The condensed version aired on ABC was almost useless, overhyped and overedited. As long as you can stomach multiple BlackBerry commercials, watching online is the way to go.

For the record, I think Driscoll spoke graciously, boldly, and biblically on the issue at hand, especially while sharing a stage with the “super-spiritual.”¹ Deepak has no problem loving himself, and his love cup appears to be full as ever. Most importantly, Driscoll proclaimed Jesus as the only way of salvation and the ultimate Conqueror of Satan. His unaired closing statement, in which he read 1 John 5:19-20, could not have been better chosen.

But one particular part of the night keeps percolating in my head. After the opening statements from all four participants, the moderator pursued the Why? questions with Driscoll. I don’t know if he wanted to jab Driscoll with the apparent lunacy of believing in a good God who allows Satan to run amuck, or if he was giving Driscoll a bona fide head start. Either way, he volleyed the question back multiple times.

I haven’t found a transcript of the debate anywhere, so I (unofficially) typed out the interchange of interest, the beginning of Part 3 titled: Fairytale Versus Faith. I’ll be right back after these messages.

Moderator: Pastor Mark, if God is a loving God, why would he create Satan?

Driscoll: I think he created angels and people, and He gave us the capacity to have free will. For their to be virtue, there must be the possibility of vice. And that’s what distinguishes those of us, people and angels, from other forms of creation: trees, animals and the like. We have volitional will, we have consciousness, we have moral decision-making. And so God didn’t create evil, God didn’t create injustice or tyranny or oppression. He created free will in angels and people. And Satan and the demons and humans beings have chosen to disobey, to rebel, and that’s the source of the trouble.

Moderator: And so He can create us, and He could create the devil, and we can engage in evil, but He didn’t create that, the results?

Driscoll: No, initially, according to the teaching of the Bible, Satan was an angel. Angels are perfectly good. Those that didn’t rebel, the Bible says that they honor God and they help us and they are spirit beings that assist in God’s purposes on the earth. So Satan started as one of those, and then went astray. And so he walked away from God’s intention for him, he’s a rebel.

Moderator: So why would God allow somebody who’s an avowed enemy of God, to continue to exist? Why doesn’t God just stop it?

Driscoll: Yeah, and the point of the cross of Jesus, according to Colossians 2, is that, on the cross, in dying for our sins, Jesus canceled the right that Satan had to rule over us, to influence our thoughts, to have an effect on our eternity. And that ultimately Jesus is coming back to put a final end to Satan and his work. So we’re in the middle of history, and the Bible says that God works out all things for good, and so ultimately Satan will be ultimately, finally, defeated. Sin and all of its effects will be lifted, and the earth and humanity will be returned back to the state God intended, which was very good.

Moderator: So even though God loves us, He does allow Satan to exist in our lives, tempt us, and make us miserable?

Driscoll: And He also sends Jesus to die for our sins, sends God the Holy Spirit to tell us the truth so we don’t believe [Satan’s] lies, to give us the strength to say no to his temptations. And He allows and enables us to win in the battle we are in spiritually.

Moderator: Why create that choice? Why not just let everything be peaceful?

Driscoll: Well, I think if you don’t allow choice, the theologians will say you don’t have love. That love requires volition, and that God does not want automatons, He wants persons. And so the argument is made that if God were not allowing choice, then you wouldn’t have evil, but you would also not have love.

Now I understand that on a stage like this, quick-fire answers are the norm and must be addressed to a general audience. And again, the emphasis on the final defeat of Satan by Lord Jesus is unmistakable and commendable. But I think his answers at this crucial point are weak.

Of course, Driscoll serves the conservative bread-and-butter explanation behind the Why? “For their to be virtue, there must be the possibility of vice.” Men must be able to choice. True “love requires volition.” “[I]f God were not allowing choice, then you wouldn’t have evil, but you would also not have love.” After that last statement, much of the crowd erupted with clapping and cheering. We are not automatons, and “theologians” suggest this gives God greater glory.

I think there are two severe, biblical problems with that answer: man showed no virtue with his choosing ability, and also, man’s love for God, even at its best, is no great demonstration of love.

Man Showed No Virtue with His Choice

Driscoll — and I’m really only picking on him because the Face-Off was recent and seen by so many, as well as because I think his answer does represent the majority position — put forward that there can be no virtue where there is no, at least possibility of, vice. Let’s grant that proposition for the sake of argument.² God created the first man, Adam, placed him in a paradisiacal garden, and prohibited him from only one thing: “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat” (Genesis 2:17).

As the story goes, Satan lures Eve through a serpent, she bites, and gave to her husband and he ate. With his “choice,” man disobeyed. It’s worse than that, actually.

1. Man rebelled. Adam intentionally defied the only prohibition given to him.
2. Man ran. When the LORD God came to fellowship with man, Adam took his wife and hid. He attempted to conceal himself from God. (Genesis 3:8-10)
3. Man rationalized. Not only did Adam fail to answer God’s questions directly, he blamed the woman and God who gave him the woman. (Genesis 3:12)
4. Man didn’t even repent. After disobeying and beginning to experience the negative effects, you’d think Adam would have anxiously confessed and pleaded for God’s mercy and forgiveness. He did nothing of the sort.

So my question is, where is this great virtue that man displays with his choosing ability?

God showed patience with Adam and pursued him rather than push him away. Though He does punish the man, God also makes preparations to redeem him. God does not wait for us to cry out to Him, because we won’t. Even Adam, pre-fall and pre-sin nature, failed to show any virtuous choosing. The answer to “Why [did God] create that choice?” cannot be to show something noble about man.

Man’s Love for God is No Great Demonstration of Love

Driscoll states that “if God were not allowing choice, then you wouldn’t have evil, but you would not have love.” I think I agree with what he said, but not with what he meant.

What he meant was that robots, if they could “love,” would love because they were programmed to do so, not because they wanted to. If love is going to mean something, it has to mean something to the one loving. Robots carry out a task; they do not care. Who wants affection-less, android love?

But let’s say that Adam didn’t eat from the fruit of the tree, that he recognized his sweet deal: a gorgeous, God-given, perfect partner, the opportunity to steward and rule the planet, a fantastic home, daily, face-to-face fellowship with his Maker, and only one restriction. What degree of love would Adam demonstrate by loving the One who gave him all that?

Isn’t that the gist of Satan’s accusations toward Job? “Of course he’ll love You! You’ve given him everything he could ever want!” (Job 1:9-11 It is no surprise when men love those who love them (Matthew 5:43-48), nor is it a wonder that much love comes from those forgiven from many sins (Luke 7:41-47). Besides, why wouldn’t Adam — or we — love the infinitely lovely anyway?³

I agree that the Genesis 3 story is about love. God writes Satan and evil into the script for the sake of love.⁴ But it is not love from man, it is love for man that is the climax. The fall is all about love. However, and here’s the point:

God is not glorious because forgiven rebels love Him. He is glorious because He loves and forgives rebels.

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die — but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

Full demonstration of God’s holy love and the riches of His glorious grace are the reason He endures vessels of wrath. His love is the infinitely eminent love, proven by His initiating sacrifice.

Greater love has no man than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. (John 15:13-14)

If Satan and evil and vice exist so that man has choice, and then can choose virtue and love, then that plan failed miserably. Man chose — and we by nature keep choosing — sin. And even if we had chosen obedience, our love for the most worthy-to-be-loved Being in the universe would be no awe-inspiring thing.

Again, the answer to “Why [did God] create that choice?” cannot be to show off something about man’s love. What is amazing and glorious and worth singing about for eternity is that amazing love that bled for Adam’s helpless, unlovely, rebellious race. Rather than trying to defend God by asserting man’s ability for virtue and love, we should settle our feet in the stirrups of a God-centered worldview that enables us to ride through life hating sin and Satan, yet never wavering in confidence (and even celebration) that God is in control over the rough terrain.

All material from the Rightly | Dividing seminar is now available for free to anyone interested. I summarized the goal of the seminar as follows in my original announcement here on the Void:

Rightly | Dividing aims to move believers beyond personal Bible reading to Bible study. There are many useful Bible reading plans, and for that matter, much excellent material is available from good Bible teachers. But this seminar hopes to train people how to understand and depend on the Book, not only on teachers of the Book.

The mp3 audio, m4v files with my slides synced to the audio, and my notes for each session are good to go. Take whatever you want from approximately six hours of teaching, including topics such as how to prepare for study, basic principles (hermeneutics) for Bible study, how to find the point of a paragraph, and recommended tools for further study.

• Session One - Making Preparations for Bible Study
• Session Two - Surveying Contexts in Bible Study
• Session Three - Identifying Genres in Bible Study
• Session Four - Collecting Tools for Bible Study
• Session Five - Embracing Paragraphs in Bible Study
• Session Six - Taking the Next Steps in Bible Study

~ John Calvin, Institutes, 4.20.9

Okay, before we get into it, I’m with you that my last post in the adolescence series was a little more than two years ago. Brutal. But if it makes you feel better, I’m always thinking about it. Besides, somehow the Void hits the first page of Google search results for the definition of adolescence. More new visits by far come to the Void from that URL than any other. I’m also slated to re-teach the material at a camp this June, so it’s time to dust off the files and juice the series again. Thanks for your patience.

The second lie teenagers believe is that they are, intrinsically, irresponsible. “Research” shows their brains have not yet fully developed so they can’t be expected to act appropriately. They are not ready to answer for their actions. Experts define adolescence as an extended season for experimentation and prolonged preparation. The teen years are for development and responsibility must be deferred.

Inevitably, the teenagers is a disappointment, whose combination of adult capacities and juvenile irresponsibility sows personal heartbreak and social chaos.” (Hine, 8)

Our government doesn’t hold teens responsible. We’ve created an entirely different legal system to segregate younger lawbreakers from older ones. We’ve written new laws with lower standards because we don’t think they are able to make right decisions and behave appropriately. Many parents, teachers, and youth ministries have done basically the same thing by postponing opportunities to fail, as well as by protecting young people from the consequences of wrongdoing. We’ve gift-wrapped the excuse for them.

Shifting blame and shirking responsibility is as old as sin. Adam did it first when he sidestepped culpability in the garden — and he wasn’t even a teenager (Genesis 3:12). “It’s not my fault; it’s her fault.” And then he went even further and said “It’s the woman You gave me.” Adam was shameless enough to claim his sin was God’s fault.

Teenagers walk a similar path of unreasoning when they disavow responsibility. “I’m just a teenager.” Who does that blame? It implicitly points the finger at God. It’s almost as if they said, “God is in control of how old I am, and since He has me in this stage of life as an adolescent, He can’t hold me responsible.” They also take that to mean no one else can either.

But here is the crucial question: when a teenager disobeys God, is it a lesser offense in God’s sight? Is the penalty for adolescent sin more along the lines of purgatory rather than eternal death? No. God’s law opens no loopholes for teenagers. His standard remains perfection for all His creatures, including those who are still growing. We may be slow to hold teens responsible morally and spiritually; God is not. Church leaders, especially those of us who are parents or youth pastors, do young people no favors by failing to prepare them for God’s judgment.

Augustine of Hippo may be the most important man in church history. German historian, Adolf Harnack, called him the greatest man “between Paul the apostle and Luther the Reformer, the Christian church has possessed” (quoted in Piper, The Legacy of Sovereign Joy, 24).¹ Of course, Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk for many years, and my personal hero, John Calvin, quoted Augustine no less than 342 times in the fifth and final edition of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. B.B. Warfield summarized Augustine’s impact as follows:

His direct work as a reformer of Church life was done in a corner, and its results were immediately swept away by the flood of the Vandal invasion…[but] it was through his voluminous writings, by which his wider influence was excited, that he entered both the church and the world as a revolutionary force, and not merely created an epoch in the history of the Church, but has determined the course of its history in the West up to the present day. (quoted in Piper, 24-25)

We owe much of our thinking and theology to Augustine, in particular, “our developed anthropology and soteriology, [and] our understanding of the Bible’s teaching on the relations between human sin and divine grace” (Nick Needham, “Augustine of Hippo: The Relevance of His Life and Thought Today”, SBJT 12/2 SUMMER 2008, 39). We stand downstream in the torrent of his teaching on original sin and the sovereignty of God.

There are a few reasons, however, that understanding his life and thought is difficult for us. First, Augustine lived from AD 354-430, so we are removed almost 1600 years from his culture, language, and experience.

Not only is the time gap difficult to jump, but also the mountain of his writings makes for a grueling climb. Few can claim to have read everything written by him, and none can claim to have read everything written about him. There are more than five million words in his recorded works (especially remarkable considering he had no electricity, let alone a computer). There are almost 600 words in this post, so it would take over 8,333 posts pasted together to reach five million words. Benedict Groeschel, a Catholic historian, wrote an introduction to Augustine’s life and said,

I felt like a man beginning to write a guidebook of the Swiss Alps….After forty years I can still meditate on one book of the Confessions…during a week-long retreat and come back feeling frustrated that there is still so much more gold to mind in those few pages. I, for one, know that I shall never in this life escape from the Augustinian Alps. (quoted in Piper, 45).

The other difficulty is that, among those five million words, we find numerous contradictions, including some teachings that we would say are clearly unbiblical. I hate, for example, Augustine’s allegorical interpretation of numerous Old Testament passages (his approach to Genesis narrative is atrocious). Worse than his hermeneutic, Augustine seems to have attributed special, or sadly, even saving power to baptism. We do not agree with him here at all.

But for all that, I am convinced, now more than ever, that we need Augustine for our souls and for our churches, which in turn would change our world. I’ll explain why I think he’s so helpful and try to make my case as we follow two lines of thought in the following posts: the chronology of his life and the confessions of his life.

While searching for some Augustinian material¹ back in January, I also stumbled across a new-to-me, fantastic audio resources site with a fitting name, Faith by Hearing.

Faith by Hearing is designed to collect and categorize the ever-growing availability of great Reformed and conservative evangelical audio preaching & teaching that has a high view of God and Scripture.

You can read more about the site here. While I very much recommend subscribing, the on-site categorization is really quite useful. Browse by biblical book, by doctrine, by history, by person/preacher, by topic, or by venue. As long as you have an internet connection, not even a lion in the road can keep you from feasting on this sermon smorgasbord.

But Jesse worked his Adobe Suite brilliance again this week, and I’m thinking the new insignia may start propagating across the web in the next few days. You may now enjoy the Pink Ox 2.0.

How can we fix our broken hearts, our broken churches, and our broken culture? Is it possible for our souls to be spiritually rich and righteous? Is it possible for our churches to be spiritually hot and bright lights in our culture? The answer is a resounding Yes! And what we need is repentance.

Things are not good, yet we are indifferent, and worse, ignorant of our indifference. We often fail to see sin for what it really is. Sin deceives us, offering us substitute, short-term joy of second-rate quality. Our churches suffer as a result. As our personal interests are worldly, so are our corporate programs. As our souls are apathetic, our local bodies grow perilously anemic.

We need a change. We need repentance. We need Augustine. Similar to today, “The congregations who heard Augustine preach were not exceptionally sinful. Rather, they were firmly rooted in long-established attitudes, in ways of life and ideas, to which Christianity was peripheral” (Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo, 247). He “preached to men who thought they knew what the Christian life consisted of” (ibid., 244).

Maybe more than anyone else in church history, Augustine of Hippo wrestled with blinding, joy-stealing sin. He was afraid to let loose of his lusts for fear that he would lose joy.

But in his Confessions, Augustine described God’s sovereign reproof and loving discipline that lead him to repentance. We will consider his life and his teaching, throughout this continuing series, as someone outside our century, who may give us perspective and remedy for the problems in our own day. By God’s grace, we may have our eyes opened. Or, as John wrote in Revelation 3:22,

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne.

Jesus is close. He says, I stand at the door and knock. Differing arguments are made as to whether Jesus stands at the door of unbelievers’ hearts, or at the door of sinful, lukewarm believers’ hearts, or if He was standing at the actual door of the Laodicean church.

The singular pronouns indicate a personal rather than corporate knocking: “if anyone,” “come to him,” “eat with him,” “he with Me,” “the one who conquers.” At the same time, the passage is addressed to the church. Therefore, I think the invitation is to those who were in the church, who may have been indifferent to, and ignorant of, their spiritual condition. The ones who didn’t even realize what they were missing are now graciously summoned to intimacy with their Master.

Jesus is pictured as the master returning to his house (cf. Luke 12:35-36), whose servants should be alert, attentive, and eagerly awaiting their master’s arrival. They know that the master is their good, not the things that he left behind in his house. Jesus offers Himself to the repentant, to those who give up their ignorant claims to prosperity, who want Him more than anything else. Of course, only those He loves will actually get up and open the door.

Jesus emphasizes sweet communion, eating face to face with His servant over dinner. No other relationship in the universe provides such soul fulfillment. For that matter, no other religion in the world offers a man such personal intimacy with His Lord.

Even more, as He did with the previous churches, those who conquer or overcome will reign with Jesus on His throne. This promise anticipates the rest of the book of Revelation, the King’s second coming, and the final destiny of the world. The invitation is to fellowship that begins now and that we will enjoy forever. But, as the entire paragraph makes clear, that intimacy is a result of repentance.

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.

According to verse 19, Jesus doesn’t leave the ones He loves in a lukewarm condition, at least not for long. He will reprove and discipline; He will correct and train. In this context of spiritual lukewarmness, the design of Jesus’ discipline is to fire up His beloved.

At least two implications stand out about Christ’s loving correction. First, do we realize that conviction is a blessing? If we don’t know something is wrong we’re unlikely to seek a remedy. Perhaps our current misery is a training grace to turn our attention to the One who makes rich.

Second, do we realize that indifference is a judgment? Apathy is bad. Ignorant apathy is worse. Being left in ignorant apathy is the worst! God curses us when He affords us with what we think we want. Unchecked unconcern not only leaves us in the ditch, it also demonstrates we are not loved by Jesus.

I’m afraid this is where many in our churches are today. Things aren’t good, around us or in us, and we don’t care. We go on, desperately trying to act like things are okay. Our affections are lukewarm. But if our love is regularly running low, we may be experiencing God’s judgment, not His blessing.

He doesn’t allow His own to go on unaware forever. His tender, loving discipline brings those He loves to repentance.

So be zealous and repent. These are the two imperatives. The indictment is not final or irreversible, if we will repent. “Lukewarmness is not necessarily terminal” (Thomas 318), and that is good news.

The first command is Be zealous. It confronted the predominant Laodicean problem. Jesus required His followers to be hot, on fire, boiling over with zeal. The command to be zealous comes first for emphasis, but second in sequence.

That’s because the spiritual heart-fires spark when we repent. Proper passion is the result of repentance, otherwise we could be (presumably, and incongruously) excited about being cold.

Repent fundamentally means “change one’s mind.” Repentance includes ownership of our wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked state. Repentance makes no claims of possessing what we need. Repentance turns from self-sufficiency, self-righteousness, and self-justification. It comes with empty hands to the only One who can fill them.

We wrongly think about repentance as giving up what we really love for what someone told us we should like better. With reluctance we turn away from what was sure to please us in the past, even though the pleasure was temporary. But we miss that repentance is not a turning from pleasure to empty handedness. Repentance is a turning from a mirage of pleasures to the real, highest, and substantial pleasures. He makes rich! He covers our nakedness! He opens our eyes to finally see what is truly glorious! And the doorway into spiritual fullness is repentance.

I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.

Herein is the Lord’s gracious instruction. He counsels the Laodiceans to buy what is priceless, to purchase great spiritual benefits though they were bereft of any personal resources. Christ pressed the Laodiceans to do business with Him; He was (and is) the sole-supplier of these goods.

He listed three objects for them to buy: gold, white garments, and eye-salve. Each of the three objects struck close to home for the Laodiceans, known for their wealth, their wool, and their medicine. But Jesus wasn’t opening a competing marketplace on an adjacent corner, He was offering spiritual commodities with transcendent worth.

There is little doubt that Jesus’ advice deliberately echoes the call of the LORD in Isaiah 55:1-2.

Come, everyone who thirsts,
come to the waters;
and he who has no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.
Why do you spend your money for that which is not bread,
and your labor for that which does not satisfy?
Listen diligently to me, and eat what is good,
and delight yourselves in rich food.

God will make us spiritually rich if we come as beggars. The bank account of our hearts will be full if we admit emptiness. God will clothe us in purity and righteousness, if we strip off our own. And He will open our blind eyes, correcting our vision of our condition and into His truth, if we confess our inability to see. In a word, His spiritual gifts are granted to those who repent.

~ John Stott, The Preacher’s Portrait.

I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. (Revelation 3:15-17)

Jesus knew their works, but this was not simply a reference to their external, public behavior. The entire paragraph (vv. 14-22) reveals that His indictment included a thorough familiarity with their internal, personal attitude as well. Works merely displayed the posture of their hearts.

The works of the Laodiceans revealed at least two problems.

1. Indifference (vv. 15-16)

Jesus confronted the Laodicean apathy with one of the most memorable word pictures in all the Bible.

You are neither cold nor hot. Hot and cold are temperature extremes, and the illustration would have connected immediately with the Laodicean consciousness. Water was a daily issue for them. Though they tried to fix their problem with external sources, the solution ended up creating it’s own problem. By the time the cold water crossed from Colosse to Laodicea, it was no longer cool and refreshing, nor was it hot like the hot spring water in Heiropolis. Cold was warm, hot was tepid, both were useless. More than that, Jesus declared that sort of water was disgusting.

Photo thanks to pulpolux

Interpretation questions surface regarding whether hot and cold are simply illustrations, or if both represented profitable uses, or if one was good (hot) and the other bad (cold). I’ve gone round and round over the intended meaning since I was in college. Obviously Jesus is confronting indifference and apathy, but is He saying Christians should be either refreshingly cold or therapeutically hot, not in between? Or is He saying it is better to be spiritually on fire or spiritually antagonistic rather than on the fence?

In the context, hot clearly represents spiritual fervency. It is commanded by Jesus in verse 19, “Be zealous,” and both the imperative (ζήλευε) and the adjective (ζεστὸς) here in verse 16 come from the same root (ζέω) meaning “to boil.” Figuratively the word meant to be stirred up emotionally, to be enthusiastic, or to be on fire.

I have also come to believe that cold represents open, outright obstinacy to Jesus. It isn’t that the cold don’t know. They do know, and they’re honest enough and take it serious enough to reject the truth. The cold have no interest in Christ whatsoever.

But could Jesus really mean this? Why would Jesus wish anyone to be cold, that is, in open rejection of Him? Even if our experience tells us that straightforward rejection is, at least in some respect, easier or better to deal with, does this passage actually teach it? I now think yes, based on the second part of the indictment seen below.

No matter what, being lukewarm is intolerable. Revelation 3:16 is the only occurrence of the word lukewarm (χλιαρὸς) in the Bible. These were the in-betweeners. The congregation in Laodicea was diluted, if in fact, there were any true believers at all. The church was worldly and their Christianity was nominal. It was not good.

The tepid spiritual temperature sickened Jesus. It disgusted Him like nothing else: I will spit you out of My mouth. Other translations say, “spue” (KJV) or even “vomit” (YNG). The point is, indifference is repulsive. Apathy is nauseating. Jesus is saddened by the lost, angered by the self-righteous, but He was and is sickened by the lukewarm, and wants nothing to do with them.

2. Ignorance (v. 17)

Verse 17 elaborates on lukewarmness by revealing the root of indifference. The Laodiceans were lukewarm because they failed to see their true condition.

For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.

What a dreadful branding they received at the end of verse 17: wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. Each adjective depicted their spiritual state. The darkest affliction, however, was that they didn’t even know it. They saw themselves as just the opposite. They claimed I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing. They thought they were really cooking. They thought they had arrived.

At best their perspective was naive, more likely they were arrogant, but worst of all they were deceived, not realizing that [they were actually] wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. They were ignorant of their true condition. Wretched refers to those in emergency requiring urgent help. The pitiable were those whose hopes had been smashed. The poor were penniless. The blind were visually impaired and naked were physically exposed. The Laodicean church was living in a spiritual fiction. Their presumed prosperity was actually poverty. Their souls were bankrupt. They supposed they had no need, failing to recognize that all they had was need.

The lukewarm, then, are the pretenders, the hypocrites, those in the “church” whose profession is unaware of, or unattached to reality. They presume that they are hot but in reality are not.

Jesus is not leveling a charge against baby Christians who understandably encounter growing pains. Instead, His holy impatience and disgust is with those in the church who are indifferent to Him and ignorant of their real spiritual condition. This might be an unbeliever who thinks he’s a believer, or perhaps a willfully immature believer who refuses, at least for a time, to acknowledge his need.

At least the cold know that they’re cold. At least their rejection cards are on the table to be dealt with. That kind of person we can talk to; that kind of person Jesus understands. But the lukewarm is vomited out. The Laodicean church was characterized by spiritual lukewarmness. Sadly, so are many of our churches.

Exiled on Patmos island for preaching the gospel, the apostle John wrote the book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ from a vision he received from the Lord around AD 90 (a little less than 60 years after Christ’s ascension). Chapters two and three of Revelation contain Christ’s letters to seven churches: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyratira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. Only two of the seven are commended without any correction; only one of the seven receives no commendation whatsoever: the church in Laodicea.

Laodicea was located in the Lycus Valley, one of the tri-cities along with Colosse (10 miles east) and Heiropolis (six miles north). Laodicea was a large, often visited city, and well-known for at least three things. First, it was a wealthy city. In AD 60, a large earthquake destroyed the city along with a few neighboring cities. The Laodiceans refused financial aid from the Roman, Imperial government, rebuilding from their own resources. At least some of the city’s wealth was due to the second well-known product of Laodicea: soft, glossy black wool. The third well-known feature of the city was a pagan school of medicine famous for various healing compounds, in particular the production of salve for eye-diseases.

The city of Laodicea could have been extremely powerful, but their greatest weakness was a deficient water supply. As the city grew, the small Lycus River could not provide adequately for the needs of the population. Engineers built a channel from springs in Colosse, a combination above ground aqueduct and underground conduit, the remains of which are still visible today. In solving the issue of water quantity, however, the Laodiceans encountered another problem with the water quality, a fact Jesus used to illustrate the problem in the church.

The church in Laodicea was likely started by Epaphras, the same person responsible for the church in nearby Colosse. The apostle Paul connected the two churches in his letter to the Colossians (2:1) written in AD 62. By the time John addressed the Laodicean church in AD 90, things were not good.

And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: ‘The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.

John wrote, but he wrote on behalf of Jesus Christ (the resurrected Lord described in Revelation 1:4-6, 12-16). To the Laodicean church, Jesus identified Himself as the Amen, that is, the one who is sure and certain. In Jesus, all of God’s promises are guaranteed. He is the faithful and true witness; He will not exaggerate or misrepresent. He can be believed. And He is the beginning of God’s creation, in other words, He is the preeminent one (cf. Colossians 1:15-20), and He was not pleased with what He saw.

Jesus offered no commendation to the Laodiceans whatsoever, and immediately launched into His indictment.

Things are not good in the church either. Christians and denominations bicker back and forth, influence on the culture seems nonexistent, truth is sparse, and people are sad, lonely, and empty. Yet it would be difficult to prove these realities based on how we’re acting. We still show up on Sunday with smiles and handshakes, perform silly skits and sing superficial songs, desperately trying to prove to our unchurched friends that we can do all the same fun things they can, with Jesus along for the ride. It doesn’t really make sense; indifference to the problems, or ignorance that there are problems, won’t fix the problems or make them go away.

Things are not good in our souls either. Our doubts and fears war within us, our faith and our morality are crumbling, we feel distant from God and from one another, so we are sad, lonely, and empty. Yet, other than an impulsive, unguarded status update on Facebook, it would be difficult to prove those realities based on how we’re acting. We keep consuming the latest entertainment offerings from the world. We adopt the world’s priorities and values at home, at school, and at work. It doesn’t really make sense; indifference to the problems, or ignorance that there are problems, won’t fix the problems or make them go away.

What’s wrong with us? Perhaps the problem is that, in general, we are spiritually dumb, sinfully fat, and superficially happy.

If Jesus visited us today, what would He say about our condition? I have a guess. I think He might confront us much like He confronted the Laodicean church in Revelation 3:14-22.

All six sessions from the 09SR are now online. Each link includes a downloadable mp3 and the very rough draft version of my notes, especially for those interested in the quotes by Augustine. My plan is to start blogging through the series soon.

• Session 1 - Be Zealous and Repent
  - The Need for Repentance
• Session 2 - The Journey of a Restless Heart
  - A Life of Repentance: Augustine of Hippo
• Session 3 - Toward True Joy
  - The Meaning of Repentance
• Session 4 - Give What You Command
  - The Source of Repentance
• Session 5 - Turning the World Upside Down
  - The Message of Repentance
• Session 6 - Christ, the Cross, and Repentance
  - The Celebration of Repentance

Created by Jesse Martin

The audio starts with a message about ordination by John Zimmer from 1 Timothy 5:22, followed by my brief testimony of salvation and call to ministry [starting at 15:51].

Next were numerous, gracious testimonies from friends, past and present ministry partners, and family [with the start time for each person in the brackets]:

• [28:01] Chuck Weinberg
• [30:25] Marty Yorio
• [32:56] Jonathan Sarr
• [39:50] David Light
• [44:14] Darien Bowers
• [49:29] Andy Bowers
• [53:15] Ron Regas
• [57:47] Curtis Wentling
• [1:03:46] Doug Main
• [1:06:37] Jesse Martin
• [1:08:44] Teresa Weinberg
• [1:11:34] Justin Culbertson
• [1:15:07] Gale Light
• [1:16:16] Micah Lugg
• [1:21:13] Tim Lugg
• [1:23:13] Mo
• [1:26:14] Misty Hehe
• [1:28:10] Barbara Higgins
• [1:31:20] Phil Johnson

And then the elders’ prayers followed: [1:32:48] John Williams, [1:33:25] Jim Martin, [1:34:01] Ward Brien, and [1:35:26] John Zimmer.