I meant to add more pictures to that last post, but got confused at what blogger was doing. This one is a view of the back yard where we were fighting brush on the fence. The new fence and townhouses are in the back view. One of our guys, Edouard, from Russia, is working away on the brush.
This picture is at the end of the day, looking out from the parking lot to the road, with my trusty truck in the foreground. There used to be a fence there by the big fir tree (another object destined for destruction).
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Saturday, October 14, 2006
on just a great day with my church men
Today was one of those highlight reel days of the ministry. We had a work day at the church, attended by most of our men. The only ones that missed were those who are too feeble or those who had other unavoidable commitments.
We had two projects today: cleaning the gutters and removing a chain link fence on two sides of our property. The gutters are just maintenance, but the fence came up because of a new development behind us. In the property next to ours, we have been watching 14 townhouses go up over the last year or so. They are just finishing up now, and put up a new fence behind the townhouses. The fence was 10-20 feet away from our fence, so I asked the developers what was up with it. He said the fence was on the property line! I was surprised that so much property back there actually belonged to our lot. Of course, before the developers came along, there was a gully back there which carried a winter stream. So our fence was built on the ridge of the gully instead of on the property line.
Well, I could just see that area between the two fences becoming a tangle of weeds if we lef the fence up, so we decided to take it down. That meant contending with blackberries, broom, and other brushy types of plants that had invaded from the former gully and had intertwined themselves with our fence. What a job!
After the chain links and connecting poles were removed, it was time for the posts. Jack-hammer time, my first experience with such a machine. The guys who built our church building way back when were excellent builders. They did everything top notch, which is to say, very, very, very solid. The corner posts were encased in two pours of concrete. The rest of them had a pretty skookum amount as well. [The top picture is me using the jack hammer on a corner post - notice the name of the machine - I called the pic 'brute on Brute'. My wife and daughter are supervising in the background.]
Well, we all took turns on the hammer, and managed to get all the posts out. Some of them are even still intact. Our property now looks strangely open and inviting. We probably should have done this a long time ago!
My wife brought over lunch for us all. She's a good girl, I guess we'll keep her! After we finished the job, we sat around in the fellowship room and just talked. What a great time. These guys are the highlight of pastoral ministry. I wrote recently about some of the challenges, but this kind of day is filled with God's good grace and his blessedness in working in the hearts of men.
And tomorrow is the day of worship! I think we are ready this week!
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
We had two projects today: cleaning the gutters and removing a chain link fence on two sides of our property. The gutters are just maintenance, but the fence came up because of a new development behind us. In the property next to ours, we have been watching 14 townhouses go up over the last year or so. They are just finishing up now, and put up a new fence behind the townhouses. The fence was 10-20 feet away from our fence, so I asked the developers what was up with it. He said the fence was on the property line! I was surprised that so much property back there actually belonged to our lot. Of course, before the developers came along, there was a gully back there which carried a winter stream. So our fence was built on the ridge of the gully instead of on the property line.
Well, I could just see that area between the two fences becoming a tangle of weeds if we lef the fence up, so we decided to take it down. That meant contending with blackberries, broom, and other brushy types of plants that had invaded from the former gully and had intertwined themselves with our fence. What a job!
After the chain links and connecting poles were removed, it was time for the posts. Jack-hammer time, my first experience with such a machine. The guys who built our church building way back when were excellent builders. They did everything top notch, which is to say, very, very, very solid. The corner posts were encased in two pours of concrete. The rest of them had a pretty skookum amount as well. [The top picture is me using the jack hammer on a corner post - notice the name of the machine - I called the pic 'brute on Brute'. My wife and daughter are supervising in the background.]
Well, we all took turns on the hammer, and managed to get all the posts out. Some of them are even still intact. Our property now looks strangely open and inviting. We probably should have done this a long time ago!
My wife brought over lunch for us all. She's a good girl, I guess we'll keep her! After we finished the job, we sat around in the fellowship room and just talked. What a great time. These guys are the highlight of pastoral ministry. I wrote recently about some of the challenges, but this kind of day is filled with God's good grace and his blessedness in working in the hearts of men.
And tomorrow is the day of worship! I think we are ready this week!
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Thursday, October 12, 2006
on the called
In my recent studies I noticed a little word in Mt 22.14.
NAU Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
The word is 'called'. Why the distinction of the 'many' who are 'called' and the 'few' who are 'chosen'?
Tom Constable says "Not all whom God has invited to the kingdom will participate in it. Only those who respond to God’s call and prepare themselves by trusting in Jesus will." [See Note 1 below.]
The adjective 'called' is used ten times in the New Testament. Most of the time it delineates the saints of God or someone called to a special task. Paul is called to be an apostle in Rm 1.1 and 1 Cor 1.1. Paul calls the Romans 'the called of Jesus Christ' in Rm 1.6. In Rm 1.7 they are 'called as saints'. In Rm 8.28, the well known 'all things' work together for good to all who 'are called according to His purpose'. In 1 Cor 1.2, the Corinthians are 'saints by calling' and in 1 Cor 1.24 Paul distinguishes between the Jews and the Greeks and 'those who are the called'. Jude writes to 'To those who are called' in Jude 1.
The only other use of called is Rev 17.14:
NAU Revelation 17:14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."
In this verse likely the three terms are likely in apposition to one another. While one could imagine some who were called not being chosen, it is hard to imagine those being 'with Him' on this occasion as being a further subset of the chosen called 'the faithful'.
Thus, in every case but the first instance the term either refers to one called to be an apostle or to saints who equal the called. Why then does the Lord say, "Many are called but few are chosen"?
The answer appears not to lie in an examination of usage but in the context. In the parable for which this statement is the conclusion the a king invited guests to the marriage supper of his son, but they would not come. Then he sent his servants after them and they went off on their own pursuits and misused them. Some of them they killed. The king was angry and sent his soldiers to destroy the murderers and burn their city. All of this is a picture of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Then the Lord sent his servants to invite bad and good from the highways to fill his banquet table. This they did until the banquet hall was filled. This parallels the preachign of the gospel to the entire world, filling the kingdom with citizens of every race and tongue.
One among these came to the supper without a wedding garment. The king rebuked him, and sent him out to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the Lord says: 'For many are called, but few are chosen.'
Clearly the many included Israel and they include the man without the wedding garment. What is the difference between the guests who remain and all these? They responded to the invitation and they clothed themselves appropriately.
While I suppose we cannot build a doctrine solely on one parable, it appears that the meaning of this passage is that the gospel invitation goes to many (and in scriptural context we would say this means 'all') but only those who respond appropriately are the 'chosen'. Thus in this parable and passage we see the doctrine of the unlimited atonement and conditional election.
I have many friends who are not comfortable with my views here, but how else to explain the Lord's words?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Note 1: Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Mt 22:14). Galaxie Software.
NAU Matthew 22:14 "For many are called, but few are chosen."
The word is 'called'. Why the distinction of the 'many' who are 'called' and the 'few' who are 'chosen'?
Tom Constable says "Not all whom God has invited to the kingdom will participate in it. Only those who respond to God’s call and prepare themselves by trusting in Jesus will." [See Note 1 below.]
The adjective 'called' is used ten times in the New Testament. Most of the time it delineates the saints of God or someone called to a special task. Paul is called to be an apostle in Rm 1.1 and 1 Cor 1.1. Paul calls the Romans 'the called of Jesus Christ' in Rm 1.6. In Rm 1.7 they are 'called as saints'. In Rm 8.28, the well known 'all things' work together for good to all who 'are called according to His purpose'. In 1 Cor 1.2, the Corinthians are 'saints by calling' and in 1 Cor 1.24 Paul distinguishes between the Jews and the Greeks and 'those who are the called'. Jude writes to 'To those who are called' in Jude 1.
The only other use of called is Rev 17.14:
NAU Revelation 17:14 "These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful."
In this verse likely the three terms are likely in apposition to one another. While one could imagine some who were called not being chosen, it is hard to imagine those being 'with Him' on this occasion as being a further subset of the chosen called 'the faithful'.
Thus, in every case but the first instance the term either refers to one called to be an apostle or to saints who equal the called. Why then does the Lord say, "Many are called but few are chosen"?
The answer appears not to lie in an examination of usage but in the context. In the parable for which this statement is the conclusion the a king invited guests to the marriage supper of his son, but they would not come. Then he sent his servants after them and they went off on their own pursuits and misused them. Some of them they killed. The king was angry and sent his soldiers to destroy the murderers and burn their city. All of this is a picture of Israel and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Then the Lord sent his servants to invite bad and good from the highways to fill his banquet table. This they did until the banquet hall was filled. This parallels the preachign of the gospel to the entire world, filling the kingdom with citizens of every race and tongue.
One among these came to the supper without a wedding garment. The king rebuked him, and sent him out to outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the Lord says: 'For many are called, but few are chosen.'
Clearly the many included Israel and they include the man without the wedding garment. What is the difference between the guests who remain and all these? They responded to the invitation and they clothed themselves appropriately.
While I suppose we cannot build a doctrine solely on one parable, it appears that the meaning of this passage is that the gospel invitation goes to many (and in scriptural context we would say this means 'all') but only those who respond appropriately are the 'chosen'. Thus in this parable and passage we see the doctrine of the unlimited atonement and conditional election.
I have many friends who are not comfortable with my views here, but how else to explain the Lord's words?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Note 1: Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Mt 22:14). Galaxie Software.
on An Afternoon of Questions
In our NT study, we are now to the place on the Tuesday (presumbably) of the Crucifixion week where the various Jewish parties have conspired together to catch the Lord in an embarrasing question. I am presuming that this occurred in the early afternoon, but it could have been earlier in the day. My proposition for this message was: It is utter folly for men to attempt to 'match wits' with God.
The attack begins with a political question, is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. They are hoping for a straight yes or no answer, either one of which could cause problems for the Lord, with the crowd or with the Romans. The Lord artfully answers 'Yes', but in such a way that no one could object to the answer. The Lord will not be trapped with such an easy question as this.
The second attack comes from the Sadducees with the theological question about the woman with seven husbands, all brothers. Who will have her in the resurrection? They have invented this sophistry as a means of mocking the doctrine of the resurrection. The Lord corrects their understanding of the human condition in the resurrection, then deals their doctrine a devastating blow by arguing from the tense of God's statement to Moses from the burning bush: 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Not 'I was...' but 'I am...'. The present tense establishes the fact of the resurrection. The fact is that mockers will think they can pose a problem so hard that God can't be the answer - I once had a friend who couldn't believe there was a fish so big it could swallow a man and spit him up three days later alive. My answer to him: 'How big is God?' People today want to say that science has disproved the Bible. My answer: 'How big is God?' The observable facts of creation are completely explained by a true and living God - those who find them mounting insuperable arguments simply don't want to accept God as the answer.
The third question is a mild test of a legal question, but also an 'almost, but not quite' statement of kingdom faith. A scribe asks Jesus which is the great commandment and the Lord points him to the Shema (Love God with whole heart, mind, strength), and to the secondary commandment of loving neighbour as self. The thoughtful scribe responds that these two commandments are weightier than ALL burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jesus says that this man is not far from the kingdom. What he needs to get into the kingdom is to acknowledge the King, but this he doesn't dare to do, as the opponents of Christ leave off questioning him. One finds himself hoping that this man was one of the three thousand on Pentecost.
Now it is the Lord's turn, and he asks an unanswerable question. That is, it is unanswerable if you don't like the answer. Jesus asks how David can call his son, Messsiah, Lord in Ps 110.1 'The Lord said unto my Lord...' This question precisely zeroes in on the weakness of the Lord's opponents. They will not admit his obvious identity - they will not accept his superiority - they will not confess that he is the God-man, the only son of God, come in the flesh.
As we see these questions, one has to wonder what the Lord would ask of me if he were to come and have an interview with me tonight. What lurking unbelief would he reveal with one simple soul searching question?
One also wonders how it is men think they can match wits with God. The answer? They don't believe Jesus is God. That is why men dare to mock today. They question God's word at many points, sounding very learned, but they have little faith in the God of the word. Their questions reveal it. Our lives can reveal it as well. How much faith do we have in the God of the Word?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Sermon notes here.
The attack begins with a political question, is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. They are hoping for a straight yes or no answer, either one of which could cause problems for the Lord, with the crowd or with the Romans. The Lord artfully answers 'Yes', but in such a way that no one could object to the answer. The Lord will not be trapped with such an easy question as this.
The second attack comes from the Sadducees with the theological question about the woman with seven husbands, all brothers. Who will have her in the resurrection? They have invented this sophistry as a means of mocking the doctrine of the resurrection. The Lord corrects their understanding of the human condition in the resurrection, then deals their doctrine a devastating blow by arguing from the tense of God's statement to Moses from the burning bush: 'I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.' Not 'I was...' but 'I am...'. The present tense establishes the fact of the resurrection. The fact is that mockers will think they can pose a problem so hard that God can't be the answer - I once had a friend who couldn't believe there was a fish so big it could swallow a man and spit him up three days later alive. My answer to him: 'How big is God?' People today want to say that science has disproved the Bible. My answer: 'How big is God?' The observable facts of creation are completely explained by a true and living God - those who find them mounting insuperable arguments simply don't want to accept God as the answer.
The third question is a mild test of a legal question, but also an 'almost, but not quite' statement of kingdom faith. A scribe asks Jesus which is the great commandment and the Lord points him to the Shema (Love God with whole heart, mind, strength), and to the secondary commandment of loving neighbour as self. The thoughtful scribe responds that these two commandments are weightier than ALL burnt offerings and sacrifices. Jesus says that this man is not far from the kingdom. What he needs to get into the kingdom is to acknowledge the King, but this he doesn't dare to do, as the opponents of Christ leave off questioning him. One finds himself hoping that this man was one of the three thousand on Pentecost.
Now it is the Lord's turn, and he asks an unanswerable question. That is, it is unanswerable if you don't like the answer. Jesus asks how David can call his son, Messsiah, Lord in Ps 110.1 'The Lord said unto my Lord...' This question precisely zeroes in on the weakness of the Lord's opponents. They will not admit his obvious identity - they will not accept his superiority - they will not confess that he is the God-man, the only son of God, come in the flesh.
As we see these questions, one has to wonder what the Lord would ask of me if he were to come and have an interview with me tonight. What lurking unbelief would he reveal with one simple soul searching question?
One also wonders how it is men think they can match wits with God. The answer? They don't believe Jesus is God. That is why men dare to mock today. They question God's word at many points, sounding very learned, but they have little faith in the God of the word. Their questions reveal it. Our lives can reveal it as well. How much faith do we have in the God of the Word?
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Sermon notes here.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
our Thanksgiving sermon
In Canada, Thanksgiving occurs on the second Monday of October. A few years ago I did some research on Thanksgiving to find out the differences between the American and Canadian versions. I think that the date difference has to do with an earlier harvest in our northern climes. And, of course, there are Canadians who claim that 'we' celebrated Thanksgiving 'first', before the Plymouth Pilgrims. Part of the Canadian psyche is an incredible inferiority complex towards the USA. We are founded on a negative principle, "We don't want to be Americans." From that flows all of our tortured way of thinking up here.
Well... whatever...
Sometimes it gets a bit painful to keep up the Canadian facade.
In any case, yesterday was Canadian Thanksgiving (and my brother's birthday). In our church we have often celebrated Thanksgiving with a traditional Thanksgiving meal together with as many of our church people as have cared to come. Many of our folks are somewhat 'disconnected' - no immediate family in the area, or very limited relationships with the family that is here. So we are their family. When we started this, my wife and I lived in a half duplex and we could have the whole church over in our dining room, all ten of us. Thankfully, the crowd is a bit bigger now and we have a church building to hold it in.
Yesterday we invited my brother and his family 'down-Island' to provide music for our service and allow my brother to 'sing for his supper.' (I even made him give me the note to start 'Happy Birthday', since I am decidedly unmusical.) We had a crowd of about 50 people, including several lost family members of our church members. For one couple, it was the first time they had darkened the door of our church, although they only stayed for the meal and not for the service. I hope that the contact will allow future contacts and that they will respond to the gospel someday.
For the message, I was working my way through the passages in the Synoptics that cover the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the challenge of the priests and elders ('by what authority do you do these things'), and the three parables the Lord gives in response. Fortunately, the last parable was "The Wedding Banquet" so it fit in nicely with Thanksgiving. In the message I pointed out the theme of invitation in the Banquet parable. Those first invited refused, and even killed some of those sent to invite them. The response was wrath and destruction. From there, I turned to the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the parables of the two sons ("I go, sir" but he didn't go; "I won't go" but he did go), and of the landowner whose tenants killed the landowner's son. Each of these are either a spoken or an acted parable of the relation between God and Israel, the nation first invited to the banquet, but in denial and refusal to come. God then sends his servants on the highways to invite all to the feast. Those highways lead around the world, ending in Victoria, BC, and with many ports of call in between. The banquet hall will be filled, and the work of the invitation is ongoing. A final warning is given in the parable concerning the man who is improperly clothed. If you will enter the banquet hall, you will enter God's way, not your own way.
Our proposition was this: "The invitation that many have rejected is still open to you."
No one made any visible response, but we do pray that the word of God will have an effect. There were lost people in the service yesterday, so may God's word speak with power to their hearts.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Well... whatever...
Sometimes it gets a bit painful to keep up the Canadian facade.
In any case, yesterday was Canadian Thanksgiving (and my brother's birthday). In our church we have often celebrated Thanksgiving with a traditional Thanksgiving meal together with as many of our church people as have cared to come. Many of our folks are somewhat 'disconnected' - no immediate family in the area, or very limited relationships with the family that is here. So we are their family. When we started this, my wife and I lived in a half duplex and we could have the whole church over in our dining room, all ten of us. Thankfully, the crowd is a bit bigger now and we have a church building to hold it in.
Yesterday we invited my brother and his family 'down-Island' to provide music for our service and allow my brother to 'sing for his supper.' (I even made him give me the note to start 'Happy Birthday', since I am decidedly unmusical.) We had a crowd of about 50 people, including several lost family members of our church members. For one couple, it was the first time they had darkened the door of our church, although they only stayed for the meal and not for the service. I hope that the contact will allow future contacts and that they will respond to the gospel someday.
For the message, I was working my way through the passages in the Synoptics that cover the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the challenge of the priests and elders ('by what authority do you do these things'), and the three parables the Lord gives in response. Fortunately, the last parable was "The Wedding Banquet" so it fit in nicely with Thanksgiving. In the message I pointed out the theme of invitation in the Banquet parable. Those first invited refused, and even killed some of those sent to invite them. The response was wrath and destruction. From there, I turned to the cursing of the fig tree, the cleansing of the temple, the parables of the two sons ("I go, sir" but he didn't go; "I won't go" but he did go), and of the landowner whose tenants killed the landowner's son. Each of these are either a spoken or an acted parable of the relation between God and Israel, the nation first invited to the banquet, but in denial and refusal to come. God then sends his servants on the highways to invite all to the feast. Those highways lead around the world, ending in Victoria, BC, and with many ports of call in between. The banquet hall will be filled, and the work of the invitation is ongoing. A final warning is given in the parable concerning the man who is improperly clothed. If you will enter the banquet hall, you will enter God's way, not your own way.
Our proposition was this: "The invitation that many have rejected is still open to you."
No one made any visible response, but we do pray that the word of God will have an effect. There were lost people in the service yesterday, so may God's word speak with power to their hearts.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Monday, October 09, 2006
on links to recent sermon notes
Here are the last four messages, including today's Thanksgiving Message, not yet preached as of posting!
Are you ready? The Kingdom Comes
Lessons on Ambition
Hosanna! Save Now!
The Wedding Banquet
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Are you ready? The Kingdom Comes
Lessons on Ambition
Hosanna! Save Now!
The Wedding Banquet
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
on sermon summaries: Thanksgiving Sunday, 10.8.06
Today we just had our morning services. We will have the afternoon service tomorrow afternoon after our traditional Thanksgiving Dinner at church. The kids will play the traditional soccer game after the service (minus our soccer star, now playing in a Bryan Bears uniform at a locale down south - still winless, but not giving up).
This morning we had a total of 47 in the services, with several visitors. One of our families brought two young teenagers with them, friends of their son. It was the second Sunday for one of them. These boys have no clue about the Bible or church. It is likely the first time they are hearing the gospel - an awesome moment for good or ill.
Another visitor was a co-worker of my son. He has a church background, don't know the whole story, but he has an interest stemming from the testimony of our kids and his background. Hard to know what he thinks but we hope for more contacts later.
Tomorrow may bring other visitors. May the Lord work in their hearts as they hear the gospel tomorrow afternoon!
***
The first sermon today was entitled: Lessons on Ambition. In our chronological reading of the NT, we came to these records sort of back to back: the blessing of the children, the rich young ruler, the parable of the 11th hour labourers, and the ambition of James and John. Each of these pericopes deal with the same subject: ambition. My proposition was this: The key to serving God in His kingdom is subduing our will to His will, making His ambitions our ambitions. First, from the rich young ruler, subduing the ambition for wealth. Second, from the parable of the labourers, subduing the ambition for rights. Last, from the incident with James and John, subuing the ambition for place. The Lord came to give his life a ransom for many. He is the supreme example of subduing ambition to the will of the Father, for the sake of others. I applied all of this to the local church level - God has given me as the pastor a place in the local church. In fact, he calls me a 'gift' to the church. So how should I live? Lording it over the people and demanding their obedience? No, I am called to serve them. (Literally to be a slave for them [a slave to God, but for them.) How are the people to behave? Are they to be worrying about how their needs aren't being met and how folks aren't treating me right? No, they are called to serve others in the church. Serve 'one another', again, literally as a slave to God. If you are thinking about how others aren't doing enough for you, you have missed the point that the Lord was constantly trying to teach the disciples (at least three major episodes in the training of the twelve, by my count).
The second sermon was on the Triumphal Entry, with the title Hosanna! Save Now! The proposition was: Salvation belongs to those who make Jesus king of their hearts and king of their lives. First, I spent some time talking about the meaning of the cry of the crowd (I called it 'the crowning cry') as the Lord entered Jerusalem. There are at least four basic things they were saying, but the most prominent is 'Hosanna', a demand to the King to Save Now! It comes from Ps 118.25. Then we worked through these passages leading up to the triumphal entry (along the road from Jericho to Jerusalem): the healing of Blind Bartimaeus who cried to the Son of David for healing, then the conversion of Zaccheus [this is the crowning cry anticipated in saving activity]; while with Zaccheus, the Lord told the parable of the pounds for the purpose of dampening messianic expectations - the earthly kingdom would not come immediately [this is the crowning moment postponed in parabolic teaching]; then we come to the moment of entry to Jerusalem, and the reason the crowd and the disciples can't bring themselves to get the Lord's message - they long for relief from Rome, they long for the prominence the Messiah will give them - so this seems to be the time and Jesus seems to be the man, and they cry for redemption. The Pharisees call on Jesus to rebuke the crowd, but the Lord says that if he did, the stones would cry out. I take this to mean that the crowning cry is the will of the Lord, and so it proceeds. The crowning cry is what every man needs to make now: Save Now! Hosanna! Save Now!
Another great day in the Lord.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
P. S. I'll post links to sermon notes later, probably sometime tomorrow.
This morning we had a total of 47 in the services, with several visitors. One of our families brought two young teenagers with them, friends of their son. It was the second Sunday for one of them. These boys have no clue about the Bible or church. It is likely the first time they are hearing the gospel - an awesome moment for good or ill.
Another visitor was a co-worker of my son. He has a church background, don't know the whole story, but he has an interest stemming from the testimony of our kids and his background. Hard to know what he thinks but we hope for more contacts later.
Tomorrow may bring other visitors. May the Lord work in their hearts as they hear the gospel tomorrow afternoon!
***
The first sermon today was entitled: Lessons on Ambition. In our chronological reading of the NT, we came to these records sort of back to back: the blessing of the children, the rich young ruler, the parable of the 11th hour labourers, and the ambition of James and John. Each of these pericopes deal with the same subject: ambition. My proposition was this: The key to serving God in His kingdom is subduing our will to His will, making His ambitions our ambitions. First, from the rich young ruler, subduing the ambition for wealth. Second, from the parable of the labourers, subduing the ambition for rights. Last, from the incident with James and John, subuing the ambition for place. The Lord came to give his life a ransom for many. He is the supreme example of subduing ambition to the will of the Father, for the sake of others. I applied all of this to the local church level - God has given me as the pastor a place in the local church. In fact, he calls me a 'gift' to the church. So how should I live? Lording it over the people and demanding their obedience? No, I am called to serve them. (Literally to be a slave for them [a slave to God, but for them.) How are the people to behave? Are they to be worrying about how their needs aren't being met and how folks aren't treating me right? No, they are called to serve others in the church. Serve 'one another', again, literally as a slave to God. If you are thinking about how others aren't doing enough for you, you have missed the point that the Lord was constantly trying to teach the disciples (at least three major episodes in the training of the twelve, by my count).
The second sermon was on the Triumphal Entry, with the title Hosanna! Save Now! The proposition was: Salvation belongs to those who make Jesus king of their hearts and king of their lives. First, I spent some time talking about the meaning of the cry of the crowd (I called it 'the crowning cry') as the Lord entered Jerusalem. There are at least four basic things they were saying, but the most prominent is 'Hosanna', a demand to the King to Save Now! It comes from Ps 118.25. Then we worked through these passages leading up to the triumphal entry (along the road from Jericho to Jerusalem): the healing of Blind Bartimaeus who cried to the Son of David for healing, then the conversion of Zaccheus [this is the crowning cry anticipated in saving activity]; while with Zaccheus, the Lord told the parable of the pounds for the purpose of dampening messianic expectations - the earthly kingdom would not come immediately [this is the crowning moment postponed in parabolic teaching]; then we come to the moment of entry to Jerusalem, and the reason the crowd and the disciples can't bring themselves to get the Lord's message - they long for relief from Rome, they long for the prominence the Messiah will give them - so this seems to be the time and Jesus seems to be the man, and they cry for redemption. The Pharisees call on Jesus to rebuke the crowd, but the Lord says that if he did, the stones would cry out. I take this to mean that the crowning cry is the will of the Lord, and so it proceeds. The crowning cry is what every man needs to make now: Save Now! Hosanna! Save Now!
Another great day in the Lord.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
P. S. I'll post links to sermon notes later, probably sometime tomorrow.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
on where fundamentalism is forged (or any other ism)
A few years ago, a fellow said something like this to me: "A church is only as fundamental as its pastor." As it turned out, that pastor wasn't all that fundamental and disgraced himself and the Lord. But he was right in his observation.
Fundamentalism, evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy, liberalism, or any shade of meaning in between is forged in the church by the leaders of the church. At the local church level, a church tends to follow the lead of its pastor. Whatever that pastor is, that church will be.
There are some occasional skirmishes that may seem to belie this principle. Churches will be embroiled in a controversy, parties form, acrimony ensues, sometimes even leading to a church split. You might be tempted to analyse these controversies to see if the people opposed to the pastor are really more theologically conservative than the pastor, but on almost every occasion you will find the controversies are much less sharply defined than that. If the split is over issues affecting fundamentalist philosophy, likely it is one or two men (often deacons) who lead the charge and become in effect de facto pastors of the dissenting group, at least for the time being.
In the ongoing (and interminable) discussions in the blogosphere regarding separation and fundamentalism, much has been made of 'what if' scenarios attempting to define a template for separation. "What if church X believes this and church Y does this, what should church Z do?" The fact is, the churches won't do anything. A pastor who believes something will decide whether he is comfortable promoting a young people's activity or a special speaker in another church based on his own philosophy of ministry. Generally speaking, his flock will follow his lead. (Quite often, they won't know what is going on at the other church because they are full of the life of their own church -- if it isn't promoted by their pastor, they won't bother, largely because they won't know.)
When it comes to the wider world of conferences and meetings, the local pastor has less control over what his folks know simply because of modern technology. But the pastor (and the other leaders of 'his' group) will still tend to promote those organizations and activities that they think are in keeping with their own philosophy and are most suited to the spiritual needs of his flock. Thus, wider friendships and alliances are formed with leaders who tend to coalesce around similar ideas.
To illustrate, in my own ministry, I tend to move in the FBF circles. I am comfortable with the direction the most prominent men in the FBF are taking, I get a bulk subscription to Frontline for our church, I promote the regional FBF meeting, I promote a family camp sponsored by a like-minded pastor, I bring in speakers who would tend to travel in FBF circles and I preach a message that would likely be acceptable in most churches pastored by FBF men. What kind of flavor does that put on our church? (I'll give you three guesses...)
Suppose I got hit by a bus, and someone with a different philosophy shows up to take over. They stop the Frontline, start promoting other magazines, other meetings, other speakers. What happens to the church? It starts moving into another orbit. This does take time, and if handled poorly, can cause the tensions that lead to a church split. With effective leadership, the direction of a church can be changed so that it becomes something entirely other than previous leadership envisioned. It is leadership that sets the agenda. The church is only as fundamental as its pastor.
Young preachers do need to sort out where they are on the theological spectrum. Their associations will determine the direction they take and the philosophy of the churches they will pastor. They should ask questions, but they shouldn't assume that there is a cut and dried template that will answer all questions about association and separation. They will determine their own philosophy. Hopefully the young fellows coming up will choose well, making astute observations of history, avoiding past mistakes and forging forward faithfully for Christ.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Fundamentalism, evangelicalism, neo-orthodoxy, liberalism, or any shade of meaning in between is forged in the church by the leaders of the church. At the local church level, a church tends to follow the lead of its pastor. Whatever that pastor is, that church will be.
There are some occasional skirmishes that may seem to belie this principle. Churches will be embroiled in a controversy, parties form, acrimony ensues, sometimes even leading to a church split. You might be tempted to analyse these controversies to see if the people opposed to the pastor are really more theologically conservative than the pastor, but on almost every occasion you will find the controversies are much less sharply defined than that. If the split is over issues affecting fundamentalist philosophy, likely it is one or two men (often deacons) who lead the charge and become in effect de facto pastors of the dissenting group, at least for the time being.
In the ongoing (and interminable) discussions in the blogosphere regarding separation and fundamentalism, much has been made of 'what if' scenarios attempting to define a template for separation. "What if church X believes this and church Y does this, what should church Z do?" The fact is, the churches won't do anything. A pastor who believes something will decide whether he is comfortable promoting a young people's activity or a special speaker in another church based on his own philosophy of ministry. Generally speaking, his flock will follow his lead. (Quite often, they won't know what is going on at the other church because they are full of the life of their own church -- if it isn't promoted by their pastor, they won't bother, largely because they won't know.)
When it comes to the wider world of conferences and meetings, the local pastor has less control over what his folks know simply because of modern technology. But the pastor (and the other leaders of 'his' group) will still tend to promote those organizations and activities that they think are in keeping with their own philosophy and are most suited to the spiritual needs of his flock. Thus, wider friendships and alliances are formed with leaders who tend to coalesce around similar ideas.
To illustrate, in my own ministry, I tend to move in the FBF circles. I am comfortable with the direction the most prominent men in the FBF are taking, I get a bulk subscription to Frontline for our church, I promote the regional FBF meeting, I promote a family camp sponsored by a like-minded pastor, I bring in speakers who would tend to travel in FBF circles and I preach a message that would likely be acceptable in most churches pastored by FBF men. What kind of flavor does that put on our church? (I'll give you three guesses...)
Suppose I got hit by a bus, and someone with a different philosophy shows up to take over. They stop the Frontline, start promoting other magazines, other meetings, other speakers. What happens to the church? It starts moving into another orbit. This does take time, and if handled poorly, can cause the tensions that lead to a church split. With effective leadership, the direction of a church can be changed so that it becomes something entirely other than previous leadership envisioned. It is leadership that sets the agenda. The church is only as fundamental as its pastor.
Young preachers do need to sort out where they are on the theological spectrum. Their associations will determine the direction they take and the philosophy of the churches they will pastor. They should ask questions, but they shouldn't assume that there is a cut and dried template that will answer all questions about association and separation. They will determine their own philosophy. Hopefully the young fellows coming up will choose well, making astute observations of history, avoiding past mistakes and forging forward faithfully for Christ.
Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)