Thoughts on Time Management by Doug Wilson

http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8681:seven-thoughts-on-time-management&catid=62:grace-and-peace

1.The point is fruitfulness, not efficiency. You should want to be fruitful like a tree, not efficient like a machine.
But this fruitfulness is a function of God's blessing, and it is surrendered work that is blessed work. Seek that blessing, and seek it through concrete surrender. Such surrenders are not abstract. Put your Isaacs on the altar. Every interruption is a chance to surrender your work to the only one who can bless your work, particularly when the interruptions come from your kid wanting to play catch.
We can see the principle with the sabbath and the tithe. Less blessed is more than more unblessed. 90% blessed goes farther than 100% unblessed. 6 days blessed are far more fruitful than 7 days unblessed.
2. Build a fence around your life, and keep that fence tended. You should have a life outside your work, and your family should be enjoying that life together with you. Go to work at a reasonable, predictable time, and come home at a reasonable, predictable time. Keep your work on a regular schedule, not an absolute schedule. If the barn catches fire, allow that to interrupt your schedule. But if the barn catches fire three times a week, then perhaps some preventative thinking is in order. When you are driven by the tyranny of the urgent, most of the urgencies aren't. Let the fence hold.
3. Perfectionism paralyzes. Chesterton once wonderfully observed that anything worth doing is worth doing badly. The sign of a fruitful worker is that he understands the critical difference between "that won't cut it" and "that is just fine."

4. Fill in the corners. I typed the outline for this with my thumbs while sitting in a comfy chair at the mall while my wife was being a merchant ship that brings goods from afar. This was far more productive than staring vacantly at a neon Tito Macaroni's sign would have been. If you have a commute, use the time to listen to books instead of inane DJ chatter. If the books get too serious, or if you do, go back to the DJs.
Do not despise how much can be packed into small corners. I live in a small town, and so my commute is four minutes, more or less. There have been times when I have arrived at the office with the same song playing as when I pulled out of the garage. And yet I listened to David McCullough's John Adams like that. It was a great steak, and cutting it into little tiny pieces did not diminish the flavor at all.
5. Plod. Keep at it. Slow and steady wins the race. Truisms are true. Work adds up, provided you are doing it.
6. Take in more than you give out. If you give out more than you take in, you will . . . give out. Your lake should have snowmelt streams running into it. Every vocation requires constant learning, constant development.
7. Use and reuse. State and restate. Learn and relearn. Develop what you know. Cultivate what you have. Your garden plot is the same as it always was, so plow deeper. Envying the garden that others have cultivated plows nothing, and brings forth a harvest of nothing.
Strive for deep conviction more than superficial originality, and deep originality will come. Your tomatoes will take the ribbon at the fair, provided you learned how to grow them in your own dirt.

"Ideally the church is different. It is made up of people who are as varied as can be: rich and poor, learned and unlearned, practical impractical, sophisticated and unsophisticated, aristocratic and plebeian, disciplined and flighty, intense and carefree, extrovert and introvert - and everything in between. The only thing that holds such people together is their shared allegiance to Jesus Christ, their devotion to him, stemming from his indescribable love for them.

That is why it is always wretchedly pathetic when a local church becomes a cauldron of resentments and nurtured bitterness. This pitiful state of affairs may erupt simply because there is very little at the social, economic, temperamental, education, or other levels to hold people together. Therefore, when Christians lose sight of their first and primary allegiance, they will squabble. When social or racial or economic or temperamental uniformity seems more important than basking in the love of God in Jesus Christ, idolatry has reared its blasphemous head. When protestations of profound love for Jesus Christ, we may legitimately ask how seriously we should take these protestations."

D.A. Carson
A Call to Spiritual Reformation
p. 42

YHWH - "The important thing is that this is the personal name of God, and it is linked to his character as the God who makes the gracious commitment of himself to his people; and who is revealing what it means for him to be faithful to that commitment."

"...YHWH, which identifies him as the God who is faithful to his covenant."

Graeme Goldworthy
According to Plan
p. 133

"How peaceful life would be without love, Adso. How safe, how tranquil...and how dull."

William of Baskerville
The Name of the Rose (movie)
Book by Umberto Eco

"It is vital that we understand the place given to certain key figures, such as Moses, in Old Testament revelation. Their significance for us is not primarily in the way they stand as examples of godliness and faith, but rather in the tole they play in revealing and foreshadowing the nature of the work Christ."

Graeme Goldworthy
According to Plan
p.132

The God Who is There

"The Bible isn't interested in, 'a God we can believe in.' It's interested in the God Who is there."

-D.A. Carson
Sermon: ?

"We're still paddling on the edges of the oceans of the possibilities of grace. Put a holy disatisfaction in us tonight!"

-Leonard Ravenhill

On being as wise as serpents

http://www.emw.org.uk/magazine/2010/10/on-being-as-wise-as-serpents/

On being as wise as serpents

Published

by

Ted Turnau

Why and how Christians should engage popular culture

One of the issues that has perennially dogged the Christian church is the issue of how to relate to the culture that surrounds us, especially popular culture. Are we to separate from it, in order to preserve our purity? Or should we go along with the flow, so we can better relate to those in the culture. Both options have their strong points – maintaining purity is essential, as is relating to those who have no place for Christ in their lives. But both miss the mark, biblically speaking. The Bible supports neither a knee-jerk rejection of culture, nor an uncritical acceptance of it. We are to be both as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16), both engaged with our culture and distinctive from it. It could hardly be otherwise. If the people we seek are immersed in the surrounding culture, in its worldview and worship, then obviously we must understand that culture if we are to speak to the concerns of their hearts. But just as obviously, we cannot simply uncritically imbibe the surrounding culture so that we blend in, chameleon-like. We cannot simply share their system of life and worship, for we would have nothing distinctive to offer. How do we maintain this balance? We must intentionally and critically engage the surrounding culture, especially culture that has the widest impact: popular culture. Here are a few practical points on Christian engagement of popular culture.

Whatever else popular culture is, it is not trivial, because it is an expression of faith and worship.

Not too long ago, I watched Andrea Arnold’s gritty estate-drama Fish Tank (2009). The lead character, the young, frustrated Mia, lives for hip-hop dancing. Her life is infused with its rhythms, its lyrics of urban despair. In a sense, her dance training is a form of worship, her grasping at salvation. It is the same with all popular culture: they are all, ultimately, forms of worship. We need to see them as expressions of non-Christian faiths, non-Christian worldviews. Popular culture is, in this sense, like a mission field in your own home town.

Not all popular culture is equally meaningful.

Even though popular culture is not trivial (it represents an alternate form of worship and belief), some pieces of popular culture are more worthy of attention than others. Much popular culture can be ephemeral, like bubbles in a can of soda. But there are other pieces that have real depth, real staying power. If you find keeping up with popular culture too much, find a few artists working in popular culture who have the ability to really tap into the spirit of the age. Thom Yorke of the band Radiohead is one such, as is the television writer/producer Joss Whedon (creator of various sci-fi/fantasy series), or David Simon (creator of The Wire). Pay attention to the musicians, writers, and directors who make a difference. These are the ones who produce works of depth and meaning. They could be called ‘cultural leaders’. They lay paths that the rest of the culture follows.

Not every piece of popular culture is appropriate for engagement.

If we are to be wise as serpents and remain innocent as doves, we need to be careful not to put ourselves (or our children) in the path of temptation. Hard and fast rules are not typically helpful here. Rather, we need to know the idols of the heart that we ourselves are attracted to, where we are weak, territory that ought to remain off-limits for us. We also need to think through issues such as age-appropriateness, which will be different for different children. It is important to engage popular culture, but we must do so without compromising our walk with the Lord.

Popular culture works by creating imaginative landscapes for us to inhabit.

Popular culture works not by blurting out a message, but through appealing to the imagination. A television show does not simply convey a message, such as ‘Life is meaningless, so have all the fun you can while you can’. Rather, it tells a story in which someone discovers the ‘truth’ of that message; it tells it in a style that underlines that message, and it invites us along for the journey. Popular culture works indirectly, suggestively, not like a slogan at a political rally, but like a poem or a song. It draws you in and gets under your skin. Therefore, you must be intentional in your approach to popular culture so that you understand its effects on the imagination (including the imaginations of your friends and neighbours).

When thinking about a piece of popular culture, it pays to know the tricks of the trade.

Engaging popular culture means exploring the imaginative world, exploring the details of the stories it tells, the styles that it exhibits or fashions for us. That means you should try to understand how popular cultural producers do what they do. If you are considering a movie, think about things such as lighting, camera angle, shot selection, music, and so forth. If you are thinking about a song, pay attention to chords, rhythm, genre, instrumentation, as well as the lyrics. By paying attention to these details, you become more familiar with the imaginative landscape that the popular work invites you to inhabit.

Every piece of popular culture is a complicated mixture of grace and idolatry.

There is no piece of popular culture so banal or twisted that it does not contain some glimpse of God’s grace. And there is no piece of popular culture so pure and profound that it does not contain an invitation to idolatry. Popular culture appeals to non-Christians for a reason, namely, they sense some of God’s beauty, power and goodness in it. This is what theologians call ‘common grace’ – fragments of grace that God spreads to everyone – even those who will never come to believe. As Paul says in Acts, these gifts of God are ‘testimony’ to God’s being and character (see Acts 14:17). Popular culture contains such ‘fragments of grace’ woven into the very fabric of the popular cultural song, movie, television show, book, etc. But in non-Christian popular culture, these fragments of grace are bent to serve false gods. In fact, the idols presented in popular culture become persuasive for non-Christians (and sometimes Christians) precisely because of the attractiveness of those glimpses of God’s grace.

For example, James Cameron’s summer blockbuster Avatar (2009) won accolades for its stunning visual effects, and rightly so. The digital artistry created a beautiful and fascinating alien world filled with realistic and delightful creatures. It served to remind us of the real and delightful creatures God has made. In this way, the film served as a reflection of God’s creative artistry, and ultimately, the beauty and power of God Himself. But the film bends that fragment of grace into the service of pagan nature worship (the nature deity ‘Eywa’). Likewise, all meaningful and attractive popular culture succeeds by drawing its audience in with such reflections of God’s beauty, while putting those grace fragments into service to another god.

Think carefully about how to undermine the idol, and how the gospel applies to the piece of popular culture you’re sharing with friends.

Popular culture often uses ‘grace fragments’ to steer the imagination towards an idol. Think of ways that the idol shows itself to be inadequate and false, and how the Christian worldview and the riches of the gospel offer a better alternative.

Look for occasions where you can experience popular culture together with friends and family (both Christian and non-Christian).

My wife and I host movie discussion nights for my students every fortnight. You may not want to do something so formal, but you should seek out opportunities to experience popular culture together with people you care about. Listen to the music your children listen to. Go see a movie with friends. Invite friends over for dinner and a few episodes of your favourite television series on DVD. Open up your homes and your lives to be shared with family, friends and neighbours.

If we carefully consider the popular culture that surrounds us, we can develop biblical wisdom that neither dismisses it nor blindly accepts it. Such a wisdom that is ‘in the world, but not of the world’ can be very attractive to non-Christians who need Christ, but cannot see what difference He can make. By engaging popular culture, we can speak of Christ in a language familiar to them. And that can make all the difference.

Ted Turnau is a visiting lecturer at WEST.

The Sluggard Is No Freak!

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/07/14/the-sluggard-is-no-freak/

Justin Taylor|4:49 pm CT

The Sluggard Is No Freak!

Derek Kidner, in his 1964 commentary on Proverbs, writes about the sluggard (pp. 42-43):

The sluggard in Proverbs is a figure of tragi-comedy, with his sheer animal laziness (he is more than anchored to his bed: he is hinged to it, 26:14), his preposterous excuses (“there is a lion outside!” 26:13; 22:13) and his final helplessness.

Kidner identified four features of the sluggard according to Proverbs:

(1) He will not begin things. When we ask him (6:9, 10) “How long?” “When…?”, we are being too definite for him. He doesn’t know. All he knows is his delicious drowsiness; all he asks is a little respite: “a little…a little…a little…”. He does not commit himself to a refusal, but deceives himself by the smallness of his surrenders. So, by inches and minutes, his opportunity slips away.

(2) He will not finish things. The rare effort of beginning has been too much; the impulse dies. So his quarry goes bad on him (12:27) and his meal goes cold on him (19:24; 26:15).

(3) He will not face things. He comes to believe his own excuses (perhaps there is a lion out there, 22:13), and to rationalize his laziness; for he is “wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason” (26:16). Because he makes a habit of the soft choice (he “will not plow by reason of the cold,” 20:4) his character suffers as much as his business, so that he is implied in 15:19 to be fundamentally dishonest…

(4) Consequently he is restless (13:4; 21:25, 26) with unsatisfied desire; helpless in face of the tangle of his affairs, which are like a “hedge of thorns” (15:19); and useless—expensively (18:9) and exasperatingly (10:26)—to any who must employ him. . . .

Kidner continues:

The wise man will learn while there is time. He knows that the sluggard is no freak, but, as often as not, an ordinary man who has made too many excuses, too many refusals and too many postponements. It has all been as imperceptible, and as pleasant, as falling asleep.

HT: C.J. Mahaney

Keller and Powlinson: Should You Pass on Bad Reports?

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2008/08/04/keller-and-powlison-should-you-pass-on/

Justin Taylor|8:33 pm CT

Keller and Powlison: Should You Pass on Bad Reports?

Tim Keller and David Powlison recently collaborated to provide some biblical wisdom and guidelines on speech and relationships. Our thinking was that perhaps bloggers would want to adopt these and spread the word about them as a way, in Keller’s words, to “spiritually season Christian conversation in cyberspace.”

So if this perspective resonates with you (and I hope it does), I’d encourage you to pass it along or post it on your blog.

May the Lord help each of us to have truth-in-love speech that is always gracious, salt-seasoned, gentle, respectful, peaceful, and edifying (Col. 4:6; Eph. 4:15; 1 Pet. 3:15; Rom. 14:19)

Should You Pass on Bad Reports?
by Tim Keller & David Powlison

One obvious genius of the internet is that it’s “viral.” Information explodes to the whole world. The old neighborhood grapevine and the postal service seem like ox-carts in a speed-of-light universe. (Do twenty-somethings even know what those antiquities once were? In the old days, people had to talk to each other or stick a stamp on an envelope.) Instantaneous transmission produces some wonderfully good things. Truth, like joy, is infectious. A great idea feeds into a million inboxes. But it also produces some disastrous evils. Lies, rumors, and disinformation travel just as far and just as fast.

So what should you do when you hear “bad reports” about a person or church or ministry? We want to offer a few thoughts on how to remain constructive. To paraphrase Ephesians 4:29, “Let no unwholesome words come out of your computer, but only what is constructive, in order to meet the need of the moment, that what you communicate will give grace to everyone who ever reads it.” That Greek word translated “unwholesome” is sapros. It means something that is inedible, either devoid of nutritional value or rotten and even poisonous. It applies to thorny briars or to fish or fruit that’s gone bad. At best, it’s of no benefit to anyone. At worst, it’s sickening and destructive. Consider three things in how to stay constructive.

What Does James Say about Passing Along Bad Reports?

Humble yourselves before the Lord.
Brothers, don’t slander or attack one another.
(James 4:10-11)

The verb “slander” simply means to “speak against” (Gk. kata-lalein). It is not necessarily a false report, just an “against-report.” The intent is to belittle another. To pour out contempt. To mock. To hurt. To harm. To destroy. To rejoice in purported evil. This can’t mean simple disagreement with ideas—that would mean that we could never have a debate over a point. This isn’t respectful disagreement with ideas. James warns against attacking a person’s motives and character, so that the listeners’ respect and love for the person is undermined. “As the north wind brings rain, so slander brings angry looks” (Prov. 25:23). Everybody gets upset at somebody else: slanderer, slanderee, slander-hearer.

The link of slander to pride in James 4:10 shows that slander is not the humble evaluation of error or fault, which we must constantly be doing. Rather, in slander the speaker speaks as if he never would do the same thing himself. It acts self-righteous and superior toward one’s obviously idiotic inferiors. Non-slanderous evaluation is fair-minded, constructive, gentle, guarded, and always demonstrates that speakers sense how much they share the same frailty, humanity, and sinful nature with the one being criticized. It shows a profound awareness of your own sin. It is never “against-speaking.”

James 5:9 adds a nuance: “Don’t grumble against one another.” Literally, it means don’t moan and groan and roll your eyes. This refers to a kind of against-speaking that is not as specific as a focused slander or attack. It hints at others flaws, not only with words, but by body language and tone. In print, such attitudes are communicated by innuendo, guilt by association, sneering, pejorative vocabulary. In person, it means shaking your head, rolling your eyes, and re-enforcing the erosion of love and respect for someone else. For example, “You know how they do things around here. Yadda, yadda. What do you expect?” Such a “groan” accomplishes the same thing as outright slander. It brings “angry looks” to all concerned. Passing on negative stuff always undermines love and respect. It’s never nourishing, never constructive, never timely, never grace-giving.

What Does the Book of Proverbs Say about Receiving Bad Reports?

He who covers over an offense promotes love,
but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends.
(Proverbs 17:9)

The first thing to do when hearing or seeing something negative is to seek to “cover” the offense rather than speak about it to others. That is, rather than let a bad report “pass in” to your heart as truth, and then get “passed along” to others, you should seek to keep the matter from destroying your love and regard for a person. How?

Start by remembering your own sinfulness. “All a man’s ways seem innocent to him, but motives are weighed by the Lord” (Prov. 16:2). To know this automatically keeps you from being too sure of your position and of speaking too strongly against people that you hear about or people on the other side of a conflict. You intuitively realize that you may not be seeing things right. Your motives are never as pure as you think they are. To know this acts to keep you from being too sure of the facts, too sure of your position, and of speaking too quickly and too negatively about other people. Knowing your own sinfulness helps you not make snap judgments that take what you hear too seriously.

When you remember your sinfulness, remember God’s mercies. “Love covers all offenses” (Prov. 10:12). The God who is love has covered all your offenses. He knows everything about you (and the whole story about that other person). He has chosen to forgive you, and life-saving mercy cost Jesus his life. He could write you up with a 100% True Bad Report, but he has chosen to bury your sins in the depths of the ocean. That makes the life and death difference. If your sins are not buried in the ocean of his mercy, then you will be justly exposed and will justly perish. But when you’ve known mercy, then even when you hear report of grievous evil, an instinct toward mercy should arise within you. To savor the tasty morsels of gossip and bad reports is very different from grieving, caring, and wishing nothing less than the mercies of Christ upon all involved. And most bad reports are much more trivial. They are the stuff of busybodies and gossips going “tut-tut-tut.”

Then remember that there is always another side. “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (Prov. 18:17). You never have all the facts. And you never have all the facts you need all at once. You are never in a position to see the whole picture, and therefore when you hear the first report, you should assume you have far too little information to draw an immediate conclusion. What you’ve heard from someone else is only “hear-say” evidence. It has no standing or validity unless it is confirmed in other ways.

So when you hear a negative report about another, you must keep it from passing into your heart as though it were true. If you pass judgment based on hear-say, you are a fool. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t check out the facts. Go to the person. Hear other witnesses. If you’re far away from the scene, wait for more of the story to come out. Suspend judgment. Don’t get panicked or stampeded by mob-psychology and rumors. Be content not to know many things. You don’t need to have an opinion about everything and everyone.

Third, what should you do if you are close enough to the situation to be involved AND you think the injustice or matter is too great or grievous for you to ignore? For starters, notice that you only really need to know something if it touches your sphere of life and relationships. In that case, you should do what will help you to express God’s call upon you to speak Ephesians 4:29 words of wise love.

In Derek Kidner’s commentary on Prov. 25:7–10, he writes that when you think someone has done wrong you should remember, “One seldom knows the full facts (v.8) and one’s motives in spreading a story are seldom as pure as one pretends (v.10). To run to the law or to the neighbors is usually to run away from the duty of personal relationship.” See Christ’s clinching comment in Matthew 18:15: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” In short, if you feel the problem is too great and you can’t keep it from destroying your regard for the person, you must go personally before you go to anyone else.

When Should You Go?
Galatians 6:1 says we are to go when a person is caught in a trespass. That means there should be some kind of “pattern” or the unmistakeable exposure of a wrong. Don’t go the first time you hear a bad report about someone doing wrong. As we said above, there’s another side to most stories, and our motives are never totally pure when we get indignant. Go if the person seems caught—that is, trapped or stuck in a habit pattern of wrong behavior or falsehood.

How Should You Go?
Galatians 6:1 says we are to restore gently and in humility, bearing all the fruit of the Spirit. Beware of your own tendencies to be tempted—perhaps to the same sin, perhaps to reactive sins of self-righteousness or judgmentalism, perhaps to avoidance sins of cover-up and pretending. Galatians 6:2 goes on to say that we actually fulfill the law of Christ by bearing each other’s burdens. We become nothing less than lesser redeemers in the pattern of our Great Redeemer. Jesus in Matthew 18:15ff says we should also go persistently, and not give up in the process. Patience is one fruit of the Spirit because problems don’t always clear up quickly. There is a progression in efforts to get to the bottom of a bad report, to confirm the facts, and to work at bringing restoration.

Who Should Go?

Galatians 6 says you—plural—who are spiritual should go to the straying one. That both defines how you should go and it calls for multiple people to get involved. Similarly Matthew 18:15ff says to bring in other people if matters don’t resolve one to one. The right kind of checking out a bad report is always done in person and often will be done by involving multiple wise persons.

Why Should You Go?
In both Galatians 6 and Matthew 18 the goal is to restore the person and to re-establish sin-broken relationships. You are working to restore people both to God and to others.

Conclusion

In summary, from the Old Testament to the New Testament, the principle is this. If you hear bad reports about other Christians you must either cover it with love or go to them personally before speaking of it to any others.

• The first thing to do is to simply suspend judgment. Don’t pass on bad reports.
• The second thing to do is “cover” it in love, reminding yourself that you don’t know all about the heart of the person who may have done evil—and you know your own frailty. Don’t allow bad reports to pass into your own heart.
• The final thing to do is go and speak to them personally.

What you should never do is rush to judgment, or withdraw from loving another, or pass on the negative report to others. This is challenge enough when you’re dealing with the local grapevine or slow-moving postal service. In a world of instant world-wide communication of information it’s an even bigger challenge, because you can do bigger damage more quickly. Whether the bad report offers true information, or partial information, or disinformation, or false information—it is even more important that you exercise great discretion, and that you take pains to maximize boots-on-the-ground interpersonal relationships.

Reality with God at the Center

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2010/02/04/reality-with-god-at-the-center/

Ray Ortlund|10:09 am CT

Reality with God at the center

“As I see it, the Christian life must be comprised of three concentric circles, each of which must be kept in its proper place. In the outer circle must be the correct theological position, true biblical orthodoxy and the purity of the visible church. This is first, but if that is all there is, it is just one more seedbed for spiritual pride.

In the second circle must be good intellectual training and comprehension of our own generation. But having only this leads to intellectualism and again provides a seedbed for pride.

In the inner circle must be the humble heart — the love of God, the devotional attitude toward God. There must be the daily practice of the reality of the God whom we know is there. . . .

When each of these three circles is established in its proper place, there will be tongues of fire and the power of the Holy Spirit. Then, at the end of my life, when I look back over my work since I have been a Christian, I will see that I have not wasted my life. The Lord’s work must be done in the Lord’s way.”

Francis A. Schaeffer, “The Lord’s Work in the Lord’s Way,” in No Little People (Downers Grove, 1974), page 74, italics his.

Update: Justin Taylor has kindly let me know that Crossway Books has put this sermon of Schaeffer’s online. You can view it here. “The Lord’s Work in the Lord’s Way” is one of the most important things I have ever read. It is never far from my thoughts.

Praying with One Another: Lessons from the Life of David Brainerd

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2010/03/02/praying-with-one-another-lessons-from-the-life-of-david-brainerd/

Mark Rogers|1:38 PM CT

Praying with One Another: Lessons from the Life of David Brainerd

David Brainerd (1718-1747) was a missionary to the Native Americans of New York. He died of Tuberculosis in Jonathan Edwards’ home. Two years later Edwards published The Life of David Brainerd, which consists almost entirely of Brainerd’s journal entries. Brainerd’s Life has been influential on countless missionaries after him. It had a major impact on people like William Carey, Henry Martyn, and Jim Elliot.

One of the instructive elements of Brainerd’s life is how much time he spent in prayer, not only by himself, but with other Christians. For example:

Sept. 10, 1742: In the afternoon, prayed with a dear friend privately, and had the presence of God with us; our souls united together to reach after a blessed immortality.

Dec. 11, 1742: I rode to Bethlehem, came to Mr. Bellamy’s lodgings, and spent the evening with him in sweet conversation and prayer.

Dec. 23, 1742: I rode to New-Haven, and there enjoyed some sweetness in prayer and conversation, with some dear Christian friends. My mind was sweetly serious and composed.

Dec. 26, 1742: In the evening, rode from New-Haven to Branford, after I had kneeled and prayed with a number of dear Christian friends in a very retired place in the woods.

Feb. 17, 1743: In the evening, spent some time with a dear Christian friend; and felt serious, as on the brink of eternity. My soul enjoyed sweetness in lively apprehensions of standing before the glorious God: prayed with my dear friend with sweetness, and discoursed with the utmost solemnity. And truly it was a little emblem of heaven itself.

March 19, 1743: In the afternoon, rode to Newark, and had some sweetness in conversation with Mr. Burr, and in praying together. O blessed be God forever and ever, for any enlivening and quickening seasons.

Observations:

1. Brainerd nearly always reports a vibrant time of prayer when praying with friends. Secret prayer is necessary and important. But we should remember that praying out loud with others is a means God often uses to minister to our souls in a powerful way.

2. Brainerd’s secret prayer was often more lively and focused after spending time together with friends in prayer.

3. Brainerd went as a missionary, sometimes with a translator, but often with no friend but his horse. He was working among tribes with zero Christians. He often struggled with despair and horrible loneliness. I wonder how his ministry or walk with Christ may have been different if he had a like-minded co-worker.

Applications:

1. We should pray together. Every time Brainerd records staying with someone or seeing friends they had “spiritual conversations” and prayed together. How much of our spiritual weakness stems from our silence about God and toward God when we are together?

2. If we don’t have friends that would want to pray with us, we should seek out additional friends. Biblical community is not something we drift into accidentally.

3. We need to ask others to pray for us and with us if we want to grow in Christ or be useful in advancing the gospel.

4. We should pray with missionaries (not just for missionaries) whenever we have the opportunity.

5. We should probably never “fly solo” as Brainerd did the last few years of his life. If you are in a rough work environment, feel alone, or have a difficult ministry (and even if you don’t), you need friends to come alongside you. The American way may be individualistic and self-reliant, but that is not the biblical way.

A Theological Conversation Worth Having: A Response to Brian McLaren

http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/03/23/a-theological-conversation-worth-having-a-response-to-brian-mclaren/

A Theological Conversation Worth Having: A Response to Brian McLaren

We are talking about two rival understandings of the Gospel here — two very different understandings of theology, Gospel, Bible, doctrine, and the totality of the Christian faith. Both sides in this controversy understand what is at stake.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Some theological disputes amount to very little and serve mostly as exercises in missing the point, if indeed there is a point. Other doctrinal exchanges are quite different and deal with matters of central and essential concern to the Christian faith. The first sort of dispute is a waste of precious time and energy and should be avoided at all costs. The second sort of debate is a matter of both urgency and importance. The church cannot avoid and should not seek to evade this kind of theological conversation.

That is why a recent essay by Brian McLaren helps us all to understand what is at stake in the controversy over Rob Bell’s new book, Love Wins. Beyond this, his argument reveals a great deal about the actual beliefs and trajectories of what has become known as the emerging church. As such, his essay is a welcome addition to this important conversation.

McLaren, perhaps the best known of the leaders in the emerging church, seeks to defend Rob Bell and to act as his friend. He says that he had been waiting for an opportunity to speak in Bell’s defense, and, evidently my essay, “We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology,” afforded McLaren the opportunity he was seeking.

Related Posts

• “A Massive Shift Coming in What it Means to Be a Christian?” — TIME Magazine Considers Rob Bell
• “Oh, to See the Dawn” — A New Hymn Worth Singing . . . Over and Over Again
• No Pass from Theological Responsibility — The BioLogos Conundrum
• Is Abortion a Theological Issue? Garry Wills Says No
• Homosexuality and Theological Method — A Pattern of Argument to Watch

In his own essay, “Will Love Wins Win? We’re Early in the First Inning,” McLaren uses a baseball metaphor to reject my critique of Rob Bell’s arguments. He asserts that I “rounded first base” by affirming a clear understanding of the Gospel as found in the Scriptures and then suggesting that Rob Bell’s proposals fall short of the Gospel. My problem, according to McLaren, is that I assume that a clear understanding of the Gospel is even possible. According to McLaren, the complexities of interpretation render this claim implausible.

In his words:

Now communication is nearly always tricky, as any of us who are married or are parents know. The speaker has a meaning which is encoded in symbols (words) which then must be decoded by the receiver. That decoding process is subject to all kinds of static - for example, interference from the biases, fears, hopes, politics, vocabulary, and other characteristics of the receiver or the receiver’s community. If the receiver then tries to pass the meaning - as he has decoded it - on to others, there is more encoding and decoding, and more static. That’s why, with so much encoding and decoding and re-encoding going on, the challenge of communication across many cultural time zones is downright monumental.

Communication is indeed “nearly always tricky,” but McLaren’s argument leads to interpretive nihilism. Can we really not know what the Gospel is? If this is true, the church is left with no coherent message at all. All of our attempts to define the right form of the Gospel are just human interpretations, he insists, and we must avoid “excessive confidence” in any telling of the Gospel story. McLaren warns that we must avoid “a naive and excessive confidence,” but that we can retain a “humble confidence.” But his argument leaves us with very little idea of how this “humble confidence” is to be found, since “no articulation of the gospel today can presume to be exactly identical to the original meaning Christ and the apostles proclaimed.”

That statement leaves us with only approximations of the Gospel — some presumably better, some worse. And we would in fact be left with nothing more precise or authoritative than that but for one thing — we have the Bible. We are absolutely dependent upon the New Testament way of telling the Gospel of Christ, and the apostles were determined to pass along the Gospel as a clear and understandable message to others. This is why Paul instructed Timothy to “follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus” and to “guard the good deposit entrusted to you.” [2 Timothy 1:13-14]

If we cannot know what the Gospel is, then there is no such thing as the faith “once for all delivered to the saints.” [Jude 3] If so, we have nothing definitive to say.

The issues of communication are real, and we should never seek to minimize the challenge of interpretation. But the clarity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture are precisely the means whereby the Lord preserves his church in the Spirit and in truth. It is one thing to cite the challenge of interpretation. It is another thing altogether to suggest that we are left with an insurmountable problem and an indefinite message. This flies directly in the face of biblical claims and commands.

McLaren also accuses me of misreading Rob Bell’s motivation for writing the book. He rejects my assertion that Bell is driven by a desire to present Christianity in a new way to those who find the traditional form of the Gospel impossible to believe — especially in terms of hell and everlasting torment. Instead, McLaren argues that Bell “started questioning the interpretation of the Gospel he received.”

Later, McLaren argues that I misunderstand Bell by suggesting that he wrote the book out of concern for people who are “put off by the doctrine of hell.” But where did I get this idea? Rob Bell plainly states this concern and motivation in the opening pages of Love Wins. My argument is not an inference — it is just a citation of what Rob Bell himself asserted.

With explicit reference to hell in the very next paragraph, Bell wrote this:

I’ve written this book for all those, everywhere, who have heard some version of the Jesus story that caused their pulse rate to rise, their stomach to churn, and their heart to utter these resolute words, “I would never be a part of that.”

I am just taking Rob Bell at his word, and his words are clear.

McLaren rejects what he then calls my way of rounding second base. He cites my argument that Bell separates God’s love from his holiness and presents a sentimental idea of love in place of the biblical theology of God’s love. McLaren argues that the traditional understanding of hell presents a God who is not loving, even by human standards.

In his words:

If a human father decided to throw his child in a fireplace for just ten seconds as punishment for disobedience, we wouldn’t fault the father simply for being unsentimental: we would say such behavior was unholy, an act of torture in violation of our most fundamental sense of justice. Any definition of justice and holiness that involves being unsatisfied unless the imperfect are suffering eternal agony seems to many of us as unworthy of a human being and if so, how much more unworthy of God whose justice must be better than our own.

That argument is straightforward enough, and we need to look at it closely. The central problem with McLaren’s formulation is that such logic destroys any faithfulness to the totality of God’s self-revelation about himself. It presumes to judge God by human conceptions of love — and this is precisely what God himself rejects. He will not allow himself to be judged by humans. We simply do not have an adequate moral vantage point from which to make judgments about the character of God. We are, as in all things, utterly dependent upon God’s self-revelation and self-definition.

We do not know who God is by knowing what love is. We understand love by knowing who God is. But Brian McLaren seems quite ready to judge God by human standards of love and justice. In his most important book, A New Kind of Christianity, he rejects the Genesis account of God’s actions in the story of Noah, describing the story as “profoundly disturbing.” As he concluded, “In this light, a god who mandates an intentional supernatural disaster leading to unparalleled genocide is hardly worthy of belief, much less worship.” He responds to other texts in a similar way.

But God explicitly rejects such a human determination of his character. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord,” as the prophet Isaiah declared. [Isaiah 55:8] Instead, God defines his loving character like this: “God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” [Romans 5:8]

McLaren’s rejection of the Noah account is based on his own view of the Bible — a truly radical view that, taken in full force, explains McLaren’s theological method and positions. He rejects the Bible as a “legal constitution” and proposes that it be seen as a “community library” that reveals an evolving human understanding of God — one in which some texts effectively nullify other texts.

He asserts that there can “be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible.” That statement is profoundly true, and it points to a central problem. McLaren’s new approach to the Bible is a straightforward and amazingly honest call to relativize passages that are deemed to be inferior or unacceptable. We should not wonder that he, like Bell, argues against the traditional doctrine of hell.

We should also not wonder, then, that McLaren likes Rob Bell’s arguments for finding what he considers to be better ways of telling the Jesus story.

McLaren then moves to another major point in his essay:

Next Dr. Mohler races around third base with the popular epithet ‘liberal.’ He accuses those of us who differ with the prevailing view on hell as “pushing Protestant Liberalism –just about a century late…. This is just a reissue of the powerless message of theological liberalism… This is the traditional liberal line.”

Well, I do not use liberal as an epithet, though such usage is regrettably common. I teach systematic and historical theology, and in the theological world, the term “liberal” has a very clear meaning, especially when associated with the movement known, clearly enough, as Protestant Liberalism.

My argument that the emerging church in general, and Rob Bell’s new book in particular, is a new presentation of Protestant Liberalism is simply true, and has been noted by other readers of Bell’s book, including some congenial to him. He practically repeats arguments put forth by leading liberal figures such as Rudolf Bultmann — including his argument that modern men and women simply do not believe in heaven and hell. Bultmann called for a method of “demythologizing” the New Testament in order to remove what he then called its mythological elements. Rob Bell’s proposals in Love Wins are really just a form of Bultmannianism Lite.

Finally, McLaren agrees with me at “home plate,” though with a very different application:

Finally Dr. Mohler strides across home plate with a point I actually agree with: “At the end of the day, a secular society feels no need to attend or support secularized churches with a secularized theology.”

True enough (if by “secular” you mean “without any reference to God”), but the rub for many who identify as conservatives, I think, is that for them, secularism only comes in one flavor: liberal.

To more and more of us these days, conservative Evangelical/fundamentalist theology looks and sounds more and more like secular conservatism - economic and political - simply dressed up in religious language. If that’s the case, even if Dr. Mohler is right in every detail of his critique, he’d still be wise to apply the flip side of his warning to his own beloved community.

And, in return, I must say that McLaren lands a firm punch with this statement. He is profoundly right in seeing much of presumably conservative Christianity as a sell-out to the idols of the day and a new form of Culture Christianity. He is right to challenge us to call this what it is and to root it out.

But, if we follow his own methodology and program, how could we do this? If we cannot know what the Gospel really is — if we cannot know the Gospel on any definite terms — how can we know a false gospel when we see one?

Thankfully, we can know. We do know. We are not left in the dark, and we do not have only a “community library” to consult. We have the Bible and all of the Bible. We are accountable to it all, and it is all true, trustworthy, authoritative, sufficient, and, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, clear in its message.

This is why a response to Love Wins was necessary, and why a response to Brian McLaren is now in order. He is to be credited with taking theology seriously, with making clear arguments, and with a willingness to engage the conversation. I return his candor with my own, and I am ever more convinced of why this controversy is both inevitable and clarifying.

We are talking about two rival understandings of the Gospel here — two very different understandings of theology, Gospel, Bible, doctrine, and the totality of the Christian faith. Both sides in this controversy understand what is at stake.

And that, dear reader, is why this conversation must continue.

Chronological Bible Reading Plan

http://www.bhpublishinggroup.com/readthebible/downloads/RBL-reading-plan.pdf

In the plan that follows, the material of the Bible has been
organized to flow in chronological order. Since exact dating of
some materials or events is not possible, the chronology simply
represents an attempt to give you the reader the general flow and
development of the Bible’s grand story. Some passages are placed
according to topic (e.g., John 1:1–3 in Week 1, Day 2; and many
of the psalms). There are six readings for each week to give you
space for catching up when needed.

A Pastoral Case for the Filioque Clause

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/04/07/a-pastoral-case-for-the-filioque-clause/

John Starke|5:00 AM CT

A Pastoral Case for the Filioque Clause

We Protestants—heirs of the Reformation—are sadly accustomed to church splits. So it’s hard for us to fathom the significance of the massive schism of 1054 when the Eastern Church broke from the West. The division between the Western Church (which now includes Roman Catholicism and Protestantism) and Eastern Orthodoxy wasn’t caused by debates over the deity of Christ or, even, justification by faith. It was over something much more subtle; something we call the filioque clause.

You may be familiar with this debate and find it trivial. Still more of you probably have little idea what I’m talking about. But I am convinced this debate does matter, especially for Protestant pastors. So let me give a very brief summary, just in case you’re a little fuzzy or completely unaware of the details, and then argue a case for why it matters for pastors. While there are lots of juicy political details and ecclesiological baggage in the story, I’ll stick mainly with the theological bits.

The Filioque and the Authority of Scripture

From the early Nicene and Constantinopolitan creeds, the confession of the Holy Spirit read like this: “the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father.” The Spirit proceeded only from the Father, not the Son. Now, we’re not certain exactly when, but eventually the West added a phrase: “the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.” (The Latin word, filioque, means “and the Son.”) This confessional move to add “and the Son” was condemned in the East by Patriarch Photius I of Constantinople (right) in 864.

This variance became a way in which the East and West distinguished themselves on the missionary front, also bringing with it much political tension. The West officially adopted the amended creed in 1014, leading the East to officially split in 1054.

This debate might not feel so consequential as the debate over justification by faith alone, for example. But it carries great historical import, because in the filioque controversy we can cite an example when the authority of Scripture trumped the authority of councils. Some may push back and say that it was all a political game. Roman Catholics can argue that nothing was official until the pope stepped in, so really the authority of the church triumphed. But in the end, it was pastors and theologians grappling with their Bibles to explain, not only God’s self-revelation, but also how God is involved in redeeming and sustaining his people.

I don’t mean to undermine the importance of creeds or the work of the church councils. The first seven councils are a good judge of Christian orthodoxy, and we can hold them up as a standard for biblical Christianity that we should be very slow to challenge. But their conclusions are accountable to God’s Word. And it’s here, in the filioque controversy, where Protestant pastors—indeed, every Christian who takes seriously the final authority of the Bible—can find a good example, political struggles aside, of the church laboring to be true to God’s Word.

Evidence for the Filioque Clause

Just because a historical event gives credence to the Protestant cause doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. Still, I think the Bible gives us every reason to believe that the filioque clause accurately reflects God’s work and Word.

The Upper Room Discourse in John’s Gospel is the most obvious place to start, where Jesus spends a good bit of time talking about the “sending of the Spirit.” In John 15:26, the Son sends the Spirit, “who proceeds from the Father.” Also, in John 16, Jesus comforts his disciples saying, “it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you” (John 16:7, emphasis mine). Several other passages (John 16:13-15; 15:26; 14:26; Mt. 3:16; cf. Mk. 1:10; Lk. 3:22) give us a more complex picture of the relationship of the Father, the Son, and of the Spirit than the Eastern Church offers. Robert Letham comments on this complexity:

The Holy Spirit hears the Father, receives from the Father, takes from the Son and makes it known to the church, proceeds from the Father, is sent by the Father in the name of the Son, is sent by the Son from the Father, rests on the Son, speaks of the Son, and glorifies the Son.

Some have responded in saying that how God reveals himself in human history is not necessarily a true picture of his eternal reality. But if God’s self-revelation does not indicate who he is in reality, then we are left to speculate in our search for true knowledge of God and the authority of Scripture is undermined. It’s here, again, where the authority of Scripture comes to the forefront. If the Bible can’t give us true knowledge about God, then we have a bigger problem than a church schism.

But the Bible is a reliable source of our knowledge of God, and the language it uses about God gives us insight into who he is. And when the New Testament speaks of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Christ, not just the Spirit of God, it is telling us something important about how the Person of the Spirit relates to the Person of the Son (Rom. 8:9; 1 Pet. 1:11). It is Christ who baptizes with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16). It is Christ who promises and sends the Spirit as the One who now mediates Christ’s active presence in the world. This becomes evidentially clear in the book of Acts, where the Spirit empowers the early Christians to be witnesses of Christ to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), and it is through the Spirit that Christ is with them to the end of the age (Matt. 28:20).

The Filioque for Preaching and Discipleship

At this point we can begin to recognize the importance of the filioque clause for preaching and discipleship. Church leaders not only pray that their people will be more holy, but that they will be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:18, 15:49). So Paul can say that if you have the Spirit of Christ in you, then you have Christ himself in you (Rom. 8:9-10). And if we have the Spirit of Christ, then we will be conformed to his image, since the Spirit is the power of the Father, who raised Christ from the dead. And this resurrecting Spirit not only gives us new life and makes us holy like Christ, but he is also the hope of our physical resurrection when Christ returns in power (Rom. 8:10-11). For Christians who desire to make Christ the center of God’s redeeming activity, the filioque clause does a nice job of emphasizing that point from Scripture.

When I say that this issue is important for preaching and discipleship, I don’t mean that it needs to be the subject of our preaching and discipleship. That, I think, would be foolish. But what I do mean to say is that we should labor to understand God by how he reveals himself in Scripture. It should inform our prayers and inform how we talk about God’s active presence in the life of his children. It bears on how we talk about holiness and how pastors and leaders should call people to godliness. When we hear the words, “Be holy as I am holy” (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16; see also Matt. 5:48), it takes on a richer meaning when it is the Spirit of Christ who dwells in us and empowers us to do so.

Without this view of the filioque clause, I don’t think we have as clear of an understanding of the Spirit’s work and role in the life of believers; nor do I think we have as much certainty about the being of God.

My fear is that the reason pastors and theologians don’t talk much about the filioque clause is because they don’t talk much about the Trinity at all. As Carl Trueman has often put it, our churches may believe in the Trinity, but they don’t often look much different from the Unitarian churches down the road. To talk about God in a way that is uniquely Christian, our language must be filled with trinitarian language.

The filioque clause is not so heavenly minded that it is no earthly good. It is useful for Christians who must preach, sing, and think hard about God who is Three-in-One and has saved us and is keeping us until the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, comes again.

A Prayer for Knowing the Will of God

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/scottysmith/2011/05/11/a-prayer-for-knowing-the-will-of-god/

Scotty Smith|5:37 am CT

A Prayer for Knowing the Will of God

In their hearts humans plan their course, but the Lord establishes their steps. Prov. 16:9

Sovereign Father, this promise brings immeasurable peace, humility, and joy; for I wake up today with little decisions demanding to be made and very big ones looming on the horizon. I am so thankful for all the major things this one little verse affirms. I feel much less pressure.

Father, you are vitally engaged in determining and directing every one of my steps. You are faithfully working all things together after the counsel of your will. You are actively working in all things for your glory and for our good. You open doors no man can shut and you shut doors no man can open. Indeed, you’re no mere life coach; you’re the Lord of all things—including me. Hallelujah!

Many years I labored under the arrogance and anxiety of assuming that if I prayed hard enough and long enough, that if I was really filled with and “tuned into” the Holy Spirit, I could know the specifics of your will for my life well in advance of any decision that needed to be made. Of course, my assumption was that if I was in your will, life would be enjoyable, pleasant, and hassle free.

If I bought the right car, it would never break down. If I bought the right house, the roof would never leak. If I married the right person, we would never disagree. If I went to the right college, I’d get the right job and life would be all right. If I sent my kids to the right school, they would never act out and would end up on the mission field. The truth is, Father, if this is the way life works, we wouldn’t really need you. We’d just have to be real smart and good gamblers.

You’re certainly honored when we work hard to make good plans in keeping with our understanding of the Scriptures. It’s important for us to seek and heed the wise, prayerful counsel of good and godly friends. But help us to live with more confidence that Jesus is the Good Shepherd, not a consulting partner; a very present Lord, not an absentee landlord; the reigning King, not an impotent bystander.

Because of Jesus, I’m confident your will is being done, on earth as it is in heaven. I pray in his exalted and faithful name. Amen.

Kingdom Centered Prayer

From Redeemer Presbyterian in Manhattan:

http://www.redeemer.com/connect/prayer/kingdom_prayer.html