lord. I think Jesus would counsel us to do otherwise. To be sure, some of them will fail to understand and will let us down, as Jesus' disciples failed to understand Him and let Him down. But there will be those by the grace of God who will listen and who will pray for us faithfully, and we need them!

Second, Jesus prayed about what was causing His depression. In this case it was the task that the Father had given him to do, involving His coming death on the cross, which He refers to here as “this cup,” that was leading to His deep sorrow.

But what precisely was the “cup” to which Jesus referred? Was it just the coming torture and death by hanging on a cross (as if that weren't bad enough)? Or was it something more? Answering this question will help us to understand more fully just why He described Himself as being “sorrowful even unto death.” I believe that the answer is found in the Old Testament references to the cup of God's wrath. For example:

NKJ Psalm 75:4-8 “I said to the boastful, 'Do not deal boastfully,' and to the wicked, 'Do not lift up the horn. 5 Do not lift up your horn on high; do not speak with a stiff neck.' 6 For exaltation comes neither from the east nor from the west nor from the south. 7 But God is the Judge: He puts down one, and exalts another. 8 For in the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is fully mixed, and He pours it out; surely its dregs shall all the wicked of the earth drain and drink down.”

NKJ Isaiah 51:17 “Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of His fury [or wrath, as in ESV]; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling, and drained it out.”

This metaphor is also used later in Revelation of God's judgment on those who worship the beast:

NKJ Revelation 14:9-11 “Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.'”

It is my contention that the cup metaphor was being used by Jesus in Gethsemane as a reference to the cup of God's wrath which He knew He would have to drink for our sakes when He died on the cross as the propitiation for our sins (see, e.g., Romans 1:18; 3:25; 5:9). No wonder the author of Hebrews speaks the way he does about Jesus' suffering that night in Gethsemane:

NKJ Hebrews 5:6-8 “As He also says in another place: 'You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek'; 7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear [God did not remove the cup of suffering, but He did send an angel to strengthen Him, Luke 22:43], 8 though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.”

Now let's return back to Matthew 26 and pick up with verse 40 again:

NKJ Matthew 26:40-46 “Then He came to the disciples and found them asleep, and said to Peter, 'What? Could you not watch with Me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.' 42 Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, 'O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.' 43 And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. 44 So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. 45 Then He came to His disciples and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.'”

Here are a couple of other – albeit secondary – reasons for Jesus' sorrow, namely that His closest friends failed Him in this trial (as we have already seen), and that He knew He was also going to be betrayed by one close to Him (and such betrayal is never an easy thing to endure). But notice also that Jesus persisted in prayer because He had complete trust in the Father's sovereign will. This can be seen in the way that He prayed three times that the Father might let this cup pass from Him but all three times declared basically the same thing, “nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will” (vs. 39, 42, 44). This was a key to His overcoming the depression and anguish that could have paralyzed Him.

Another key to Jesus' victory in the garden of Gethsemane is revealed both by John and by the author of Hebrews:

NKJ John 17:1-5 “Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: 'Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, 2 as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. 3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. 4 I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. 5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.'”

NKJ Hebrews 12:1-3 “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls.”

I think it is important to remember that, although we see in Gethsemane the culmination of the sorrow Jesus felt when facing death on the cross for our sins, He was always aware that he was going to face this. It was, then, a sorrow that He carried throughout his life and ministry, not to mention the many others sorrows of life He had to face. But it was not a sorrow that robbed Him of the joy He had in looking forward to the experience of the glory He had with the Father even before the world was created and the joy He had in doing the Father's will.

Jesus always obeyed the Father's will, including when He died on the cross, and He did so because He knew there was something that made it all worthwhile. And this is one reason why the author of Hebrews wants us to look to Jesus in His sufferings whenever we are being overwhelmed with our own trials. But this means that we need to constantly turn to Scripture and listen to what God says to us there about Jesus' gracious work on our behalf.

As Ed Welch reminds us:

Listening sounds passive, but it is hard work. The book of James reminds us that we are prone to “merely listen,” like people who look at ourselves in a mirror and quickly forget what we look like. So when you read or hear about truth and love, don’t just merely listen; really hear.

What will you hear? When the triune God speaks, He inevitably talks about Jesus. Jesus is the one who had compassion on those who suffer, and He understands those who suffer because His pain exceeded our own. Have you ever noticed that when you listen to someone else’s suffering, especially if that suffering was overwhelming and intense, your own troubles seem lighter? At least, such listening diverts attention away from our own suffering, and we see that we are not alone. This is what happens when you look toward Jesus and listen.

Keep listening, though. Even though you may feel rejected by others, Jesus won’t reject you (Ps. 27:10). Turn to Him in faith —even with a small speck of faith — and He will never leave or forsake you (Heb. 13:5). He swears this to you. (Words of Hope for Those Who Struggle with Depression, Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2000, p. 41-42, CCEF.org, website of the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation)

What do we hear from these passages we have examined about Jesus? We hear that He moved through His sorrow and anguish by trusting His Father and by keeping His mind focused upon the joy set before Him. Jesus did not sinfully react to the things which brought on depression, and He did not allow these things to paralyze Him or rob Him of the joy He had in His relationship with the Father and in doing the Father's will. He trusted in the Father's love and in the Father's will, and it made all the difference. Indeed, I think He shows us that it is perfectly possible through faith to have joy in the midst of sorrow or pain. And I think any contemplative believer knows this deep in his heart. But we will come back to this idea later, when we examine some of the Biblical teaching about joy.

Michele Bachmann Cannot Properly Be Submissive Either to Her Husband or to Christ as President

2011-08-12T14:24:00.001-05:00

I was glad to hear that Michele Bachmann understands that the Bible says that a Christian wife is to be submissive to her husband, for such is indeed the clear teaching of Scripture. For example:

NKJ Ephesians 5:22-24 "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything."

NKJ 1 Peter 3:1-6 "Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward-- arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel -- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror."

Given such clear teaching of Scripture, I have to agree that Michele Bachmann should indeed be submissive to her husband. But I wonder why she didn't exactly say that in her response to the question she was asked. I wonder why she instead described her and her husband's idea of submission as a mutual respect between them. After all, wouldn't this sound to the world around her just like their own common understanding of marriage as a mutual partnership with no clear head or leader? And doesn't it sound like she is thus attempting to avoid the connotations of authority that the term submission actually communicates? I certainly think it sounds that way, and I suspect that is precisely why she answered as she did.

But of even more concern to me is the matter of why Mrs. Bachmann doesn't actually live out this Scriptural teaching in a consistent way. After all, how could she possibly live in submission to her husband and still be in authority over him as President of the United States? As I see it, there is no possible way she could do so, and I think the reporter who asked her the question was perceptive in seeking to highlight this very issue.

In addition, I see no way that Mrs. Bachmann could possibly continue to run for public office amid the whirlwind of media frenzy and so much opposition and heated debate and still maintain what Peter described as "a gentle and quiet spirit."

This leads me to think that Mrs. Bachmann could do far more good to publicly recant her words, bow out of the race for public office, resign her place in the House of Representatives, and explain that she is doing so in submission not to her husband, but to Christ. In doing so, she too could find her place alongside Sarah as a truly godly example to women everywhere (1 Pet. 3:6).