Theology
Bob Kauflin is director of worship development for Sovereign Grace Ministries and serves as worship leader at Josh Harris' church, Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland. Bob is now blogging: Worship Matters.
There are no comments allowed, which I think is a bummer. But there is no question that this will be a very helpful place for thinking through a theology of worship put into practice.
(HT: JT)
I'm planning a series of posts on the art and importance of slowness. Here's a poem worthy of meditation.
The opening poem from A Timbered Choir by Wendell Berry
I go among trees and sit still.
All my stirring becomes quiet
around me like circles on water.
My tasks lie in their places
Where I left them, asleep like cattle.Then what is afraid of me comes
And lives a while in my sight.
What it fears in me leaves me,
And the fear of me leaves it.
It sings, and I hear its song.Then what I am afraid of comes.
I live for a while in its sight.
What I fear in it leaves it,
And the fear of it leaves me.
It sings, and I hear its song.After days of labor,
Mute in my consternations,
I hear my song at last,
And I sing it. As we sing,
The day turns, the trees move.
I love the old hymns. I love singing substance. A number of folks are updating hymns and are doing a fantastic job. Indelible Grace (RUF) is excellent and Sovereign Grace Ministries is doing some good stuff too.
Al Mohler points us to a great new hymn-writer, Keith Getty, who has written "Oh, To See The Dawn" ("The Power of the Cross") with Stuart Townend. These two have also written "In Christ Alone," which is one of my favorite hymns, old or new.
I agree with Mohler, who writes...
Are we entering a great new era of hymnody? There are signs of hope, and we can see the emergence of new hymn writers and composers who combine the best of old and new, recovering the ancient form in a new age. Best of all, these hymns are rich in biblical truth and Gospel content.
In my mind, apologetics is a crucial issue for postmodern times. We have so much literature on the topic that provides all the "answers" to all the hard questions, but is that our best apologetic? I have seen some buzz about the need for a new apologetic around the blogosphere. Joe Thorn and I have discussed it more than once. And I just noticed that Bob Robinson has started a short series of posts on the matter. He writes...
But look again at the context of 1 Peter 3:15. The "answer" or "defense" that one is told to be prepared to give is to those who askus Christians why we live in such hope. What this presupposes is that the Christian community is living in such a radical and conspicuous way in the midst of those who do not yet know Christ that these people are either genuinely wondering why we have such a hopeful lifestyle or they are suspicious that we are just play-acting it. Most often it will be the latter. Many will mock a Christian community of do-gooders (they will "speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ" v. 16), but we must follow Christ as our Lord (v. 15a), and willingly suffer for the good done for people as Christ did (3:18, 4:1).
So the "defense" is not so much a "reasoned argument" but an "account" (not a "reason" as in the NIV—but a logos, as it is in the Greek: a "word") of why we have hope. We are told here to tell our story. We're not told to provide a list of reasoned propositions, but to give an account. We are to tell our story of encounter with Christ, transformation in our faith, and why we are so radically living in such a different manner—spreading hope to those around us. While I believe that some people, if they have cognitive roadblocks to faith, may still need to have things explained to them in rational ways, the main biblical apologetic has always been an Emmanuel Apologetic—an apologetic that displays God to people by living among people as a community of hope.
This is the kind of biblical direction in apologetics that reinvigorates me.
Here's helpful resources that Justin Taylor put up. I've taken it directly from his site.
C.J. and Carolyn Mahaney were recently the guest speakers at the Men's and Women's 2005 Fall Conference at The Bible Church of Little Rock (pastored by Lance Quinn). The MP3s of their ten sessions are available for free on the web:
C.J. Mahaney
Sex, Romance and the Glory of God - Part 1 (MP3)
Sex, Romance and the Glory of God - Part 2 (MP3)
Message to Men (MP3)
Humility: True Greatness (MP3)
The Cross Centered Life (MP3)
The Soul of Modesty (MP3)Carolyn Mahaney
Message to Women: What Christian Wives Need to Know (MP3)
True Beauty (MP3)
A Woman's Beauty Regimen (MP3)
What To Do About the Things We Can't Do Anything About (MP3)
Here's the audio from the recent Suffering and the Sovereignty of God Conference from Desiring God (John Piper's ministry). Thanks to Justin Taylor for making these available.
Suffering and the Sovereignty of God - John Piper
Listen | Read Manuscript
Interview with John Piper
John Piper and Justin Taylor
Listen
The Sovereignty of God and Ethnic-based Suffering - Carl Ellis Listen | Outline
"All the Good that is Ours in Christ": Seeing God's Gracious Hand in the Hurts Others Do Us - Mark Talbot
Listen | Outline
Christ’s Grace and Your Sufferings - David Powlison Listen
Sovereignty, Suffering, and the Work of Missions - Steve Saint Listen
Suffering for the Sake of . . . - Joni Eareckson Tada Listen
The Suffering of Christ and the Sovereignty of God - John Piper
Listen | Read Manuscript
Challies and CoffeeSwirls are live-blogging the Desiring God Conference on Suffering and the Sovereignty of God in Minneapolis. I attended last year's conference which was excellent, and was offered the chance to blog the conference this year but had conflicting plans. Very cool to be able to keep up with the conference through these blogs.
I won't update links to all their posts, but here are the ones online so far.
Challies: Session 1, Session 2
CoffeeSwirls: Day 1 Thoughts; Piper/Taylor Showdown
As I continue an unplanned series of posts on alcohol, I have some thoughts that are really unrefined, but ones I want to share and get some interaction on. Nothing in stone in this post but our faith in God's mercy.
I wonder why we don't teach that God can work in "alcoholics" so that they can change and get to the point where they drink a glass of wine with dinner and not re-enter a lifestyle of abuse. I know some of you will immediately think I'm trying to build a "law" that everyone must drink alcohol. That's not what I'm saying at all. Some of you are thinking "Why???" "Why would you want to tempt an alcoholic to return to that lifestyle?" Bottom line: I just think it's good for us to reconsider our cultural assumptions on addiction and filter them through what God says He is doing. He is transforming us, and abstinence seems to be an anti-transformation mentality.
For example, we know that God has given a Spirit of self-control (2 Timothy 1:7). So why do we assume an "alcoholic" (may help to question our terminology too) cannot gain self-control that is strong enough to overpower a tendency toward addiction? We are new creations in Christ. We have been given new desires. We have new hearts.
I know it might take time, and I know there are dangers. But we don't live according to dangers, and we don't walk by sight. We live by faith, and if I'm trusting God then I'm believing he changes people deeply and in sometimes shocking ways.
My point isn't to push people toward drinking after years of abuse. I'm simply asking if we shouldn't teach that God can and does change people and that alcoholics can find themselves enjoying a brew with friends someday without getting drunk. Sounds good to me. Once again, it seems to be the most Scriptural view and one that trusts in the character and work of Christ.
Practically speaking, alcoholism is often born out of something else. It can be to escape from responsibility, the pain of loss, and so on. I know alcoholics who say that they only tend to get on a binge when they are around certain friends, or situations, or with their band members.
Many times alcoholism is said to be something that "runs in our family." It may be that you are more predisposed to be addicted to alcohol, but that doesn't mean you can't learn to enjoy it in a God-glorifying way.
I'm not recommending anything here. I'm not telling addicts to find the nearest Liquor Barn and start nursing on cheap beer. What I'm hoping for is a good dialogue on the spiritual understandings of addiction and on the Spirit's work of redemption and sanctification.
Bill Streger (KaleoBill) has offered a very good quote from Sinclair Ferguson from his lectures on the New Perspective on Paul.
I think it's written all over the way in which we do church today thatwe are far more interested in ourselves as individuals than in the life of the community. And if I were to spell out why I think that's true, I would lose friends. Everywhere. My own position is, I don't think a New Testament believer would begin to understand why we do church the way we do church instead of the way they did church. So, there are serious questions here. About the extent to which we are self-fascinated evangelicals - rather than God-centered and community-, fellowship-oriented. Has it never struck you that the New Testament almost nowhere tells you how to do evangelism? Almost nowhere tells you how to do evangelism. Why? Because it understood that being the church was to do evangelism. And our problem in our community - if I can explode for a moment - is that we don't do evangelism because we're not convinced at all - and often rightly we're not convinced - that our Christian community is really radically supernaturally different from the rest of the world. But they were so obviously radically supernaturally different from the rest of the world.
Temperance is, unfortunately, one of those words thathas changed its meaning. It now usually means teetotalism. But in the days when the second Cardinal virtue was christened “Temperance,” it meant nothing of the sort. Temperance referred not specially to drink, but to all pleasures; and it meant not abstaining, but going the right length and no further. It is a mistake to think that Christian ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he wants to give the money to the poor, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons - marriage , or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.
CS Lewis, Mere Christianity pp. 61, 62
(HT: Joe Thorn)
Joe Thorn has started a series of posts on the seven deadly sins. His first post on lust is really good, both practical and convicting. Here's a snippit...
...lust boils down to a personal dissatisfaction with God. How?Lust is blind to the God who is supposed to be our greatest boast, our ultimate comfort and source of contentment. Lust craves everything else besides God and the things He has provided for us. It misses the gifts we possess in the light of the things we lack.
More good writing on bad stuff to come.
Update: Gluttony
Let's keep thinking through alcohol and abstention.
Generally speaking, both sides of the issue of alcohol agree that there is no way to prove biblically that Christians should abstain from alcohol. I know there are exceptions (some of them in my inbox this week), but let's start with the premise that we can't build an air tight case for abstinence from the Bible.
The case is then often pushed to two areas (surely there are more). First, sometimes the case is made for a less fermented wine in the Bible or Welch's flowing at weddings. Some people (I've become a magnet for some of them) will go to great lengths to explain how wine in the Bible had much lower alcohol content. I've read long, rambling posts, discussion board threads, etc on this.
I'm not convinced, but I don't think it really matters that much. People in biblical times were getting drunk and so are people today, so who cares how much alcohol content there is in a drink? There are abusers looking to abuse. The biblical point doesn't change. It's abuse that is the problem, not the alcohol content. You can sip whiskey, mix the Captain with Coke, or whatever. As long as you don't get drunk and drink for the glory of God, you are cool, biblically speaking.
So the argument for alcohol content, in my opinion, is a bit of a red herring. It is off topic. The biblical command remains, and is sufficient. Isn't that great?! It's sufficient whether we buy and drink a Smithwick's or a Seagrams 7.
The second thing the lack of biblical evidence for total abstinence does to the alcohol conversation is drive some to say that we live in a culture of abuse and therefore abstinence is a must in THIS culture. But that's almost never really the point of those who argue this. If it were, they would allow for alcohol consumption for our missionaries in other cultures where things are different. But they don't allow that, which shows they really want to make an extra-biblical rule (legalism) for all of us.
But let's give the benefit of the doubt, at least for the sake of the argument. Let's say people with this position really believe it's about an abusing culture, and their inconsistency in application is out of their hands (denominational monetary pressures at work). I get that. And I understand this position and argued for it until a couple of years ago. In fact, I remember being at a Founder's Conference while in seminary and spending a couple of hours one night arguing my guts out with a Presbyterian guy about how everyone should abstain. This guy *gasp* made his own beer!
I completely disagree with this argument for abstention now. I could take the easy route and say I'd rather follow biblical rules than extra-biblical ones. But even more, my reasoning is found in the Cross that created the Church. The church is a redemptive community. We live not only the experience of redemption (I'm redeemed/being redeemed) but also the works of redemption (I'm redeeming). That's why our mission is both words and works, speaking and doing redemption.
And if we are working out our salvation through being redeemed and redeeming, then our response to cultural abuses is not to abstain but to redeem. That not only pushes us to maturity by teaching us how to eat, drink, and have sex to the glory of God (though it won't come easy), but it is also a witness to the world that God redeems. The pervert throws away the pornography (abuse) and learns to love sex with his wife (redemption). The glutton refuses to order a 5 piece fried chicken and fries meal (abuse) and learns to order a salad with light dressing instead (redemption). The alcohol abuser stops drinking until drunk (abuse) and learns to stop after a beer or two (redemption).
As long as we make the issue "abstaining," we will miss expressing and embodying redemption. And I'm afraid the message we will send is that good things can be perverted beyond redemption.
I saw someone at iMonk's site link to this meditation by Peter Leithart.
I have no studies to back me up, but I dare say that removing wine from the Lord's Supper has produced an increase rather than a decrease in drunkenness. If wine is merely excluded from the Christian diet, it takes on an aura of mystery, of transgression. When we drink wine at the Lord's Table, we receive it as a gift of God, and give thanks for it. At the Lord's table, we are not drunk with wine, but we receive wine while singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord.
The central solution to the sin of drunkenness is not tee-totalism. The central solution, the solution of Scripture, is to enjoy the wine of this table as a gift of God, and to come to this feast of wine not to be drunk with wine but to be filled – to be inebriated – with the Spirit.
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has online audio from a forum on Alcohol and Ministry (right click and 'save as') or visit the resource section of the site (it's near the bottom). SBTS president Al Mohler and theology school dean Russ Moore are in dialogue on the issue. It's interesting to listen to, and it's more thoughtful than Jack Graham's article, but I think a very poor view of alcohol and ministry. Listen for yourself.
I will quote at times and explain in my own words at other times. I have taken care to be precise with quotes, but I can't claim inerrancy. :)
And let me start with this: if you want to discuss this in any detail or disagree with me, please listen to it start to finish. Reading my quotes doesn't give a feel to the whole thing, but I can't do everything.
Also, I like Al Mohler and Russ Moore. They have a heart for the Church, the SBC, their families, seminary students, and even bozos like me. So my responses are meant to be a response to the issues they raise and not directed at them personally.
It's obvious the issue of drinking alcohol is coming under question by students at Southern. At least 2-3 references are made to websites, weblogs, and bloggers. I know some of those guys read my blog or have one of their interns do so (wish I could tell you a little email story). I don't know if they mean me or not, but it doesn't matter. The truth is, where there is open discussion you can often find growing error that should be corrected as well as the rediscovery of truth that should be embraced. I think the discussion on alcohol on the web is freeing new generations to think biblically rather than traditionally or legalistically. But it seems pretty clear that bloggers like me are being responded to in this forum. So I think it's good to respond as well.
Okay, first, Mohler points out that the view that the Bible teaches total abstinence from alcohol is not biblically provable. Good to hear that. But then the rest of the talk is about showing how total abstinence from alcohol is best.
A bit into the forum, Mohler said...
We've all seen some of the websites and the weblogs and the kind of conversation that has been had about this, among people that we know, that have been, that are close friends. Let me tell you that I find a great deal of immaturity reflected there. It's all the sudden like we have a young generation trying to say, 'Hey we are so much smarter than our parents, uh, we are so much more mature and more liberated, we can enjoy these things, and now I'm going to recommend my favorite beer and my favorite wine to all of my friends.' And frankly I think it's sad, immature, and it's showy. It's the exact opposite of Paul's concern for unity in the church. This kind of ostentatious display of liberty is an adolescent display. And it's exactly what mature Christians should avoid.
Why is recommending a wine or beer showy and immature? That smacks of arrogance and condescension. I don't think he proved this point at all, and to call people immature without showing it is unhelpful ad hom. Stick to the issues.
Moore and Mohler try to tackle the issue of whether or not their view is encouraging Pharisaism (about 3/4 through the audio). Not very compelling. Notice how they actually try to claim fundamentalism for those who don't abstain! Mohler says...
And this is where sometimes fundamentalism, with its very restrictive list, forms a warped understanding of the gospel. And I'll tell you, this is one of my main concerns, and I'll just speak from the heart, and it's one of my main concerns for this generation of students. And so let me just speak paternally here for a moment. My concern is that you have fundamentalism with a restrictive list of "don'ts" and what we are seeing is a new kind of fundamentalism, a fundamentalism disguised as liberty, which has a new list of "do's." And it's nothing more than a reflexive, unthoughtful and I think unmotivated by love kind of response here, and I'm afraid it will wreck ministries in embryonic form.
I can assure you of this: if you are associated with the use of beverage alcohol, I think I dare exaggerate not to say that 99% of all doors of ministry in the Southern Baptist Convention will be closed to you. And I do not believe that is an exaggeration. And let me tell you why...you may think, 'That just shows high-bound and unthinking the Southern Baptist Convention is.' Why should the Southern Baptist Convention or a local church take a risk? Why should it be in the position of deciding whether this is a problem or not. I mean, you have to understand, why would the church take that on? So, I am very concerned about this generation, and that's one of the reasons why our integrity with the denomination, with our churches, requires that we not only have this policy, but that we talk about it, we teach it and we enforce it.
Where is someone demanding that people drink? That would be fundamentalism of "do's," but I haven't read anyone with this position. I think it just doesn't make sense, and is an attempt to get the harsh idea of fundamentalism off their back and put it on someone else.
Mohler is right about drinking and not getting jobs, but that doesn't mean the SBC position is right. It just means they are very effective at getting local church and parachurch adherence to their extra-biblical legalisms.
Russ Moore then continues in the same vein...
Dr. Mohler mentioned the weblogs that you often see (and so often I think this fundamentalism is exactly right) so often the message that is communicated is, 'Thank you Lord that I am not like my fundamentalist home church.' And you can hear in this 'jabbing of the eye' the prayer of the Pharisee and it is very, very destructive.
True enough, that we all struggle to be the Pharisee. Or maybe we should say, we all ARE the Pharisee. Guilty as charged, and running to the Cross.
But a wrong heart doesn't mean a wrongness on the issue of alcohol. It just means they have taken it too far. The Pharisees weren't always wrong in what they did, but in claiming their rightness in doing it. This is just a non-issue on alcohol and distracting. I can claim Mohler and Moore are Pharisees all day long (or liars, or whatever), but that doesn't mean they are right or wrong on alcohol consumption.
Closer to the end, Mohler told the story of going to lunch for a meeting with a group of evangelical leaders across denominational lines. If anywhere, this is the place for a Christian to show generosity to those who aren't compelled as he is about the issue of alcohol. But as a couple of leaders ordered beer with lunch, Mohler actually spoke up and asked a Lutheran pastor (friend of his) to not get a beer "so that sitting here in this Southern town where anyone can walk in and see this table, people do not then barrage me with phone calls associating me with drinking, which I'm not doing." He finished the story, "I could not allow my own personal integrity to be questioned, I would of had to have left the lunch."
But Jesus didn't have this take on alcohol or His reputation, and accordingly had His personal integrity dragged repeatedly through the mud because of who he associated with. Mohler seems to miss the point that alcohol isn't the point, people are. His reputation and SBTS' reputation isn't the point, people are. And when someone else's beer becomes an issue, there is something dramatically wrong.
Let me make this last point, because some (many?) will think this is such a secondary issue, and it isn't. This isn't about alcohol, it's about legalism. Alcohol is not an issue I will die on, but legalism of any kind is. It's not freedom for alcohol I'm calling for, but freedom from legalism which is deadly.
Honestly, I don't claim to be free of extra-biblical legalisms. I don't think I'm better than Mohler or Moore. But I do think they are wrong on this issue.
Baylor University Starbucks has pulled cup #43 with the quote from the homosexual novelist I discussed before.
Baylor Dining Services oversees two coffee shops. One of them has a scriptural reference in its title. The other was recently asked to remove a series of cups that some would argue "promote homosexuality."
Late last week, the Baylor Starbucks pulled about 500 cups with a quote by gay author Armistead Maupin after a faculty member complained.
(HT: Starbucks Gossip)
Interesting short audio clip (13 minutes) of Ken Myers talking with Eugene Peterson at Mars Hill Audio. Visit their site as well.
Joe Thorn responds to Jack Graham's "Total Abstinence" article in BP.
I believe the cure for drunkenness is not abstinence or moderation, but the gospel itself.
Every once in a while someone very prominent and respected and influential does something that drums up a lot of discussion which will change some minds while causing others to reject it. That honor at the moment goes to John Piper and the elders of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The elders at BBC are proposing amendments to the constitution and by-laws of BBC, as explained in this online "Fresh Words" article...
The central issue at stake is: How should we define the membership of the church? That is, what degree of biblical understanding and agreement should a person have in order to belong to a local church? Or to put it another way: Should the door to membership in the local church be roughly the same size as the door to the universal church? If so, what is the basic set of beliefs that a person should be willing to affirm—or at least not deny—in order to give good evidence that he is born again into the family of God and a follower of Christ?
After more than three years of study and prayer and discussion of this issue, the Council of Elders believes that membership requirements at Bethlehem should move toward being roughly the same as the requirements for membership in the universal body of Christ. That is, we have come to the conclusion that it is seriously questionable to say to a person who gives good evidence of being a true Christian and who wants to join Bethlehem: you may not join.
This conclusion raises problems of consistency for our present Constitution and By-Laws and our present church Affirmation of Faith and Church Covenant. These documents hold up some less than essential beliefs that must be affirmed in order to be a member at Bethlehem. Thus the door to membership at Bethlehem at the present time is significantly narrower than the door to membership in the universal body of Christ. The elders believe this should be changed because of how serious it is to exclude in principle any truly born-again lover of Christ from membership in the local church.
The most obvious change this involves is allowing the possibility that a person may become a member who has not been baptized by immersion as a believer but who regards the baptismal ritual he received in infancy not as regenerating, but nevertheless (as with most Presbyterians) in such a way that it would violate his conscience to be baptized as a believer. The elders are proposing that under certain conditions such persons be admitted to full membership.
One of the reasons we feel the freedom to move in this direction is that in December, 2003 the church mandated that the Elders themselves must heartily affirm the Bethlehem Baptist Church Elder Affirmation of Faith. This document has raised the doctrinal bar of the eldership at Bethlehem significantly. It is thoroughly and biblically Reformed and baptistic. In other words, the elders of the church may not believe, teach, or practice any other form of baptism as legitimate than believer’s baptism by immersion. All the elders gladly and firmly embrace paragraph 12.3 of the Elder Affirmation of faith:
We believe that baptism is an ordinance of the Lord by which those who have repented and come to faith express their union with Christ in His death and resurrection, by being immersed in water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
In other words, the door to the eldership has gotten significantly narrower in the last two years because of the doctrinal rigor demanded by the BBC Elder Affirmation of Faith. Therefore, we believe that the doctrinal faithfulness—including the biblical teaching and practice of believer’s baptism by immersion—is firmly protected by the doctrinal requirements put on the eldership of the church.
Wow. Hard to believe a Baptist church would do this. <sarcasm>We've always done it the other way.</sarcasm> Honestly, I don't like the idea but I'm always willing to rethink the way it's always been done for a more biblical way. Hang-ups of tradition are always hard to find.
I already don't like his explanation, the whole universal vs. local mentality. I'd rather hear, 'The NT local churches would have done it this way and here are my reasons why.' Hopefully the 80 page document that is supposed to come online soon will help.
I would love to get everyone's take on this, and specifically baptists.
C.J. Mahaney's list, How I Mortify Pride and Cultivate Humility, has been a blessing to me for probably 3 years or more as I have it used it and tweaked it for personal use. I had forgotten where it was, but Justin Taylor found it for us.
I first heard about it through a 9Marks audio interview with Mark Dever and C.J. (click "listen" for this great discussion on the local church). I hope the interview and C.J.'s list will encourage you.
