ebaptist.blog

on a change of locale

2007-12-22T12:39:00.000-08:00

Change is a part of life and this blog is changing...

I now have my own domain and am moving to a WordPress based blog at the new site.

For all two of my readers, that will mean you will now access me at

an oxgoad, eh?
fundamentalism by blunt instrument

An explanation of my blog name is in the oxgoad about page.

I am settled on a template for the blog for now but may change everything later on. Or just tweak things here and there.

For now, though, ebaptist.blog is closed

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Piper's advocacy of sinning less often

2007-12-18T18:28:00.001-08:00

A recent Piper article is eating away at my mind. I really am appalled by it, but have hesitated to post. It is quite easy to be too critical, especially when it comes to eminently critique-able people like Piper.

The article, Gutsy Guilt, was published in the October issue of Christianity Today. In order to understand my criticism, you may have to read the article, but I will do my best to represent the article and what bothers me about it.

In his introduction, Piper expresses a concern that young Christians can lose their 'radical' vision for ministry because of failing to deal with the guilt of sexual failure. [BTW, Piper regularly uses words like 'radical' and 'passion', words that really have no place in a Christian context, but that is another pet peeve and another post.]

By failure, Piper doesn't mean merely the use of pornography. No, he says, "The great tragedy is not masturbation or fornication or pornography." I am assuming that he doesn't mean the adultery kind of fornication, but his article doesn't make that distinction clear.

Piper states that his aim in the article is not primarily to help someone gain victory over sexual sin, but rather to gain victory over being defeated or dissuaded from ministry because of sexual sin. He puts it this way:

I have a passion that you do not waste your life. My aim is not mainly to cure you of sexual misconduct. I would like that to happen. But mostly I want to take out of the Devil's hand the weapon that exploits your sin and makes your life a wasted, worldly success. Satan wants that for you. But you don't!

In fact, Piper assumes failure.

Yes, I want you to have the joyful courage not to do the channel surfing. But sooner or later, whether it's that sin or another, you are going to fall. I want to help you deal with the guilt of failure so that Satan does not use it to produce another wasted life.

The great tragedy that Piper seeks to win victory over is that someone who is guilty of some kind of sexual failure will be tempted by the failure to give up his 'radical' vision of ministry and instead will settle for 'the American dream', i.e., materialism.

Piper rightly warns that on account of these things [immorality and the like, Col 3.5-6] the wrath of God is coming. He points out that the Lord came to bring about forgiveness of sin, including these, and that our debts and legal obligations are cancelled if we believe in Christ. All true, of course!

After showing that our debts are nailed to the cross (Col 2.14) Piper points to Col 2.15 which says: "When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him." Piper claims that the 'rulers and authorities' [i.e., demonic forces] cannot damn us because of the cross [true], then concludes that because of this the believer by faith fights against the accusing convicting sense of failure brought about by sexual misconduct and the accusations of demons. [Never mind that Col 2 is talking about asceticism, Jewish dietary laws, and other rituals, see Col 2.16-17.]

What is this fight Piper speaks of?

This faith will fight anything that gets between it and Christ. The distinguishing mark of saving faith is not perfection. It is not that I never sin sexually. The mark of faith is that I fight. I fight not with fists or knives or guns or bombs, but with the truth of Christ. I fight anything that diminishes the fullness of the lordship of Jesus in my life. I fight anything that threatens to replace Jesus as the supreme treasure of my life.

Ok... but what does this fight look like?

With this passionately embraced theology—the magnificent doctrines of substitutionary atonement and justification by faith (even if you don't remember the names)—you can conquer the Devil tomorrow morning when he lies to you about your hopelessness.

...

When I fall, I shall rise. Yes, I have fallen. I hate what I have done. I grieve at the dishonor I have brought on my King. But hear this, O my enemy, I will rise. I will rise.

When I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. Yes, I am sitting in darkness. I feel miserable. I feel guilty. I am guilty. But that is not all that is true about me and my God. The same God who makes my darkness is a sustaining light to me in this very darkness. He will not forsake me.

I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. Oh yes, my enemy, this much truth you say: I have sinned. I am bearing the indignation of the Lord. But that is where your truth stops and my theology begins. He—the very one who is indignant with me—will plead my cause. You say he is against me and that I have no future with him because of my failure. That's what Job's friends said. That is a lie. And you are a liar. My God, whose Son's life is my righteousness and whose Son's death is my punishment, will execute judgment for me. For me! And not against me.

He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication. This misery that I now feel because of my failure, I will bear as long as my dear God ordains. And this I know for sure—as sure as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is my punishment and my righteousness—God will bring me out to the light, and I will look upon his righteousness, my Lord and my God. [italics Piper's, underlining mine]

As I consider this suggested approach, I wonder where the fruit of the Spirit is. I wonder where is the humility, repentance, shame, conviction, and true victory. I wonder what to do with the instructions of Eph 4.1-2 where the apostle calls us to walk "with all lowliness and meekness..." Yes, James calls us to 'resist the devil', but how? By humility and submission to God (Jas 4.6-7).

Piper's idea seems to be that if I have my theology right, if I know how to think right about Christ and what he has done, then I can defy Satan. Defiance is different from resistance.

It is important to think right about what Christ has done! But is right theology and defiance of Satan the same as spiritual victory? Is there no need for repentance? No need for actual ... you know ... change?

Here is Piper's conclusion:

When you learn to deal with the guilt of sexual failure by this kind brokenhearted boldness, this kind of theology, this kind of justification by faith, this kind of substitutionary atonement, this kind of gutsy guilt, you will fall less often. Why is this so? Because Christ will become increasingly precious to you.

Best of all, Satan will not be able to destroy your dream of a life of radical obedience to Christ. By this Christ-exalting gutsy guilt, thousands of you will give your lives to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ.

Wow... I will fall less often. There's a victory worth pursuing! Isn't it possible to get to 'such were some of you'? (1 Cor 6.11) Isn't it possible to put sinful habits behind us? Must we settle for 'good enough'? Is our only victory the victory of right theology that can snarl in the face of Satan [while falling less often]?

I am all for forgiveness and restoration of the repentant. I don't expect we men in the ministry will have perfectly unblemished lives, especially in our earlier years. But I do expect that we must maintain victory over sin. And there does come a point where persistent failure disqualifies permanently, does it not?

The Piperites will be only too ready to defend their hero. If any of them should read this, they will likely claim I misunderstand. But their hedonistic hero is the one who misunderstands. The great tragedy is that so many lap up this man's writing as if it were holy writ itself.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a Sunday with the 'outlaws'

2007-12-18T14:53:00.001-08:00

This Sunday we had the privilege of having my son's father-in-law, Brad Calhoun with us for our services. I searched the vast reaches of the internet to find a term to describe the relationship between parents of two people married to one another. Alas, I found none, hence my own 'smart-alecky' term, 'outlaws'. We are delighted to expand the circle of our family to include these outlaws.

Brad and his wife Sarah have been Baptist Mid-Missions missionaries in Quebec for many years. They led their church in Matane, Quebec to the stage where the church has its own building and was able to call its own Quebecois pastor. We thank God for this, but for the Calhoun's, it means leaving behind dear friends and disciples and moving to a new place of ministry. For them that means a move to the pastorate of a church in the mountains of western North Carolina, the place where Brad grew up. We ask the Lord to prosper them in this new ministry.

Rather than attempt to give you summaries, I will link you to the audio for each message. First, the morning message, After Darkness Light, a message in keeping with our Christ and the Nations series and giving some of the background information concerning the work in Quebec.

Next, Brad gave us his slide presentation, narrating the history of the work in Matane. Our church has been supporting the Calhoun's in this work for a number of years, so we were very pleased to hear this report on The Ministry in Matane.

Last, we had our afternoon message on Living like Jesus, a message about following the light that we have and questioning the impulses of darkness around us and in us.

All in all, a good day. We had 67 in the service this week with a couple of interesting visitors (besides our own family visitors). It was one of those weeks where almost everyone connected with our church all showed up on the same day. Even with that there were a couple of people away. Nevertheless, we were blessed to see all those who did come. We also saw some pretty significant spiritual steps taken in a couple of lives, so we are grateful for that.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a significant biblical revival

2007-12-13T21:21:00.001-08:00

The Jewish nation cycled back and forth from apostasy and revival several times in its long history. One of the most significant revivals is that under King Hezekiah.

A couple of years ago, I led our church through a chronological study of the Bible. In the study, I was so busy preparing study guides and sermons that I think I missed some of the really significant insights my study was supposed to uncover! This year, we are reading the Bible through on the same chronological schedule. For me, it is the first time reading the schedule devotionally rather than academically.

I was singularly impressed this time with Hezekiah. It is noteworthy that the Lord led the writers of Scripture to record Hezekiah's revival in three different books of the Bible, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, and Isaiah. The repetition heightens the significance. The Lord wants us to learn something here.

The 'Hezekiahan' revival involved a deep purging of idolatry led by the king, then faced a traumatic challenge to faith by the Assyrian invasion of Judah by Sennacherib. Hezekiah's prayer, spreading the blasphemous letter of Sennacherib before the Lord, is an example to us of what real revival faith and Spirit-filled praying is all about.

In particular, the book of Isaiah plays a prominent role in the revival. If you consider the chapters prior to the record of Hezekiah's stand against Sennacherib (36-39), you will find Isaiah's oracles against the nations and against the people of God. I presume most of this preaching occurred in Ahaz' reign. Ahaz is Hezekiah's father and was a wicked apostate king. It is remarkable that Hezekiah became the man that he was, given the father that he had. Following the record of Hezekiah's life, Isaiah's message becomes much more uplifting and hopeful. There are still some oracles of denunciation, but there are also all the Servant songs and other passages of hope and revival. They look well beyond Hezekiah's day to the final, glorious, permanent revival that is to come when the King reigns. [I think the contrast between Isaiah's ministry under Ahaz and under Hezekiah explain the differences between the first and second parts of the book far better than the unbelieving theories of intellectuals who propose "Isaiah" and "Deutero-Isaiah".]

The Bible doesn't tell us how Hezekiah was influenced to be faithful to the Lord. I suspect that Hezekiah was converted to faith by the ministry of Isaiah. Isaiah certainly figures prominently in the life of Hezekiah as a trusted spiritual advisor.

The record of this revival gives encouragement to me. Faithful preaching of a negative word like Isa 1-35 can bear fruit that deserves the postive word like Isa 40-66.

Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a light to the nations and prayer

2007-12-11T22:03:00.001-08:00

The busy season is upon us! I suppose this is not a good time to be trying to set up my new web venture, but we want to be ready to use it not only as a resource for our sermons but as an evangelistic tool by the time January rolls around. Much is yet to be done, but we are stepping forward bit by bit.

I am going to adapt our sermon summaries in this space a bit since I am now providing both audio and outline on the web site. I will do less summarizing and try to sum up the appeal the main idea of the message had to me as I prepared and delivered it.

Here are the latest instalments:

Galilee of the Gentiles (Mt 4.12-17) Audio Notes

Have you ever considered the difference between Judea and Galilee? Galilee is part of the old northern kingdom of Israel, and as far back as the judges was only tenuously held by the Israelites. Galilee always had a Gentile influence. During the time of Christ, Galilee held a mixed population of Jews and Gentiles. Why did Jesus spend the bulk of his ministry there?

Isaiah spoke of a light that would come to lighten the Gentiles. Think about what it meant for the Gentiles of Galilee who saw the light of Christ right in their presence? And think now of the light of Christ in our Gentile world? And think about the many many nations immigrating to our shores - Christ is a brilliant light for them as well.

All of this light is wrapped up in the name 'Galilee of the Gentiles'. What grace God brought down to man!

Ask (Lk 11.5-10) Audio Notes

Do you ever get discouraged in prayer? Do you faint along the way? Do you know that the Lord doesn't want you to feel that way?

The parable of the friend at midnight is a picturesque promise (and kind of a backhanded one at that) that the Lord answers prayer. You can count on it. And you can always count on the Lord's answer being good, better than you could ask or think.

But it does seem that the answers start with the asking. The Lord wants you to ask. Do you feel your prayers lack? Then ask. Do you feel the Lord is far away? Then ask. Just ask and keep on asking.

A good deal of our spiritual life is simply missed because we do not pray.

~~~

BTW, for our afternoon service, the message on prayer, we had a couple from Singapore show up for a visit. We are kind of excited about that, after I just finished preaching about the Lord being a light to the Gentiles, and the nations moving to Canada. May the Lord shed his light into the hearts of many nations from right here in Victoria!

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on embracing anti-intellectualism

2007-12-07T10:40:00.001-08:00

A lengthy discussion on Frank's site prompts this post.

A familiar charge by the sophisticated non-fundamentalist is that fundamentalism is essentially anti-intellectual. The sneering inference of the slur is that fundamentalists are nothing but backwoods hayseeds, barely capable of tying their shoes or of walking and chewing bubble gum at the same time. Fundamentalists are rubes, you see, they lack scholarship. They don't write important books. In fact, they barely write. They do colour, though, and in some of their books they even colour in between the lines.

Well... that is hyperbole, of course. Nevertheless the charge of anti-intellectualism is frequently made and often said to be with some merit. See here:

And while a writer may legitimately quote an author with which he disagrees, it should be recognized that no fundamentalist is called upon in this chapter - an indication at least that the charge of anti-intellectualism against American fundamentalism does contain enough adhesive power to call any critic of neo-evangelicalism to a little self-examination once in a while.

Fundamentalists often leap to their own defense and point to the scholarship of various pastors, college professors, etc.

Too often these kinds of discussions are centred around an emotional imprecision in the use of terms. Anti-intellectual is code for someone who won't join the club. Scholar is code for someone 'who agrees with me,' as one of my former professors once said.

Well what of it? What do these terms mean? Let's try intellectualism first.

1. devotion to intellectual pursuits.
2. the exercise of the intellect.
3. excessive emphasis on abstract or intellectual matters, esp. with a lack of proper consideration for emotions.
4. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that knowledge is wholly or chiefly derived from pure reason.
b. the belief that reason is the final principle of reality.

intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).

Let's consider these one at a time. Given these definitions, am I an anti-intellectual? [edit note: change "intellectual" to "anti-intellectual"]

1. No

2. No

3. Yes

4a. Yes

4b. Yes

Now let's look at anti-intellectualism:

1. a person opposed to or hostile toward intellectuals and the modern academic, artistic, social, religious, and other theories associated with them.

2. a person who believes that intellect and reason are less important than actions and emotions in solving practical problems and understanding reality.

–adjective
3. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of anti-intellectuals or their beliefs.

anti-intellectualism. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-intellectualism (accessed: December 07, 2007).

Am I an anti-intellectual according to these definitions?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Possibly

In a moment I want to look at the definition of scholarship, but what are we to make of these definitions so far?

I am definitely hostile to the so-called achievements of much of our society's so-called intellectuals. Consider those who are lauded as artists, poets, notable Drs. of philosophy and so on in the vast majority of our most prestigious universities. Are these people whose thoughts should impress any believer in Christ? Should we care that we are not considered among their number? Their minds are darkened, professing themselves to be wise, they are altogether become fools.

When it comes to the noted Doctors of Religion in so many seminaries, are they significantly better than the secular intelligentsia? Hardly.

So I am an anti-intellectual and proud of it. Let the evangelicals pursue their intellectualism. They will find that they are numbered among the company of Proverb's fools, chasing after the wind and vanity of Ecclesiastes. Do they think that they make any impressive statement in accusing me of anti-intellectualism? It is just propaganda, plain and simple. Name-calling. What does it gain, and what argument does it advance?

Besides, I embrace the term. Let's hear it, as I said on Frank's page, for anti-intellectualism.

One last "word game". Let's look at scholarship:

1. learning; knowledge acquired by study; the academic attainments of a scholar.
2. a sum of money or other aid granted to a student, because of merit, need, etc., to pursue his or her studies.
3. the position or status of such a student.
4. a foundation to provide financial assistance to students.

scholarship. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scholarship (accessed: December 07, 2007).

The first definition is what should concern us here. In the discussion at Frank's site, much was made of the fact that there aren't many fundamentalist's whom poor, benighted Dr. McCune could actually cite in his book. Scholarship, it was maintained, is evidenced by leaving a trail of published works behind one's self. According to dictionary.com, this just isn't so.

Furthermore, the facts prove otherwise. The men and women who populate the faculties of fundamentalist colleges and seminaries are devoted scholars themselves. Their attainments are well known and some of them do write occasionally. I maintain that market forces prohibit much publishing, but be that as it may, the presence or absence of published works are no proof or disproof of scholarship.

I am all for scholarship. I am all for study, diligence, hard work and educational attainment.

And I am unabashedly anti-intellectual.

And proud of it. Y'hear?

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on our Christmas series, communion, and our website

2007-12-06T11:54:00.001-08:00

Yes, boys and girls, that last bit is true. We now have a website for Grace Baptist Church of Victoria. You can find it at gbcvic.org.

My delay in posting our sermon summaries is mostly due to the usual headaches in starting something about which I know next to nothing, i.e., setting up a website. Thankfully, tools are available and I had done some work on a proposed site some years ago. So what you see is our quick temporary site. We have plans for more later, including an experiment at using it as an evangelistic tool. This blog may also migrate over there also, but time will tell on that.

Now for Sunday's sermons. We began our annual Christmas series this last Sunday. Our theme this month is the missionary theme, Christ and the Nations.

The Nations Divided (Gen 10-11) Audio Notes

What is a nation? The UN has 192 members, FIFA has 205 members. The World Christian Database says there are over 13,000 people groups in the world. These groups comprise 'nations' by some definitions. How did they all begin? For what purpose did they all begin?

The idea inherent in the notion of nations, nationalism, and nationality is division. This is the theme of Gen 10. You see God repeatedly noting 'their nations' and emphasizing 'division' in this chapter. The immediate cause of the division is revealed in Gen 11: Babel. But the story of the cursing of Canaan in Gen 9 is also linked - a prophecy of imminent division. The ultimate cause is the sin of mankind.

Cause, however, is not purpose. Why division? What purpose does it serve? Is it merely judgement? The division of Babel is a curse, but it is intended to drive men to God. See Ac 17.26-27 and Ac 15.16-17.

What should the nations do with all the frustrations of language, culture, race, ambition, etc.?

Turn to God.

What should they do in Sudan over the school teacher who ‘insulted the prophet’ over the teddy bear she allowed her students to name ‘Mohammed’? What should the teacher do?

Turn to God.

What should Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and, yes, even Israel do with the frustrations they have with one another?

Turn to God.

What should you do with the misunderstandings, frustrations, divisions, conflicts you have with your family members and church brethren?

Turn to God.

God is the answer to the divisions of this world. And when we turn the page from the division of the nations, we see these words: "These are the generations of Shem..." God also formed the nations to form a nation from whom would come the One Man who would bring to an end all the divisions of the world.

Sup With Me (Lev 3) Audio Notes

Leviticus 3 discusses an offering called the 'peace offering'. It was a voluntary offering made with fire as a sweet savour to the Lord. It would be offered in the case of a vow, or as a matter of confession, or as a matter of freewill thanksgiving. The offerer may also have to offer a guilt offering or sin offering in order to purify himself before participating in a peace offering. The 'fat portion' of the offering belonged to God and was burned on the altar. A portion of that which remained belonged to the priest, but the rest belonged to the offerer and was consumed on the spot in a meal of fellowship with God.

The NT parallel is our communion feast. If we have been purified by the blood of Christ, and if our manner and walk is pure, we may freely eat. We eat the offering of Christ himself, in communion with himself. We drink the blood of the new covenant, being made one spiritual blood in the family of God.

For the believer whose heart is not right with God at this table, the Lord offers Rev 3.20:

NAU Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

~~~

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Nehemiah's wall

2007-11-29T20:27:00.001-08:00

It was real! [To quote Gomer: Surprise, surprise, surprise!!] Check out this article describing the find.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on softness and specifics

2007-11-29T19:46:00.001-08:00

I sort of agree with the complaints voiced over at My Two Cents in critique of an article entitled "Fundamentalism's Great Softness". I have wanted to jump in and add my voice to the comments, but have restrained myself! (Amazing but true!)

Of course, that restraint is only "so far" and "until now".

I want to add some 'wait a minute' statements:

I am reading Isaiah right now in my devotions. Last week I read Micah and Hosea. Beyond identifying the group of people these prophets spoke to (i.e., Israel, Judah, Ephraim, etc.) how often were the prophets specific in their charges or against specific individuals/institutions within Israel/Judah? Must a current writer be specific in order to make a point?
Does anyone really deny that there is a 'softness' creeping over fundamentalism? Consider the many blogs purporting to be by fundamentalists yet advocating such things as contemporary music styles, looser standards of dress, and even going so far as to advocate the use of alcohol. I could list more subjects, but does anyone really deny that there is a push towards looser personal standards?

By the way... in some respects, I am looser than some of my fundamentalist forbears, especially in areas like dress standards. I stand against immodest and worldly dress [as I understand it] but I am not against such things as 'pants on women' or insist on men wearing suits to church or even as a pastor dressing in a tie during the week... call me a liberal...

My point, though, is this: let's not kid ourselves about the lack of softness in fundamentalism. Softness is everywhere. Some of it may be a legitimate softening of previously unreasonably hard positions. Some of it is compromise with the world, plain and simple.
Ivan Foster, no softie, publishes an article by "an American Observer" [i.e., read Anonymous Coward] entitled "Radical Changes afoot at Bob Jones University" In the article University spokesmen are quoted saying that things said in the past wouldn't be said in the present, at least not the same way. Would you say that this is evidence of softening or hardening?

By the way, the BJU folks may be right in making these changes. I am personally reserving judgement to see where things end up. I am concerned, as an alum and a parent of current students. May God keep the University as the premier fundamentalist institution in the world! But the changes bear watching and who can deny that this is a softening of previously held positions?

I cannot speak for the writer of The Projector article, but these last two points may be the kind of thing he was aiming at.

It is undeniable that fundamentalism has softened in many respects. I have offered examples of softening at two ends of the spectrum, so to speak. I think that the reader can supply plenty of evidence of softening in between the 'lower level' of softening exhibited by individuals and the 'higher level' of softening at some (all?) of our fundamentalist institutions. Many many churches with fundamentalist heritages are softening. Some are softening right out of fundamentalism altogether.

Some softening may be warranted. Is all of it? We don't know the answer to that question yet.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a wise word from a young fundamentalist

2007-11-28T17:07:00.001-08:00

My Number One Son sent me a link to an article written by a friend of his. I guess since they are both young and fundamentalists, that makes them 'young fundamentalists'.

But...

Not of the usual sort. That is, not of the usual sort of mindset you think of when that term is used. The article is entitled The Errors of "Recovering Fundamentalists" by Lincoln Mullen.

If you haven't seen this article, I encourage you to read it. It is refreshing to read a young man with an unapologetic approach to fundamentalism.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Rm 1.7 and Lk 11.1-4

2007-11-25T17:39:00.001-08:00

I see I have posted nothing since our last sermon summaries. It has been a busy week with a few of my men as they helped me repair my deck. I thought it would be a two day job. I should know by now to multiply my time estimates by at least 2 and a half. At least the job is pretty much done, just a few finishing touches left this week if the weather cooperates. Now for this week's sermons:

To all that be in Rome (Rm 1.7)

I told our people today that my aim was to make the message of Romans personal, as if the letter was written personally to them. After all, as Paul addresses the letter, it is to a local church, made up of real believers - and only believers. These believers are seen in the three terms describing the church in Rome in 1.6-7: called of Jesus Christ [belonging to Christ]; beloved of God [just as Christ is God's beloved, so we, in Christ, are beloved], called saints [named as holy ones, by virtue of the new birth].

The people addressed by 'to all that be in Rome' have these three characteristics, clearly and distinctly they are Christians. This is a Baptist idea. The local church should attempt to maintain an exclusively regenerate membership by careful examination of applicants and purging of false professors who may accidentally be admitted.

But the infinite blessing of the passage is that which is offered the local church of Rome by God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: grace & peace. For grace, I like this line I found in Donald Grey Barnhouse: "Love that goes upward is worship; love that goes outward is affection; love that stoops is grace." [Donald Grey Barnhouse, Romans, Vol.1, p. 72.] Peace is the Hebrew part of Paul's formulaic greeting - it is a regular formula, but full of meaning. The Hebrew concept is shalom, wholeness, well-being in the whole person. This is the blessing offered to the local church at Rome, and I believe, to every local church through time since then. This is what makes the letter to Romans personal. I closed with this application:

1. Does God have any less care for you or for this local church than he does for the ‘Grace Baptist Church of Rome’ in ad 57?

I have prayed with some of you when you made things right with God. At that moment, I believe God our Father stooped down from heaven and spoke grace to you and our Lord Jesus Christ gave you peace.

I have sat by your bedsides in the hospital, offering prayers for your physical well-being. At that moment, I believe God our Father stooped down from heaven and spoke grace to you and our Lord Jesus Christ gave you peace.

I have walked to graves with some of you, and will probably do so again… At those moments, I believe God our Father stooped down from heaven and spoke grace to you and our Lord Jesus Christ gave you peace.

2. Our union as a local church is created in the love of God and the grace and peace offered personally to you in Jesus Christ.

Our conclusion invited anyone who is outside the beloved to repent of their sins and enter the household of God.

When Ye Pray (Lk 11.1-4)

We continue our series on prayer, begun last week. The Lord's answer to the disciple's prayer, "Lord, teach us to pray" is first of all to give us the prayer we call "The Lord's Prayer". This is similar to the record given us in Matthew 6, but the differences in the passages make it clear that the same teaching was given on two separate occasions. The fact that the Lord taught the same thing twice indicates that it was a regular feature of his teaching and highlights the importance placed on it by the Holy Spirit. Understanding and practicing the concepts in this prayer is vital to our spiritual lives.

There are essentially five petitions in this model prayer as given in Luke:

The prayer for hallowing God's name: if you long for a day when this is true in the world, pray for it! If you long for a day when this is completely true in your life, pray for it!
The prayer for the kingdom: do you agree with the preaching of John the Baptist, Jesus, the 12, and the seventy? Is the Lord your king? Pray for your submission to his rule and for his kingdom to come in the earth.
The prayer for daily bread: the Lord provides all we have, though in our culture we may be much less aware of it than the 1st century. There is only enough food on the Island to last us a few weeks - if we were suddenly cut off from the mainland by some catastrophe, we would be very aware of our utter dependence. Prayer for our bread and other physical needs is legitimized by this petition taught us by the Lord.
The prayer for forgiveness: our spiritual neediness is a daily concern - read 1 Jn 1.6-2.1 if you think you have no need of regular forgiveness of sin and restoration to fellowship with God. If you forgive others (Eph 4.32) you display evidence that God is your Father and can have assurance that this petition will be heard.
The prayer for deliverance out of temptation: what Christian does not need to pray for this? It is essentially a prayer for one's own faithfulness. May God keep us in all our trials.

There is much more that could be said about the Lord's prayer and these petitions. May God bless our study and meditation on these Scriptures.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Romans and prayer

2007-11-19T00:07:00.001-08:00

We continue with our Romans series today and begin a new series on prayer.

By Whom and Among Whom (Rm 1.5-6)

Last week we completed Paul's summary of the gospel. This week we move from doctrine to impact in human lives. The gospel is more than just intellectual theorizing; the gospel is the life-changing transformation from death to life. Paul speaks first of the gospel impact on his own life, and the lives of the apostles. God's work is first and primarily through God-called Men. Men called by grace and sent by God carry the Message of 'obedience of faith', the obedience which is faith. The result is an impact on the Multitudes, those who are among the nations called by the gospel to bring glory to Christ.

The gospel of God … the gospel from God … the whole mission of Christ, extended through the apostles and God-called men of every generation is all about this: ‘among whom are ye’.

Teach Us to Pray (Lk 11.1)

When it comes to prayer, what sincere Christian is satisfied? An unnamed disciple asked the Lord, 'teach us to pray', after observing the Lord at prayer. The true disciple longs for vital communion with God in prayer. As we begin to consider the topic, we observe first of all our Lord Jesus Christ, our exemplar in prayer. Luke's gospel records many situations in which the Lord is found praying - at his baptism, choosing the disciples, in private times alone, in public, in intercession, and on the cross. Our Lord's dependence on the Father and his communion with the Father is our great example in prayer. We observe also our longing for prayer in the prayer of the disciple. Have you ever thought about this request made of the Lord? It is a prayer itself, one in keeping with the Father's will, and one that is immediately answered (read Lk 11.1-13). The first lesson the disciple learns is learned unconsciously and spontaneously: he asks something of the Lord in the Father's will, "teach us to pray". Last, we observe our predecessor in prayer, John the Baptist. The Lord is our example, fully man, fully dependent on the Father, but John is our predecessor, only man, and as fully dependent on the Father. J. Vernon McGee observed that this passage is the last mention of John the Baptist in the Gospels, and it marks John as a man of prayer. Prayer ought to mark our lives as well.

We closed this message with an illustration out of E. M. Bounds book, The Necessity of Prayer and a hymn by William Cowper out of the Olney Hymnal:

“A dear friend of mine who was quite a lover of the chase, told me the following story: ‘Rising early one morning,’ he said, ‘I heard the baying of a score of deerhounds in pursuit of their quarry. Looking away to a broad, open field in front of me, I saw a young fawn making its way across, and giving signs, moreover, that its race was well-nigh run. Reaching the rails of the enclosure, it leaped over and crouched within ten feet from where I stood. A moment later two of the hounds came over, when the fawn ran in my direction and pushed its head between my legs. I lifted the little thing to my breast, and, swinging round and round, fought off the dogs. I felt, just then, that all the dogs in the West could not, and should not capture that fawn after its weakness had appealed to my strength.’ So is it, when human helplessness appeals to Almighty God. Well do I remember when the hounds of sin were after my soul, until, at last, I ran into the arms of Almighty God.” — A. C. DIXON.^{^[1]}

Exhortation to Prayer by William Cowper

What various hindrances we meet
In coming to a mercy–seat?
Yet who that knows the worth of prayer,
But wishes to be often there.

Prayer makes the darkened cloud withdraw,
Prayer climbs the ladder Jacob saw;
Gives exercise to faith and love,
Brings every blessing from above.

Restraining prayer, we cease to fight;
Prayer makes the Christian’s armor bright;
And Satan trembles, when he sees
The weakest saint upon his knees.

While Moses stood with arms spread wide,
Success was found on Israel’s side;
But when through weariness they failed,
That moment Amalek prevailed.

Have you no words? ah, think again,
Words flow apace when you complain;
And fill your fellow–creature’s ear
With the sad tale of all your care.

Were half the breath thus vainly spent,
To heav’n in supplication sent;
Your cheerful song would oft’ner be,
Hear what the LORD has done for me. ^{^[2]}

~~~

Today was a blessed day in our services with 50 in attendance. We have been a bit up and down for the last couple of months with various people away, but today almost everyone who regularly attends was there. We also had a visit from a couple who are friends of another couple in the church. Today was an encouraging day. The Lord has done great things for us this year and we look forward to whatever is in store in the coming year.

[1] Quoted in E. M. Bounds, The Necessity of Prayer, Ch. 1, from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bounds/necessity.i.ii.html (Accessed 11.17.07).

[2] William Cowper “Exhortation to prayer.” Olney Hymnal, Hymn 60.

on the Evangelical Theological Society and fundamentalists

2007-11-16T21:41:00.001-08:00

Recent events at the ETS meetings again call into question fundamentalist participation. The Christianity Today LiveBlog reports on a session by J. P. Moreland of Talbot Seminary. The session had this arresting title: "How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It"

Consider this statement as reported by LiveBlog:

“In the actual practices of the Evangelical community in North America, there is an over-commitment to Scripture in a way that is false, irrational, and harmful to the cause of Christ,” he said. “And it has produced a mean-spiritedness among the over-committed that is a grotesque and often ignorant distortion of discipleship unto the Lord Jesus.”

The problem, he said, is “the idea that the Bible is the sole source of knowledge of God, morality, and a host of related important items. Accordingly, the Bible is taken to be the sole authority for faith and practice.”

or here's another treat:

Likewise, Moreland argued, “because the human soul/spirit and demons/angels are real, it is possible, and, in fact, actual that extra-biblical knowledge can be gained about these spiritual entities. … Demons do not exist in the Bible. They exist in reality.”

By not researching how demons work, how to fight them, and other such issues by, for example, working with exorcists, Christian scholars are harming the church, Moreland argued. In a similar vein, he thinks evangelical scholars and the movement as a whole are rejecting “guidance, revelation, and so forth from God through impressions, dreams, visions, prophetic words, words of knowledge and wisdom.”

This session was some kind of 'breakout' session at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. I don't know if the transcript will be represented by a formal paper published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) or not. Regardless, this kind of thinking is obviously part of the milieu at ETS. I have an electronic copy of JETS and occasionally find some interesting articles there, although I don't find it a "go to" resource because JETS general tenor tends towards this kind of unbelief. That is not to say that such blatantly unbiblical thinking is present in every JETS article, but that JETS tends in that direction.

Which brings me to the issue of fundamentalist participation in the ETS. I have discussed this on another blog somewhere, although I can't remember exactly where or when. Some prominent fundamentalists defend the association. I can't imagine how they can defend their association with such unbelief.

In a related post, LiveBlog reports on an attempt to amend the doctrinal statement of the ETS. At the moment, members of the ETS must adhere to a very simple doctrinal statement. They must affirm belief in the Trinity and in the inerrancy of the Bible. That is all. The attempt to amend the doctrinal statement comes from men who don't think the current statement is sufficient and that it allows for heretics to be members. I recommend that you read the whole thing, but I am struck by how much this sounds like the attempts of the fundamentalists to clarify orthodoxy in the Presbyterian church and in the Northern Baptist Convention back in the 1920s. It's sort of deja vu all over again.

The effort at ETS will likely fail, just as those efforts in the 1920s also ultimately failed.

But again, why are fundamentalists involved in something like this at all? Did we learn anything from the 1920s or not?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the highway of heroes

2007-11-13T23:56:00.001-08:00

November 11 is called Remembrance Day in Canada. From my youth it has been a day of older men in medals, somber speeches, and poppies on lapels. The poppies are a distinctly Canadian memorial, inspired by the poem In Flanders Fields, by Lt. Col. John McCrae, MD, a Canadian military doctor who died of pneumonia during WWI.

Some TV news items on the day pointed us to a new Canadian memorial of our war dead, this time from the battlefields of Afghanistan. When the bodies of our soldiers arrive home in Canada, they are flown first to an air force base in Trenton, ON. From there, they travel in a funeral procession led by police cars up the 401 highway to Toronto for autopsy.

Our Canadian people have taken to lining the overpasses on the highway, waving flags and saluting the fallen heroes as they return home. I can't find the news item I saw, but these links will tell the tale. I found the last one, a video with no sound from within one of the cars in the procession, to be quite moving.

A-Channel article on the highway

Canada AM interview with creator of petition

a view from the procession

John McCrae's In Flanders Fields:

In Flanders Fields the poppies blow

Between the crosses, row on row,

That mark our place; and in the sky

The larks, still bravely singing, fly

Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago

We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,

Loved, and were loved, and now we lie

In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:

To you from failing hands we throw

The torch, be yours to hold it high.

If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields

on an Alberta perspective of a certain theological development

2007-11-13T19:12:00.001-08:00

I read the blog of an Alberta church-planting pastor whom I have never met. He comes from a quite different background from me and is just a bit younger. But I find his articles quite interesting. His latest is called The Reformed Renewal in which he analyses the backgrounds of various Calvinistic leaders in the Baptist world.

I think you will find his analysis interesting. He is talking primarily about backgrounds, not necessarily current position. However, I can't help but think there is still something of the background in each man's current position. Notice especially what he says about Piper and MacArthur.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 11.11.07

2007-11-12T23:27:00.001-08:00

In Canada, Nov 11 is Remembrance Day. We all wear poppies in our lapels to honour our war dead. It is a particularly moving experience these days, especially as our nation is now at war in Afghanistan. Though our casualties are very light compared to the World Wars, the loss of young men to their families and our nation is still tragic.

Our messages this Sunday brought us once again to the book of Romans. I took both morning and afternoon services to advance a bit in our study.

The morning message was from Rm 1.3, The Gospel of the King. The proposition for the message was: "The coming of Jesus Christ to earth brings forward the royal man who fulfills every longing of creation ruined by sin." Mankind, fallen, broken, and insecure looks for the leadership of strong men, heroes, in order to provide peace and security. Every human king fails, but in Christ we have the one King who will not fail. Our passage tells us how the eternal Son became of the seed of David, as far as his human nature is concerned, in order to provide himself for us as the ideal champion all men are really looking for.

In the afternoon, we looked at Rm 1.4, The Gospel of the Resurrection. Proposition: "The resurrection marks out this one man as the only man able to provide dead men their one and only escape from the grave." In v. 4, we see that our Lord is not merely our royal Hero-Messiah, not merely the Hero-King of the seed of David, but he is, as to his divine nature, 'Son of God in power', and that power is especially the power to cause certain men to live forever. Our Lord is declared to be such by the resurrection out of the dead, the first among many brethren. He leads the way and he provides the life.

~~~

What a mighty God we serve. Our focus in these beginning weeks of Romans has been 'the gospel of God.' Words cannot extol our Lord enough as we consider these powerful themes.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Lloyd-Jones on sin

2007-11-12T23:07:00.001-08:00

From D. M. Lloyd-Jones, preaching on Rm 1.5, By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith...

Lloyd-Jones notes that the text should read 'obedience of faith', where the word 'faith' describes what kind of 'obedience' the apostles were striving after, an obedience which is faith, i.e., saving faith is a submission of obedience to God. In preaching on this point, Lloyd-Jones gives this definition of sin:

"Sin primarily is disobedience. Sin is not just that which I do that is wrong and which makes me feel miserable afterwards; sin is not just that which spoils my life and makes me feel miserable and unhappy; sin is not just that thing which gets me down, and which I would like to overcome. It is all that, but, my friends, that is not the first thing to say about sin; indeed, that is not the most important thing to say about it. But there are many people who think of sin like that, and they are looking for someone who is going to help to overcome sin. They want happiness; they want peace; they don't want to go on falling to a particular temptation; they want deliverance, and they hear that Christ can do that for them, so they say, I will believe on Him, I will accept Him, if He will help me and make me happy, and deliver me from my problem. We all want to get rid of problems, don't we? And there is a great danger that we shall think of the Lord Jesus Christ simply as someone who helps us to get out of our difficulties.

"Thank God He does that. But before we even begin to think of that we must think of something else. What is sin? Sin is the transgression of the law. Primarily, it is rebellion against God. Sin is refusal to listen to the voice of God. Sin is a turning of your back upon God and doing what you think. That is ultimately what sin is. And you see the importance of realizing that. It comes out in this way. You have all met nice people who say to you, 'You know I really cannot regard myself as a sinner; I have never felt that I am one.' What do they mean when they say this? Well, they mean that they have never got drunk; they have not been guilty of adultery or murder; they have not committed certain sins. I have known nice, respectable people who have been brought up like this, who have said sometimes quite sincerely and genuinely — I almost wish that I had been a drunkard, or something like that, in order that I might have this great experience of salvation. Perhaps some of you have felt like that. Do you know what that is due to? It is due to a wrong definition of sin. This is sin: a refusal to listen to the voice and to the Word of God. So that if you are living your own life in a very respectable manner, and are not listening to God, you are still a terrible sinner. If you are living that little self-contained, self-satisfied life in which you really only think of God now and again, and remember perhaps morning and evenings that there is a God, and you say your prayers; if that is your attitude to God, if you are not waiting upon Him and listening for His Word, and seeking it everywhere, and living to practise it, then you are as much a sinner as the drunkard or the adulterer; you are not listening to God. That is the essence of sin." Lloyd-Jones, Romans 1: The Gospel of God, p. 138-139.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

a little plug for my friend in Mongolia

2007-11-11T23:15:00.001-08:00

I'd like to call your attention again to my friend in Mongolia, Scott Dean. We pray for Scott every week. What a blessing to see gospel fruit in his ministry in a world so far and so different from my own.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on caring for the dying

2007-11-10T22:54:00.001-08:00

Our own household is back to 'normal' now, as normal as can be in our current circumstances. Life is about change, so normal is always in a state of flux in any home.

My wife returned to us this week after six weeks assisting in the care of her dying mother. My blogging has been light because I have been pulling double duty (well... maybe only one-and-a-half duty) at home while she has been gone. Precious little time is left for reading, thinking, writing and especially blogging when I am left on my own for an extended period of time! But that is another post.

The whole episode of the last six weeks heightened my regard for my dear wife. She selflessly committed herself to the needs of her mother during this time. Our two youngest and I went to visit with her and grandma for one week at the end of October. I was able to observe my wife's efforts first hand. Her mother is extremely uncomfortable as she grows steadily weaker. She often wakes disoriented and confused. My wife would get up with her mother, assist her to get to the bathroom, sit with her and comfort her fears, pointing her always to her faith in Christ. On many occasions my wife would be up repeatedly through the night as her mom's discomfort would not allow her to get long or restful sleep.

Some days are better than other days in situations like this. Dying seems to come on in waves. Some days those waves are an ebb tide, and the 'old mom' emerges. But, alas, her strength is diminished and those episodes shorten as time goes on.

Caring for the dying exacts a toll on any family. It is the bone-weariness produced by the needs of an increasingly helpless loved one. It is the wearing emotional distress of loss as one sees the life ebbing away. It is the inevitable tension between self and one's own needs (needs?) and the needs of another, one who cannot any longer fully function as they once did.

For now, others in the family are shouldering the responsibility of care. The bone-weariness rests now almost completely on them. Our hearts and minds are still occupied with mom, preoccupied with concern for her comfort and care, but we are many miles away and must commit her to the Lord and the rest of the family for now.

We are not the only ones who have ever experienced this, of course. The loss of one much loved is the normal course of life. It befalls us all. I hope that our experience makes us more like Christ, who is all compassion. I hope that these days increase the 'pure religion quotient' in our lives. May God grant grace to our mom, and may God make us more like His Son.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on CT and divorce etc

2007-11-07T13:13:00.001-08:00

Christianity Today publishes a page with links to a number of its articles on the subject of divorce and remarriage, including a link to its most recent and somewhat controversial offering, What God has Joined, by David Instone-Brewer.

These articles may be unsatisfactory for many, but at least it gives a look at how a number of evangelicals view the subject.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a cool blog editing tool

2007-11-04T22:58:00.001-08:00

I wrote the most recent post in a new blog editing tool I discovered, Windows Live Writer from Microsoft. The tool is free (but in beta) and allows you to edit your posts in a WYSIWIG window, but adds many tools and features not available in Blogger's editing window. For example, I can insert tables like this:

Label	Label
Point One	Point One A
Point Two	Point Two A

I can insert a map. Here is a map of our church's location:

We are at the corner of Brock and Matson above. The map comes as a road map, or in aerial view as below.

In the aerial view, our church building is the black-roofed building just above the green playing fields, with a few gary oaks behind. The oaks are mostly gone now, we have 14 townhouses as our 'back-door' neighbours now.

I can also easily insert pictures, hyperlinks, and videos, all without leaving a fairly intelligent WYSIWIG editor. There is an option to insert tags, one which I don't understand. The tags are somehow related to Technorati, or Flickr, or deli.icio.us and others. These are things I have vaguely heard of but I don't really know what they mean.

I can format text in quite a few different ways, like this:

Heading One

Heading Two

Heading Three

Heading Four

Heading Five

Heading Six

I can add colour to text, ~~strikethrough~~, and other formatting settings.

So far I am quite pleased with this editor. It makes posting so much easier.

I can save these posts as drafts, to work on later, or I can publish directly from this editor to my blog without entering its editing features.

Try it, you might like it...

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Sunday 11.4.07

2007-11-04T22:29:00.001-08:00

Morning Service

The messages I heard in Greenville last Sunday motivated the theme for our first service today. In our study of Romans, we had come to "concerning his Son ... Jesus Christ our Lord." The services last Sunday struck me with a particular thought about the Son, so I decided to pause where we were and dwell on the subject a bit more.

In Overwhelmed by the Son I was emphasizing this idea:

There is a real person who is Jesus and who is God and who is NOW, THIS MOMENT , living in heaven, ministering before God for his saints and who is worthy of all your attention and worship.

Often in our worship services, I find myself concentrating on conducting the service, less on contemplating on the subject of the service, which is the worship of the Son. Last week I was able to sit and absorb the messages from the music and the preaching strictly as a worshipper. I suppose this contributed to the difference for me.

Many people seem to go through the motions in their worship, barely aware of the center, the focal point of our Christianity. They act as if they believe Jesus is far away, someone from 2000 years ago who we follow as a matter of course -- they seem to miss a sense of the reality of our Lord Jesus Christ, living, interceding, ministering for us NOW. If we could capture a sense of the reality of the living person of our Lord, our worship, not to mention our lives, might be totally different.

Afternoon Service

In the afternoon, we looked at Leviticus 2 in Remember Your Lord. Lev 2 has to do with the grain offering in its various forms. It is a 'memorial' offering in that only a portion of the offering is burned as a 'memorial', reminding the worshipper that the offering is but a token of our 'whole life obligation' to God. We give tithes and offerings, but all our possessions belong to him. We give our time in worship each week, but all our time belongs to him.

The type of offering portrayed by the grain offering is a tribute - a gift of an inferior to a superior, often with a sense of fear. The offering acknowledges the indebtedness of the inferior to the superior, a picture of our whole life obligation to God.

Some things are excluded (yeast and honey) as unacceptable to God in this offering - these excluded items are likely excluded on the grounds of corruption they represent as agents of fermentation. The life presented to God is not acceptable with the presence of corruption. Salt is always included, a sign of an eternal covenant, an everlasting relationship between God and the believer.

This offering is a "therefore" offering. It always accompanies the burnt offering, which symbolizes our substitute fully and wholly bearing the wrath of God on our behalf. The 'therefore' aspect is captured by Rm 12.1-2, "I beseech you therefore..." The 'therefore' is the doctrine of salvation that precedes, so therefore present your bodies as a living grain offering, a living sacrifice... Heb 13.15-16 capture the same sense, "By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice [grain offering] of praise to God continually".

The point of the grain offering? To call the worshipper to a 'whole life dedication' to God.

~~~

We had 42 in attendance today, including two ladies who were visiting. As they came in they seemed somewhat reluctant to give their names and they rushed out without speaking to anyone. Sometimes I wonder what is going through people's minds, but some are unwilling to reveal themselves. I don't get a sense that these two will be back, but you never know.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on traveling sermon summaries

2007-10-29T05:50:00.000-07:00

In Victoria, we had bro. Bob Fricks, from the staff of Galilee Baptist Church in Kent, WA, filling our pulpit. One of my deacon's reports "the preaching was a blessing for all. We had 38 attend and 3 more came after coffee. As usual there was more food than people and way to much desert..."

In Greenville, we heard a message from Dr. Bruce McAllister, a long time friend of mine. He gave an excellent message on Acts 20.24 and Paul's commitment to the ministry. The challenge of the message was for young people to make the same commitment. The service was a great blessing, but I missed singing the "Amens" after the hymns. Things aren't as formal here as they used to be. They still say the creed, though, and I still remember it without looking.

This evening we went to Cornerstone Baptist Church, pastored by Dr. Gary Reimers, another seminary friend. He preached a fine message on Psalm 32 on the subject of guilt and how to handle it. He gave an excellent exposition of the passage, bringing the poetry to life, real practical life in pointing the Christian to the source of real joy, which is a life lived openly before God, with nothing between my soul and the Saviour.

The day was a great blessing to me, bringing to mind the reality of the person of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many professing Christians really believe that there IS a living person who IS God and who IS personally interested in every detail of their life. When we are born again, we are born again by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Ac 20.21). But faith means that we bow our knees and our hearts to a real person, living NOW. Faith isn't just believing in a Jesus who was, but a Jesus who is.

I hope your day in Christ was equally profitable.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on sunday oct 21

2007-10-25T17:20:00.000-07:00

I will have light posting over the next week and a half - not that I am posting heavily these days. I am visiting with my ailing mother-in-law (and my wife who has been helping care for her these last three or four weeks). It is a great blessing to see my dear mother-in-law, though she is obviously uncomfortable and in failing health. And it is joy unspeakable to witness the grace of God in my wife as she lovingly cares for her mother. What a privilege to be married to such a woman!

I wanted to be sure to update you on last Sunday's services in our church. We had a blessed day, including a couple visiting from a Baptist church in Capetown, South Africa.

Our first message continued the Romans series, Concerning His Son. The message focused on the person of the gospel. Romans 1.1-7 is one sentence in Greek, offering Paul's salutation to the Romans. He establishes his credentials in verse one, closing with the matter of being a separated ('marked out') by the gospel of God. He tells us two things about that gospel in the next few verses - it is that which was promised before through the prophets (see here for summary) and it is that good news 'concerning His Son'.

The word 'Son' stands at the beginning of verse 3 in the Greek, followed by two 'who' clauses, and is then renamed by the phrase 'Jesus Christ our Lord' at the end of v. 4. The KJV puts the word 'son' and the phrase 'Jesus Christ our Lord' together at the beginning of verse 3, while modern versions tend to put the words in the same order as the original Greek. Either way means the same thing, perhaps the modern versions have a slight advantage in preserving the original word order. To my mind, the impact of renaming the Son is heightened by holding to the original word order.

There is rich doctrinal content in the two 'who' clauses in vv. 3 and 4, but there is an eternity of value in the four words which name our Lord, so I took this message to spend some time thinking on each word. William Newell said: "The gospel is all about Christ. Apart from Him, there is no news from heaven but that of coming woe!" [Newell, p. 16] Here is our proposition: "The names of the Son express the essence of eternal life, communicated to man by faith." First, as the Son of the Father, we see our Lord as a glorious person, the Eternal Son of an Almighty and Eternal Father, one in essence with Him, distinct in personality, sent by the Father on a rescue mission to a dying world. Second we see our Lord as the man Jesus - a jarring thought in contrast to the glory of his eternal being, a man with human limitations, dependent on the Father, the man whose name means 'Yah is Salvation'. The two clauses of v. 3 and 4 speak to the transition between the eternity of the Son to the limitations of Jesus the man - made of the seed of David, declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection. These two events reveal the stupendous character of this man, Son of God, son of Man, our Saviour. Third, he is the promised Christ. The Messiah, the anointed one, the one set aside to the place of The Prophet, The Priest, The King, the one promised from Gen 3.15 on to be the answer to the sin problem of mankind. And last we see our Lord as our Lord! Lord means master, owner, one who has the right to dispose of his property as he will. But the term includes what I called 'the precious pronoun': our. He is our Lord. We hold him to be our Master by faith in his name, in his work on the cross in our behalf. I pointed out Phil 2.5-11. Someday every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord, but for most, it will be too late. And here is my simple conclusion:

Our Lord ...
Is he your Lord?

~~~

Our afternoon message concludes our series on the metaphors of the Church. I repeated this metaphor with a new sermon and additional content on the idea It's a building. I wanted to focus on the need for organization and administration that the building metaphor implies. A literal building is an organized structure if it is intended to last at all. I described the simple homes of Palestine during Bible times, most of which did not survive all these years, even as ruins, since they were made of mud bricks. Even simple structures like these required organization and working building systems to provide shelter for people at all. A local church, as a building requires organization as well. Some of that is mandated in the Scriptures: Pastors/Elders and Deacons. Some is exemplified: the committee for the care of 'widows indeed' in 1 Tim 4. All of this involves structure and organization. I used Spurgeon's Metropolitan Tabernacle as an example of a large church with multiple different kinds of ministries during Spurgeon's day. Over 66 different ministries were in existence at the time of Spurgeon's 25th anniversary as a pastor. In addition, the Tabernacle had 40 mission churches under its sponsorship and many Sunday schools and Ragged Schools as well. All of this effort requires organization and administration. This is an aspect of church life that I believe is a failing in our minsitry, or at least a weakness. This is primarily because I personally HATE administration. But it is something that we must get better at in order to improve our gospel impact in our community.

~~~

In our Sunday School hour we are going through the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This is a worthy document and has provoked much valuable discussion in our assembly.

~~~

Well, all of that catches me up. I hope to find time to post a few things later. Traveling just doesn't seem conducive to much blogging!

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on more politics

2007-10-18T13:44:00.000-07:00

Just another thought about Dr. Bob's endorsement of Romney.

I have said to some that I personally wouldn't be prepared to endorse Romney at this stage, but I don't live in South Carolina. As this blog at Real Clear Politics points out, the SC primary is less than 100 days away. This makes it important for SC residents to make up their minds concerning their primary vote.

Some criticise Dr. Bob for not supporting someone like Huckabee. While Huckabee is an attractive candidate ideologically, it seems highly unlikely that he is going to lead the ticket, although there is some talk of him as VEEP. If Dr. Bob endorsed Huckabee (or someone like him), the endorsement would have a negligible effect on the outcome. It would also contribute to another possible effect, which I think is part of the political calculus that is behind the endorsement.

The other effect is the danger of a Third Party or Independent candidate. While none of the front runners for the GOP are completely satisfactory to me or to many other Christians, I like each of them well enough that I can support them in the general election. But some Christians (influenced, perhaps, by James Dobson) are considering getting behind an independent or third-party candidate if Romney or Giuliani are the nominee, especially if it is Giuliani. A reasonably strong third-party candidate on the right would almost ensure another Clinton White House.

For someone perceived to be as right wing as Dr. Bob, his endorsement of Romney may not have a huge effect on the primary or the nomination, but it might mitigate the attractiveness of a third-party option for the Christian Right. A sort of, "if he can swallow Romney's negatives, I guess I don't need to split the vote on the right" mentality.

So the endorsement makes sense from a couple of standpoints: the proximity of the SC primary and the general dissatisfaction of Christians with the front-runners in the GOP.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on yankee politics

2007-10-17T11:20:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Dr. Bob Taylor of BJU regarding his endorsement of Mitt Romney yesterday. You can find a transcript of the interview here.

Some find Christian involvement in political debate unseemly, I do not [see discussion here]. One does have to be careful about when and how to be involved, however. As a pastor of a church, my mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to be a political activist. As such, I don't tend to express political views too much, although I think our people have an idea of where I stand.

Individuals like Dr. Jones and Dr. Taylor are not pastors and are in somewhat different roles. They have to make their own judgements regarding what they say and do politically. Personally, I am not at the point where I could support a Romney and I am not as averse to a Giulianni as they appear to be. It does seem to me that the GOP side of the race has no entirely satisfying candidate this time around, but there are several who have sufficient acceptability that I could support them if nominated.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Church Matters: 9Marks Blog

2007-10-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

Church Matters: 9Marks Blog: "Shepherding a church's culture"

I regularly read the 9Marks Blog, while disagreeing with the rampant Calvinism, I find a good deal of wisdom in posts addressing church function. The string of posts that begin with this one involve the subject of those people who show up in church with a strong "conviction" about how church should be practiced - one that is at variance in one way or another with the practice of the local church.

For example, we are talking about someone showing up who insists that all Christian parents must homeschool their children, and looks down on those who do not.
Or someone insists that their children will sit with them in every service, regardless of the graded Sunday School (or similar programs) that may be going on at the same time.

What to do with such?

Well, the various writers on the 9Marks blog offer some good suggestions.

The only thing that I would add is that the pastor must be jealous of the unity of the local church while allowing individuals to hold their own views on some issues. If folks join the church and exhibit an agenda, the agenda needs to be confronted and ended. If folks join in and quietly practice their convictions while allowing others liberty in these matters, then give them the right hand of fellowship and pray that the Lord might keep them from becoming a problem.

I do think that those who exhibit strong convictions in unclear areas are susceptible to pride and to the cultic influences of some teachers. [Bill Gothard, Vision Forum, et al notably come to mind.]

For convenience, here is a list of the posts at 9Marks so far:

The first one ...
the second one
the third, fourth, fifth, and last (to date)

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the 10.14.07 sermons

2007-10-15T00:26:00.001-07:00

Our morning message saw us take a significant leap forward in the exposition of Romans. In message number 4, we rushed into the second verse of the 1st chapter! It was a daring gambit, but seemed to be succesful!

Seriously, Lloyd-Jones outdoes me. He had five messages on the first verse, I only had three. If you have the opportunity, I would recommend reading his fifth message on "The Gospel of God". The message is worth the price of the book by itself. I was sorely tempted to make the same phrase my text this morning, but I determined to soldier on.

Our message today was entitled The Promised Gospel. The interesting thing about our verse is that Paul seems to pause before giving us the content of the gospel (the person and work of Christ, vv. 3-4ff.) to instead make a comment about the ancient character of the gospel. We might think the words about the promise coming through the prophets in holy writings is something of a throw-away, a 'by the way' type of statement. After all, the gospel is the central thing, and Christ and his work are the heart and soul of the gospel. But the reference to the prophets and the promise is a characteristic of apostolic preaching, especially Paul's preaching. He mentions it at least three times in Romans itself, in the second verse, in 3.21, and in the second last verse (16.26). His comment is no incidental comment. He is establishing a notion that the gospel is the heart and soul of the ancient plan of God, even, I think, pointing back to that earliest hint of a promise found in Gen 3.15. It is important to realize that God's promises are ancient, plentiful, and now fulfilled - note past tense of 'promised'. It is important to realize that the Lord used the prophets to propagate the promise of the gospel. It is important especially to realize that God 'put it in writing', moving his prophets to record things they didn't fully understand, carrying them along by the Spirit as a disabled ship is carried about by the wind. And it is important to realize that this good news is more than simply a word, but it is a real thing that can belong to us. "Gospel" is no academic exercise, it is the long-standing promise of God, fulfilled in Christ, and made available to any who would believe.

Our afternoon message continued the series on the Church with It's a Temple. Some of my ideas for this message came from a post by an on-line friend, Ryan Martin. My focus was different from his, as Ryan was talking about what the church does and I am focusing on what the church is. Nevertheless, his post stimulated my thinking in this regard. Our understanding of the temple metaphor for the church must be informed by the OT temple and its meaning. As I understand the passages (and the OT), I think the primary meaning of the temple is holiness, and this holiness is meant to be reflected in the NT metaphor of a local church as a temple of the living God, a place that must be kept holy by those living stones who inhabit it. [I do see this metaphor very directly referring to the local church, not the universal church. It is not that it is impossible to refer the metaphor to the universal, but that is not what the NT does.] Under this proposition: "You are the temple of God; you are called to holiness." I developed these points:

I. The holy temple is under God’s protection (1 Cor 3.16-17)
II. The holy temple is called to identify exclusively with God’s holiness and cleanse its premises (2 Cor 6.16)
III. The holy temple is the ground of holy living (Eph 2.19-22)
IV. The holy temple is intended to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt 2.5, 9-15)

~~~

All in all, it was a good day, although our crowd was definitely down after our big high last week on Thanksgiving Sunday. Still, the gospel was preached and we saw some young disciples show up who haven't been to church in a while. It was good to minister to them. Faithfulness and consistency take time to develop.

By the way, I thought of something in connection with the metaphor of the church as a temple in light of a discussion about mundane things like announcements and potlucks being part of worship services or not. The discussion occurred over at Chris Anderson's place, I hope I am not simply an agitator over there.

Here is the thought: the OT worship in the temple included many different kinds of sacrifices. I am impressed with the fact that one of the most common sacrifices was the peace offering, at which the worshipper sat at table before the Lord, in fellowship with him at a 'holy barbecue', if you will permit the expression. I suggest that our fellowship meals as a gathered church are as holy to the Lord as the songs, prayers, offerings, and preaching that occupy the bulk of our services. And I further submit that to announce the occasion of such acts of the lively stones in the worship services of the living God are no matter to be dismissed.

But yes, we can make our announcements and our fellowships an extremely trivial and earthly thing. Let us labour to not make it so.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the possiblity of being overly Christo-centric

2007-10-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

From Lloyd-Jones:

"Salvation is the work of the three Persons in the blessed Holy Trinity. It is primarily that of the Father — the gospel of God concerning His Son. The Father first! It is the Father's plan; it is the Father's purpose; it is the Father who initiates it; it is the Father who gave the first promise concerning it to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and, oh! we must be clear about this. We must not go on to consider what the Son has done, what the Holy Spirit has done and still does, until we are absolutely clear about the primacy of the Father, and the origin of it all in the Father Himself. ...

"I could go on quoting Paul at great length, but there is always this emphasis on God the Father. And yet this is forgotten by so many; they are Christo-centric, if I may say so, and they forget the Father Himself from whom it all comes. You will find in their prayers; they always pray to the Lord Jesus, not to the Father. They are entirely centred on the Son. But this, my friends, is wrong if you make Him [Jesus] the centre, because He is not the centre. The centre is the Father. You remember how the Apostle Peter puts that; he says, 'Christ suffered for our sins'. For what reason? Well, 'to bring us to God, to the Father' [1 Pt 3.18]. The whole purpose of the work of the son is to bring us to God the Father. Take His definition of eternal life: 'This is eternal life, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent'. Always that order; He never varies it. He had come to glorify the Father. He knew that everything starts with the Father and comes from the Father, so that the author of salvation is God the eternal Father." [D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: The Gospel of God, p. 62-64.]

Is that a little jarring? It is a bold statement, but it seems to me that L-J is right.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on gorebal warming

2007-10-13T09:38:00.000-07:00

A leading meteorologist tells it like it is:

Gore gets a cold shoulder - Environment - smh.com.au: "'It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,' he said. 'But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants.'"

Politics, cash, and ideology = global warming hysteria (but mostly ca$h).

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the decline of religion in the True North

2007-10-12T10:01:00.000-07:00

From an article on the funeral home business in Montreal comes this notice:

The Chronicle West End Edition > Regional news > The business of dying: "You have to understand that people are going to the church less and less. People are using funeral complexes for receptions and a number of other services to pay respect to the deceased, instead of going to the church"

The challenge remains. In our community, Christ, his gospel, and his church are largely ignored. One imagines that pure hatred would be better than bored indifference.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the chasm between evangelicalism and fundamentalism

2007-10-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

In their own words...

UN Leader Woos Evangelicals | Liveblog | Christianity Today: "In a sense, last night's banquet and today’s issue-oriented discussions are really less about evangelicals fighting disease and poverty and more about evangelicals working in partnerships--partnerships between Western evangelicals and those in the developing world and partnerships with non-evangelicals,

We cautiously engaged those of other shades of Christian faith and even other religions in the mid-90s when we threw tremendous weight behind the effort to pass the International Religious Freedom Act and the creation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We then enlarged the circle of cooperation to work on legislation to fight sex trafficking and, later, human-rights abuses in North Korea. The circle has expanded yet again as many evangelical leaders are partnering on issues of climate change.

Partnerships give evangelicals a sense of participation and empowerment. It gives us the chance to take on really big issues. That’s a strange feeling for a movement whose consciousness is rooted in old-style fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was about being the few and the proud--I mean, the pure. The evangelicalism that emerged in the 1940s hoped for a new engagement with society while maintaining doctrinal and ethical integrity. Its leaders, like first CT editor Carl F. H. Henry and first CT board chair Harold John Ockenga preached a strong social justice message. But the old fundamentalist consciousness still lurks, and these partnerships stretch the evangelical sense of identity."

This attitude is not all that dissimilar to that promoted by at least some of the so-called 'conservative evangelicals. I recall Ben Wright posting a telling comment by Al Mohler about fundamentalism where he said something like "Fundamentalism is marginalized and has no influence." [I am paraphrasing, it was from Mohler's radio show and it was some time ago.] For many conservative evangelicals, I believe the reason they cannot admit the fundamental error of evangelicalism is that they cannot give up their addiction to "influence". Whether they actually have any influence or not is another question.

Zechariah 4:6 Then he said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' says the LORD of hosts.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on so much for my quote game

2007-10-09T22:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, I posted a list of quotations in hopes of getting some unbiased responses from some whom I know to be readers of John Piper. I wanted to get a comparison of Piper's teaching with the quotes offered. My reason was that I see some strong similarities between some of these quotes and Piper's approach. I wondered if someone else who is more familiar with Piper could tell me if I were right or wrong. Alas, no one chose to enlighten me -- perhaps they thought I was baiting them, perhaps they weren't interested, perhaps my estimation of my readership is greatly exaggerated (and I think that I have only a few readers!). In any case, a couple of people have asked who the quotes were from, so I will offer the answers here.

All of the quotes come second hand via a book by Elmer Towns, Understanding the Deeper Life. Towns is trying to systematize various types of teaching regarding Christian Experience. In the section from which I am getting these quotes, Towns is discussing what he calls the 'deeper life experience'. He sub-categorizes this view as 'Christological deeper-life', 'Holy Spirit deeper-life', and 'soteriological deeper-life'. He offers two quotations illustrating each sub-category:

Christological deeper-life

QUOTE ONE

On the contrary, the life that God has given us is the life of His son. All whom He has called He has also justified, and all whom He has justified He counts as already glorified. God never begins anything that He does not bring to an end. The world may start that which it cannot finish, but God says: "He that hath begun a good work in you, will keep on perfecting it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1.6, Gk.). Here are all three of the great doctrines of God's work within us. He which hath begun a good work in you — that is justification — will keep on perfecting it — that is sanctification — until the day of Jesus Christ — that is glorification. There is no change in God, and there will be no change in His work in us.

This one is Donald Grey Barnhouse, Life by the Son: Practical Lessons in Experimental Holiness (Philadelphia: Revelation Publications American Bible Conference Association, 1939), 33. quoted in Towns, p. 23.

QUOTE TWO

The apostle Paul gives us his own definition of the Christian life in Galatians 2:20. It is no longer "I, but Christ." Here he is not stating something special or peculiar — a high level of Christianity. He is, we believe, presenting God's normal role for a Christian, which can be summarized in the words: l live no longer, but Christ lives His life in me.

God makes it quite clear in His Word that He has only one answer to every human need — His Son, Jesus Christ. In all His dealings with us He works by taking us out of the way and substituting Christ in our place. The Son of God died instead of us for our forgiveness: He lives instead of us for our deliverance. ... It will help us greatly, and save us from much confusion, if we keep constantly before us this fact, that God will answer all our questions in one way and one way only, namely, by showing us more of His son.

This one is Watchman Nee, The Normal Christian Life (Fort Washington, Penn.: Christian Literature Crusade, 1973), 9. quoted in Towns, p. 23.

Holy Spirit deeper-life

QUOTE THREE

I want here boldly to assert that it is my happy belief that every Christian can have a copious outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a measure far beyond that received at conversion, and I might also say, far beyond that enjoyed by the rank and file of orthodox believers today. It is important that we get this straight, for until doubts are removed faith is impossible, God will not surprise a doubting heart with an effusion of the Holy Spirit, nor will He fill anyone who has doctrinal questions about the possibility of being filled.

This one is from A. W. Tozer, The Divine Conquest (Harrisburg, Penn.: Christian Publications, 1950) 121, 122. quoted in Towns, p. 24.

QUOTE FOUR

The fullness of power is the heritage of every Christian! It may be an unclaimed heritage, but the power of God which enables a Christian to witness for Christ and win souls is the right of every Christian. Not to be filled with the Holy Spirit, not to be endued with power from on high, is to miss the highest good, and fail to claim the Highest blessing, offered to every child of God. ... That the power of Pentecost is for every Christian is made clear; first, by the promises which are to all alike; second, by the New Testament examples; third, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every Christian makes the enduement for service logical for every Christian; fourth, by the fact that the soulwinning task demands supernatural power; and, fifth, because the Word of God clearly commands Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

This one is from John R. Rice, The Power of Pentecost or the Fullness of the Spirit (Murfreesboro, Tenn.: Sword of the Lord Publishers, 1976), 277, 278. quoted in Towns, pp. 24-25.

Soteriological deeper-life

QUOTE FIVE

'I have been crucified with Christ,' says Paul. What does this mean? In principle, it means that my right to myself is annihilated, as His concern and love for others is expressed through me. Identification, that's the first thing. Not simply to die to myself, but to live in Him. Bless your hearts, evangelism isn't a 'project', it's a way of life! 'Feed My sheep. Identify yourself with My interests in other people,' says Jesus. Oh, to be so satisfied, identified with Jesus that my life is spoiled for everything but His will! Am I more concerned with my right to live, than with my daily dying to Him? Which are you more concerned about? Paul says, 'I die daily' — do you? Do I? Is that my major passion?

This one is from Alan Redpath, "The Price of Christian Service," The People and the King, ed. David Porter (Kent, England: STL Books, 1980), 154. quoted in Towns, p. 25.

QUOTE SIX

It takes a long time to come to a moral decision about sin, but it is the great moment in my life when I do decide that just as Jesus Christ died for the sin of the world, so sin must die out in me, not be curbed or suppressed or counteracted, but crucified. No one can bring anyone else to this decision. We may be earnestly convinced, and religiously convinced, but what we need to do is come to the decision which Paul forces here. ... I cannot reckon myself "dead indeed unto sin" unless I have been through this radical issue of will before God. Have I entered into the glorious privilege of being crucified with Christ until all that is left is the life of Christ in my flesh and blood?

This one is from D. W. Lambert, Oswald Chambers An Unbribed Soul (London: Marshall, Morgan Ea Scott, 1972), 62. quoted in Towns, p. 26.

Now, I don't have an axe to grind against the deeper-Christian life movement (although I do tend to mock its extremes). There are some flaws to Keswick thinking, but some valuable teaching is produced by the Keswick movement in some of its forms, especially the more early forms. Many good men were involved in its initial efforts and their lives and work are nothing to sneer at.

My interest in the comparison with Piper is my thesis that Piper is promoting a neo-Keswickian experience oriented theology in his whole 'Desiring God' mantra. It seems to me that many who follow Piper are quite critical of Keswickian teaching, but at the same time are pursuing almost the same experience orientation they decry in others [albeit with somewhat different terminology]. I suppose I might be forced to read more Piper myself (Lord, would you require so much??) in order to prove or disprove my thesis.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Thanksgiving Sunday

2007-10-09T22:10:00.001-07:00

In Canada, we celebrate Thanksgiving on the second Monday of October. Usually, as in all ways we differ from Americans, many Canadians are quite smug about it. According to us, we celebrated Thanksgiving first. So there. Most Americans I know look on this insecurity with bemusement.

Anyway, since Thanksgiving fell on Oct 8, the earliest it can occur in Canada, we made our Sunday a special Thanksgiving Sunday. We usually hold a special service and Thanksgiving banquet in our hall on the actual day. This year a number of people are away, including my wife who is caring for her failing mother in Tennessee. So the week before, we decided to make our regular Sunday meal our Thanksgiving dinner. Our ladies did a tremendous job decorating the fellowship room and preparing the meal. And... our folks invited a number of others to the services. We ended up with 66, which was especially tremendous since I was thinking we would be way down with the number of folks who were away.

Our first service continued our Romans series, finally completing verse 1 with the message The Called Apostle. The proposition of the message was this: "The Word of God stands or falls on the integrity of its human authors." We began the message talking about the importance of credentials and showing how Paul was laying out his credentials in verse 1. We noted a bit more about the designation 'slave of Christ Jesus', noting that the slavery to Christ is a voluntary slavery, an entire selling of the soul to Christ. The term is not used of Christians in general in the NT, but of men who are given over to the service of Christ in the gospel. The bulk of the message dealt with the credential 'a called apostle' [literal rendering]. The term apostle was invested with special meaning by the Lord himself, the word does mean 'sent one' but in Greek usage doesn't have the high, ambassadorial connotation that the New Testament gives it. The Lord himself used it to distinguish a select group out of his disciples [and a man named Saul, an apostle born 'out of due season'.] The function of these men is to lay the groundwork for the Christian church, to provide the foundation. The whole credibility of the Christian church rests on their integrity and mission. This leads us to the third credential 'separated unto the gospel' or 'horizoned' or 'marked out' - the word has to do with someone who is especially set apart, marked out like a towering monument on the horizon, like a mountain, for a particular cause, in this case, the gospel.

In all of this, we see a man volunteering himself as the slave of Christ. This man finds himself called an apostle, and marked out for a task. These last two are the works of God in his life. I concluded this way:

It is remarkable – the God of Heaven put His word in the hands of men.

Now ...

God’s word is in your hands.

What kind of credibility do you offer its message in the places where you live?

~~~

For our afternoon service, we did something different. As our Thanksgiving Sunday fell on the first Sunday of the month, making it a Communion Sunday, I decided to create a reading interspersed with various hymns to prepare our hearts for communion. We had our deacons and one of the deacon's wives doing most of the reading. I read the 'narrator' bits. The selections moved from some of the birth passages to the betrayal and denial, the trial, the crucifixion, and the resurrection. The hymns were selected from our Majesty Hymnal. The whole reading and singing took us about 45 minutes to complete. The whole service was quite moving as simply the words of Scripture put before us once again the redemptive work of Christ. So that you can see the way the service went, here is a link to Thanksgiving: A Communion Reading.

May the Lord bless you in your work, wherever you might be. At our Thanksgiving, our hearts are quite full of the grace of God.

May those unsaved folks who visited our services this weekend be moved by the power of the Word of God to trust Christ for their own salvation.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on admitting it - no one cares about my quote game

2007-10-08T14:31:00.000-07:00

... at least that's the way it appears.

I suspect that my wide readership is perhaps not the best sample to select from. Many of the few who read this blog may not read Piper at all, and have no comment. Those who do read Piper may think that I am baiting them, or else they just aren't that interested. For my take, I think that some of the quotes I offer reflect my understanding of Piper's views (to some extent), but I really would like for someone who does read Piper to see if my less thorough knowledge is actually mistaken or not.

If anyone who fits the category would care to comment, I'd be grateful.

on a different kind of quote game

2007-10-04T00:19:00.000-07:00

I ran across six quotations in my reading recently. A certain thought struck me as I read them so I thought I would test it out on anyone who cares to comment. There are six quotations from six different individuals. They are similar in one respect, but distinct in another. They represent (according to the person providing the quotations) three variations of a certain point of view.

I am not asking you to guess the sources of the quotations. Rather, I am curious which of these quotations you would consider to be closest to the views of John Piper and why. It is possible that none of these views are close to his views.

If you want to guess who gave each quote, that is fine. I will reveal the sources in a later post.

QUOTE ONE

On the contrary, the life that God has given us is the life of His son. All whom He has called He has also justified, and all whom He has justified He counts as already glorified. God never begins anything that He does not bring to an end. The world may start that which it cannot finish, but God says: "He that hath begun a good work in you, will keep on perfecting it until the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1.6, Gk.). Here are all three of the great doctrines of God's work within us. He which hath begun a good work in you — that is justification — will keep on perfecting it — that is sanctification — until the day of Jesus Christ — that is glorification. There is no change in God, and there will be no change in His work in us.

QUOTE TWO

The apostle Paul gives us his own definition of the Christian life in Galatians 2:20. It is no longer "I, but Christ." Here he is not stating something special or peculiar — a high level of Christianity. He is, we believe, presenting God's normal role for a Christian, which can be summarized in the words: l live no longer, but Christ lives His life in me.

God makes it quite clear in His Word that He has only one answer to every human need — His Son, Jesus Christ. In all His dealings with us He works by taking us out of the way and substituting Christ in our place. The Son of God died instead of us for our forgiveness: He lives instead of us for our deliverance. ... It will help us greatly, and save us from much confusion, if we keep constantly before us this fact, that God will answer all our questions in one way and one way only, namely, by showing us more of His son.

QUOTE THREE

I want here boldly to assert that it is my happy belief that every Christian can have a copious outpouring of the Holy Spirit in a measure far beyond that received at conversion, and I might also say, far beyond that enjoyed by the rank and file of orthodox believers today. It is important that we get this straight, for until doubts are removed faith is impossible, God will not surprise a doubting heart with an effusion of the Holy Spirit, nor will He fill anyone who has doctrinal questions about the possibility of being filled.

QUOTE FOUR

The fullness of power is the heritage of every Christian! It may be an unclaimed heritage, but the power of God which enables a Christian to witness for Christ and win souls is the right of every Christian. Not to be filled with the Holy Spirit, not to be endued with power from on high, is to miss the highest good, and fail to claim the Highest blessing, offered to every child of God. ... That the power of Pentecost is for every Christian is made clear; first, by the promises which are to all alike; second, by the New Testament examples; third, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every Christian makes the enduement for service logical for every Christian; fourth, by the fact that the soulwinning task demands supernatural power; and, fifth, because the Word of God clearly commands Christians to be filled with the Holy Spirit.

QUOTE FIVE

'I have been crucified with Christ,' says Paul. What does this mean? In principle, it means that my right to myself is annihilated, as His concern and love for others is expressed through me. Identification, that's the first thing. Not simply to die to myself, but to live in Him. Bless your hearts, evangelism isn't a 'project', it's a way of life! 'Feed My sheep. Identify yourself with My interests in other people,' says Jesus. Oh, to be so satisfied, identified with Jesus that my life is spoiled for everything but His will! Am I more concerned with my right to live, than with my daily dying to Him? Which are you more concerned about? Paul says, 'I die daily' — do you? Do I? Is that my major passion?

QUOTE SIX

It takes a long time to come to a moral decision about sin, but it is the great moment in my life when I do decide that just as Jesus Christ died for the sin of the world, so sin must die out in me, not be curbed or suppressed or counteracted, but crucified. No one can bring anyone else to this decision. We may be earnestly convinced, and religiously convinced, but what we need to do is come to the decision which Paul forces here. ... I cannot reckon myself "dead indeed unto sin" unless I have been through this radical issue of will before God. Have I entered into the glorious privilege of being crucified with Christ until all that is left is the life of Christ in my flesh and blood?

There you have it. Let me know what you think.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on our second message in Romans

2007-10-02T23:25:00.001-07:00

As I study the book of Romans, I am confronted with a dilemma: too much information, too little time. My usual response to this dilemma is to move very slowly through verse by verse exposition. I am a little worried about this in Romans since, of all the books in the New Testament, this may be the one written up the most.

This Sunday we came to the first phrase (after last Sunday in the first word). The phrase is 'a slave of Jesus Christ'. The concept is so vital to understanding Paul's ministry that it begs us to pause and truly consider the implications of its meaing. Our message was entitled Mastered by Christ. I explored a bit of the background of slavery, both in Jewish thinking and in Greek/Roman society of the day. To apply the term to one's self is quite striking when you consider that the Rabbi's would excommunicate a man from the synagogue for calling another man a slave. But the important part of the phrase is not the condition of the one who uttered it, but the name of the master to whom he is attached. Our proposition developed this thought: The gospel begins in a life when the self-serving rebel submits his soul to the mastery of Jesus Christ. The bottom line for us is this - who masters you?

In our afternoon service I continued with my series on church philosophy, It's a Flock. The subtitle went this way: it needs shepherding (not merely leadership). My point was not to denigrate leadership. Of course the church needs leadership, but a particular kind of leadership, the shepherding kind. As I prepared for this message, I did a little internet search on 'sheep behaviour'. You will find many interesting sites with this search, I didn't realize how much was known of sheep psychology. One thing that surprised me was this: You must lead sheep, you can't drive them. The ministry of the shepherd to the sheep is one primarily of care: feeding, leading, medicating, guarding, and guiding. There are some aspects of shepherding that cause sheep discomfort (see wikipedia on 'mulesing') but primarily the leadership of the shepherd is tender watchcare over the needs of the sheep. Sometimes the sheep need prodding, but mostly they need feeding. We find the same parallel in the scriptural metaphors provided by our Lord in Jn 10 and by David in Ps 23, as well as throughout the Scriptures. While pastors have authority to some extent over their flocks, they must realize that the biblical pattern for the exercise of their authority is the tender watchcare of the shepherd, not the autocratic demanding stance of the CEO or a military general.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on faith and works

2007-10-02T22:55:00.000-07:00

I started a book by Elmer Towns today. It is our current selection for our reading group: Understanding the Deeper Life. I had not been aware that Towns subscribed to Keswick views, but it is quite plain from this book. He spend his undergraduate years at Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International University) under Robert McQuilkin. McQuilkin and Columbia are Keswick, hence the influence on Towns.

In his introduction, Towns alludes to his experience as the president of Winnipeg Bible College (now Providence College and Seminary) and makes a very interesting observation:

Later, my experience as president of Winnipeg Bible College refined the principles by which I lived. I had some Christian mysticism that was not based on the Bible. I was tested and found wanting. (I prayed all night on several occasions for money but I did not get it. The problem was I only prayed. I learned that my walk with God must be based on biblical principles, not feelings. (The colleged prospered when I not only prayed for money, but organized a financial outreach campaign. God honors both faith and works.)

In thinking about this, I immediately made some application to our ministry and the need for growth and souls. We are praying for souls. We are praying for growth. We aren't doing much. In years past, we have done many things - tried different types of outreaches, etc. I confess that the paltry results are demotivators.

A few years ago I was talking to a friend who planted a church over in the Lower Mainland. It is self-supporting now and pastored by another friend. I asked him what it took to build a church in Western Canada. He told me this: "You aren't going to like my answer. ... It's knocking on doors." He was right, I didn't like his answer. But he went on to explain, "I can't say that knocking on doors by itself did anything to build the church. We used to go around door-knocking offering in home Bible studies. We had some who were interested, most not. But as we worked, the church grew. The Lord blessed our efforts, often in ways we hadn't expected."

Well, I still don't like knocking on doors. But the point expressed by Towns and illustrated by my friend resonates with me. It is time to be doing something, not just praying. Faith is good, but let's work out our faith, eh?

While I can't imagine just doing a strict doorknocking campaign, I do think that we must be more active in evangelizing our community. That will mean becoming more visible to the community in some way, making contacts, and encouraging people to respond. I have a few notions percolating around in my brain, it is high time to take action on them and move forward.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Love, Liberty, and Christian Conscience by Randy Jaeggli

2007-09-26T23:09:00.001-07:00

I read this book by my good friend Jaeggli today. We were in grad school together, sharing many classes, most notably the unofficial 'Snack Shop Theology'. I have always appreciated Randy's godly testimony and level-headed thinking. He doesn't get rattled like some of us excitable types.

This little book has just been published as one of a series called "Biblical Discernment for Difficult Issues". The subject is of great interest to me, see my series of posts on my Sunday AM sermons this summer. My son, Duncan, sent me an autographed copy today! The book is a scant 58 pages. I wish it was longer, but the purpose of this series is to provide short works on timely topics. [The BJU press listing says it is 72 pp, but that includes all the empty pages at front and back of the book, including the preface. I suppose that is standard procedure, but the actual work is just 58 pp.]

The book's title gives a fair summary of the contents. The bulk of the book, and the longest chapter, is a thorough discussion of the conscience, working through the scriptural development of the notion in a thorough and scholarly manner, while remaining fairly accessible for the non-academic reader. It is of especial value to a pastor who would like a well-worked out argument for the topic.

The chapters are:
1. Introduction
2. Misunderstanding Legalism
3. The Role of Conscience
4. The Nature of True Liberty
5. Conclusion

The second chapter, Misunderstanding Legalism, gives a good discussion of the use and misuse of the term. Randy argues for defending the meaning of the term, but, while I thoroughly agree with him, it seems that the evangelicals have totally co-opted 'legalism' for their own pejorative ends.

The fourth chapter is the one I wish was longer, but what is said is biblical and helpful. Randy's points in this chapter are 'True liberty includes restraint' and 'True liberty produces increased knowledge of Christ'. He closes the chapter with this sentence:

True liberty allows the believer to see Christ as He is and grow in the ability to reflect Christ's image to a world that is perishing in sin.

Aside from wishing for more in the fourth chapter, I also was hoping to see some engagement of Fee's comments on 1 Cor 8-10, comments which are replicated in Tom Constable's Notes. I have been somewhat taken with Fee's view of the meat offered to idols and would like to get the point of view of someone with more academic insight than I have. I guess I'll just have to write him and ask him what he thinks!

All in all, I recommend this little work as a valuable contribution to the subject of Christian liberty from a thoroughly fundamentalist perspective. I am glad that the Bob Jones Seminary is taking the initiative to publish works like this. This is the second of the series, the first being Ken Casillas' Law and the Christian, The: God's Light Within God's Limits.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

For summaries of my summer series on Legalism and Liberty, check

here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here,
here and
here.

on BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Burmese riot police attack monks

2007-09-26T11:34:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Burmese riot police attack monks: "Monks' shaved heads stained with blood could be seen at the Shwedagon Pagoda where police charged against protesters demanding the end of military rule."

The news out of Myanmar (Burma) call to mind the life of Adoniram Judson and his missionary enterprise in the very shadow of the famous Shwedagon Pagoda mentioned in this article. Here are links to pictures of the Buddhist shrine:

I wonder what the results of this unrest will be for the Christians in Burma, especially for a good friend and colleague who is a member of our mission. Whatever happens, I hope greater freedom for the gospel is the result. I suppose the unrest doesn't make that promising.

For a life of Judson, I can think of no finer work for easy reading than To the Golden Shore by Courtenay Anderson. It is well worth your reading, and especially I think well worth reading to children. Some parts are hard to get through, the tears will flow.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a sad commentary on the modern world

2007-09-26T08:54:00.000-07:00

Online couple cheated with each other | The Daily Telegraph: "Online couple cheated with each other"

Larry Rogier has an excellent comment here.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the dishonesty of David Cloud

2007-09-26T00:46:00.001-07:00

David Cloud is one of those figures with whom I find myself alternately in agreement and disagreement. I agree with him in many of his emphases and especially on his condemnation of 'easy believism' which he calls 'easy prayerism'. I disagree with him profoundly on his promotion of King James Only views, although I don't begrudge his holding them.

The subject of this post is not a matter of theological disagreement or agreement. It is a matter of integrity in reporting. In a headline item in his 'Friday News Notes', he sent out just last Friday this jarring headline:

BJU PROFESSOR RECOMMENDING NEW EVANGELICAL MINISTRIES

In the short article that follows, Cloud criticises a presentation by Nathan Crockett at the Whetstone Conference this last summer at Mount Calvary Baptist Church, specifically criticising Dr. Mark Minnick and alleging that Dr. Minnick gives blanket endorsement to New Evangelicals. Cloud attempts to slime Bob Jones University with the same charge. [Nathan Crockett is Dr. Minnick's son-in-law.]

I downloaded the presentation earlier this summer but had not yet listened to it. Since Cloud so unfavorably reviewed it, I took some time in my travels today to listen to the presentation. If you would like to hear the presentation, it is available here for purchase. Here is my take:

Far from a blanket endorsement of new evangelical ministries, Bro. Crockett repeatedly made disclaimers throughout the presentation: "we wouldn't agree with many things said on this site", "they don't take the kinds of stands we would take", "we don't endorse their positions", etc. The point of the presentation was to provide awareness of on-line resources especially with a view to using the internet as a source of information for sermon preparation and for being able to be aware of things our people may bring up (such as movies -- and you know that you will be dealing with people commenting on the movies they see, don't you?) A wise pastor should be aware of current events, both as a resource for sermon illustration and for awareness of what the people are thinking about. Cloud criticises Crockett for mentioning the New York Times as a source of news... (eyes roll!!) Bro. Crockett did mention that the NYT is a liberal paper, but it is a NEWSpaper, is it not? And, quite frankly, it is an excellent resource for news on the web, with an eye into the liberal mindset. The people we are trying to reach in North America think this way, how do you expect to reach people you don't understand? (And the NYT is a great source of crossword puzzles, my own little on again, off again addiction!)

Could Bro. Crockett's presentation have been better? I suppose. I suspect that Crockett himself would confess so. I found the presentation to be quite helpful. He mentioned sites which I wasn't really aware of, but think could be quite useful as resources. From my perspective, there were generally more than sufficient disclaimers throughout, anyone who listens to the actual presentation would not come to the coonclusion that either Minnick or Crockett offered any kind of 'endorsement' of new evangelicals in any way. One can only wonder if Cloud isn't miffed that his own efforts weren't mentioned!

In short, I am quite disappointed by Cloud's comments. In my view, he dishonestly misrepresents Mount Calvary Baptist Church, Mark Minnick, Nathan Crockett and Bob Jones University.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the curse and the kingdom

2007-09-25T23:49:00.000-07:00

I am sailing up the Strait of Georgia as I type this. It is an absolutely gorgeous evening. Blue skies, a low sun setting over Vancouver Island, the hills and mountains of the Island a purple haze, merging into the few clouds hanging low in the West where the sea meets the sky. The waters of the Strait are calm, quietly rippled. Even a prairie boy like me can admit admiration for this part of God's wonderful creation.

I am heading home from a day down to Seattle. As I mentioned in my last post, my dear mother-in-law is very ill. My wife has gone to Nashville to spend a few weeks with her, perhaps the last weeks our dear one will spend on earth. It is lung cancer. The name of the disease is the name of decay and the curse. The fruit of Adam's sin wracks our mortal bodies, bringing them down to dust in the end.

All our labours, hopes, and dreams come to an end at last, at least as far as this life is concerned. Even now, in my own body, decay is evident. I cannot run so far as I once could. Run? I can barely run at all, and not for long. One day, if the Lord tarries, it will be my turn to lie at death's door and answer the call of the curse as well.

The purple glory in the west seems to belie the dread and despair my soul feels. What congruence hath this glory in this world of sin and shame? The sight of the setting sun brings to mind the hope of the kingdom to come, the glories of the King who died for all men, and especially for the household of God. The sun is setting on this world, but the Son is rising. One day, in all his brightness and glory, the curse will be gone and done. All His saints will reign with Him ... now that is an incongrous thought, as I think of the weary body of my dear wife's mother, coming close to the end of her earthly span. She will one day stand with the Son, in His glory. And so will I, and all who love Him and look for his appearing. We are not significant players in this world of might and men, but we will reign with the Son.

The Son in his Book promises these things to us. Believest thou this?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. For a look at some Vancouver Island sunset images, these are the best I've seen on the Web:

Stubbs Island Sunset

BC Coast Sunset

Sunset Nootka Sound

It is so beautiful around here we tend to take it for granted.

on moving right along

2007-09-23T23:02:00.000-07:00

Well, we began our series in Romans today. I managed the exposition of the first word: "Paul..." I was quite pleased with the result. Our title and subtitle for the message is this: "Paul: or, what would it be like if Osama got saved"

In a real way, the name Paul represents the whole theme of Romans. If ever there was a name emblemantic of 'a soul set free', it is that of Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, the apostle to the Gentiles. His biography occupied the bulk of our message, causing us to consider in vivid personal illustration the gospel of God, the theme of Romans.

In this message, a good deal of introductory material prefaced the body of the message. I dealt with my method of exposition [glacial], noting it's similarity with D. M. Lloyd-Jones. In fact, I shared this quote:

I do not announce a programme, and for this reason, that when you are studying the Word of God you never know exactly when you are going to end. At least, I have a very profound feeling that such should be the case, believing, as we do, in the presence and power of the Holy Spirit. We know from experience that He suddenly comes upon us û He illumines the mind and moves the heart û and I believe that any man who expounds the Scripture should always be open to the Holy Ghost. That is why some of us do not broadcast sermons, because we find it difficult to reconcile ourselves to a time-limit in these matters. I wonder what would happen to an occasional broadcast service if the Holy Ghost suddenly took possession of the preacher! Well, it is exactly the same on an occasion like this. I may have planned to map out a certain portion and to say certain things, and I might therefore draw up a syllabus, but, as I say, it is my profound hope that the Holy Ghost will overrule me and my ideas, and any little programme I may have. So I will thus go on from week to week trusting to that leading and that guidance, not promising to do any given amount every Friday.

I also dealt with the importance and place of Romans, with a few additional quotes. If you care to see them, you can check the pdf of the outline, linked above.

I took the proposition entirely from v. 16: "The gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Three points covered the message, with the emphasis on the first point: The likeness of Saul's sin to every man's sin. Saul's sin (threatenings and slaughter) is only separated from hatred by a matter of degree. In this way all men are connected in their sins, whether they be an Osama or a me. The second point: A life changed by the supernatural work of Jesus Christ. Here we see the confrontation of Paul by Christ, after goading Saul towards the truth of the gospel by means of things like conscience, his knowledge of God's standard of righteousness revealed in the OT, and the testimony of believers whom he persecuted. In the vision, Saul is confronted with his sin, with the revelation of Christ, and essentially with the call to 'Follow me!'The closing point is this: The likeness of Paul's new life to Christ's holy life. Immediately he is baptized, stands for Christ in the Damascus synagogue, experiences the persecution he once performed, goes on to faithful pastoral and evangelistic service in the work the Lord separated him to. What a transformation. What would it be like if Osama got saved? Well, Saul (meaning 'desired') was changed to Paul (meaning 'little') and Paul made much of Christ, and little of self. Paul's name stands at the head of the epistle as exhibit A of the transforming power of the gospel, the theme of the whole book.

~~~~

In our afternoon service, we returned to our discussion of my philosophy of the local church. Last week was 'It's a Body', this week was 'It's a Growing Body: it grows into the head by the ministry of the parts'. In this message, we went through Eph 4.11-16 talking about the process of the church, looking at 'the body' not as a static body but as a living, growing organism, growing up into its head, which is Christ. The Lord gave gifts to the church (men in authority) to equip the saints to do the work of serving and building so the body can grow to the goal of Christlikeness, unswayed and undeceived. For this to succeed in the local church, the saints in the body need to see themselves as essential role players in Christ's body - the effort needed to 'grow the church' must come from saints (who are equipped by the leadership). The growth process can break down at several points: the leaders may fail to equip, the saints may fail to serve, the 'neophytes' in the body may fail to grow to take their place as servants in the body and the whole body can collapse when one part of the body fails to fulfill God's plan.

~~~

In my last post I said I had planned three more posts right away... they didn't happen, but there is still a plan. I don't know when I will get a chance to update the site next, however. My wife's mother is very ill and we are getting my wife down to the airport in Seattle for Tuesday to go be with her. We are a bit in busy mode over the next few days.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the necessity of discipline and on the body

2007-09-17T23:33:00.001-07:00

It is time for my regular sermon summaries, wherein I think my messages over. This way, I get to preach them twice, once to everyone in church, and once to myself as I try to summarize them.

The morning message concluded our short series on Discipleship and Child Training. I got the main ideas for this message from an outline by Wayne Mack, referenced in earlier posts. The message was entitled The Necessity of Discipline. We covered first the necessity that the disciple-maker be a disciple, then we discussed the notion of 'admonition' or 'correction'. Disciple-making is the process of challenging and changing the thinking of men who are habitually in the mode of flesh-dominated, world-influenced thinking. From that mindset, we must admonish in such a way as to develop biblical thinking processes.

But there is something else needed - discipline. This idea is contained in the word 'paideia', the word translated 'nurture' in Eph 6.4. We went to Heb 12.4-13 where the word is much used and translated 'chasten' or 'chastisement'. Here is our proposition: "Effective Christian training, whether it be children or disciples, requires discipline to form disciples." In understanding the nature of the discipline we are talking about, we looked at the word 'paideia' and the accompanying words in Greek. The word refers to a process whereby the Greeks employed slaves to educate their children, including putting the child completely under the authority of the pedagogue who instructed, corrected, and disciplined the child in order to educate him. Our Hebrews passage is an expositon of Prov 3.11-12, which says, "My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction: 12 For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth." So when we speak of the nature of discipline, it refers to the bands and restrictions placed on the disciple for the purpose of changing his mind and behaviour. The Lord employs this kind of discipline repeatedly, in both testaments. The discipline is intended to make us willing to yield. God could put so much pressure on you to make you do his will, but he doesn't do that - he puts enough pressure on you to give you the opportunity to yield to his will willingly.

In our world, the solution to bad behaviour is often thought to be 'more education'. But our society frowns on discipline of any kind. They are willing to multiply words, but that is all that worldly education amounts to, words heaped upon words. Whether you listen and learn is left up to you, no one will make you learn. No one will discipline you in the modern educational system. They will just 'talk to you'. The current generation is the most "talked to" generation in history, and seems to be among the least restrained and most undisciplined. Could it be that what is lacking is logical, just, loving, firm discipline?

~~~

The afternoon service was much more satisfying to me than last week. Our title was It's a Body with this sub-title, "it functions by interdependence [servant-fellowship]". What I am trying to do with this series is to preach my philosophy of local church ministry. This idea, the idea of the body, is an important metaphor for the church. In the message, the first thing I did as a means of extended introduction was to read every passage in the New Testament talking about the church as 'the body'. That meant we had about ten texts for our message instead of one. I offered a summary statement in each passage to give a bit of an idea of the overall doctrine. Then, for the body of the message, we concentrated on the ideas presented in 1 Cor 12, where Paul is arguing with the Corinthians about their strife over tongues. In essence, they are missing the point of the body. They are being too individualistic, too self-centered. That is not what the church is about, it is about interdependence, or what I call 'servant-fellowship'. The concept of interdependence is given in 1 Cor 12, the key to interdependence is given in 1 Cor 13 - the love chapter. This is where we need to be, and this is the kind of spirit the Lord himself taught.

The Lord's teaching really illumines what I am trying to produce in the local church. There is a term that is widely bandied about by many teachers these days: 'servant-leadership'. I understand what people are trying to say with this term and I agree with it to a point. But I think the term misses the Lord's teaching. See Lk 22.25-27 and Jn 13.12-17. Jesus totally de-emphasizes the leadership bit. He puts all the weight on 'serve'. Is it possible that we make a subtle error by including the concept of 'leadership' in the mix?

Here is the emphasis in the Bible: "serve" and "among you" – not 'servant-leadership' but 'servant-fellowship'. Proposition: The local church as the body of Christ lives by the bonds by which it is connected through the indwelling and interacting Spirit of Jesus Christ.

How is that lived out in a local church? Well, we love one another and serve one another. I spoke of several ways we do this. I mentioned 'The Baptist sacrament: fried chicken (or is it coffee?)' - in other words, taking meals together. I mentioned specific things we have done in our church: a barn raising for one of our members, a current ministry some of our folks have of bringing others with them to church (the Duncan bus, from a town 45 minutes north of the church building), or seniors shopping days where some of our folks are serving our older saints who no longer drive, or meal ministries to those who are sick and unable to feed their families, or even cutting the lawn and building maintenance. All of this is done by people who love one another and who are responding to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to serve one another.

The body also functions in serving one another by excising cancerous cells. This can involve surgery, chemo, or radiation. It can be painful, but it is necessary. These are means by which we serve one another.

The whole challenge to our church body is to be a body. Some sort of hang around on the periphery, holding to themselves and refusing to wholeheartedly join in. They are missing the point and need to get hold of the concept of 'body' and 'servant-fellowship'.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

PS... I have been laying linoleum today in my bathroom renovation project. In the process I have been filling up my mind with posts I want to put out on the blog... Three more to go, but they will have to wait till tomorrow.

on the glacial method of exposition

2007-09-17T22:43:00.001-07:00

I have mentioned my method several times on the blog, most recently in the last post. I know that some don't like this approach, but it is the way that I have found to be most satisfying and I have found it to be productive with our people.

What I mean by the term "glacial" is that we progress through the Scriptures S-L-O-W-L-Y. The Word of God is rich, full of meaning and profitable in all. I don't do this all the time, but in my major book studies, this is the method I have adopted.

Lloyd-Jones, the subject of our last post, was the king of glacial exposition. I meant to mention this in the last post, but sent it out too quick. As I read his sermons on Romans, I see him working an idea over, producing the fruit of his meditation on the word or phrase he is dealing with. To me, good exposition does that. One of my men asked me some years ago how much time goes into preparing a sermon. Of course, the answer is 'that depends', but I really am most satisfied with my messages when I have spent a good many hours on them. That would involve research: re-translation [in the NT], word studies, many commentaries carefully picked through, then several hours 'writing'.

The writing process begins with a selection of the portion I want to preach, then an attempt to develop a central proposition for the sermon. The proposition is critical for the message, but sometimes it eludes me until after I have developed the outline a bit. Sometimes the proposition comes quickly, sometimes it is an agony of re-reading my material, thinking over the point, muttering to myself about what I am trying to say, scratching out a 'preliminary' outline on the back of an envelope (or other piece of paper at hand), scratching out the outline and trying again. Sometimes I find that I have to start developing the points in order to get a clear idea of what I am trying to say.

I like to write out a good deal of what I intend to say, though it is in outline format, rather than manuscript. I write fairly detailed notes in case I want to come back to the passage at some point and preach the message again (or use the message to create a new message).

I see the fruit of this in Lloyd-Jones work. He has mulled the text over and has a lot to say about it. He has read a good deal of the literature. His sermons are full of expositional comments that reveal he has an excellent working knowledge of the text. Then having mulled it all over, he delivers it to his people with incisive application calling men to respond to the meaning of the Word he is giving them.

As a result of this kind of work, books like Lloyd-Jones sermons are well worth reading for devotional purposes, whether or not you are a preacher preparing sermons. [And whether or not you agree with his theology! (I do not, at least, not all of it.)]

In any case, if you take time with the Word and let it burn into your soul as a preacher, you should have a lot to say about whatever passage the Lord lays on your heart.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a quote just for Chris Anderson

2007-09-17T22:22:00.000-07:00

I am working away on Romans in preparation for a new expository series starting next Sunday and ending ??? when? who knows? I have been serious about studying Romans the last few weeks, after a summer of sort of 'casual' study [i.e., not much]. I am getting fired up. I plan to preach on the first word of the book next Sunday: "Paul". You'll have to wait for me to post a summary to see where I am going with this.

Well, one of the things I am doing in preparation is reading Lloyd-Jones. I have always liked his books but it wasn't until recently that I really understood that they are sermons. I mean, I guess I knew that, but I just realized that I was reading his books as books when I should have been reading them as sermons. They are much more alive when you read them that way.

A few months ago, Dr. Minnick wrote a column in Frontline on recommended books for Romans. For me, this was timely [and expensive!] One of his recommendations is the collection of Lloyd-Jones sermons on Romans. This set is fourteen volumes of sermons, one per chapter up to chapter 14. L-J's pastoral career at Westminster Chapel ended in the middle of Rm 14.17. [For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.] He preached on 'the kingdom is ... peace', but didn't preach on 'joy in the Holy Ghost'. The next Monday, I think it was, he was diagnosed with cancer which led to lengthy treatment and his retirement from the pastoral ministry. He said later that the reason the Lord hadn't let him finish the verse was that he wasn't spiritually ready to preach it yet. The whole series begain Oct 7, 1955 with the last message in the spring of 1968.

I haven't purchased the whole set of fourteen. It's a little much to buy them all at one whack. But given that I prefer the glacial method of exposition, I think I can afford to purchase the set piecemeal. So far I have chapter 1 and chapter 2.

All of that leads me to this, and this one is for you, Chris Anderson! I am in L-J's sermon #3 (still in verse 1), where the Doctor is expounding on the phrase "a servant of Jesus Christ". Among other things, he has this to say:

It does not matter what Paul is writing about; sometimes he has to write a letter because people have sent him questions, or because there have been difficulties. It does not matter at all what the occasion is; he cannot begin writing without at once introducing us to Jesus Christ. To Paul, He was the beginning and the end, the all-in-all. He had nothing apart from Him. I would maintain, therefore, that a very good way in which we can test our own profession of the Christian faith is just to apply this test to ourselves. Is Jesus Christ in the forefront? Is He in the centre? You will find that in this introduction the Apostle mentions Him at least five times. I had occasion to note recently that in the first fourteen verses of the Epistle to the Ephesians he mentions Him fifteen times. He cannot get away from Him, as it were; he must keep on mentioning the Name. He uses the terms 'Jesus Christ', 'the Lord Jesus Christ', 'Christ Jesus our Lord', and so on. Watch him in his epistles, he is always using the Name, and it evidently gives him great pleasure to do so. And the question, I repeat, is, 'Is this true of us? Is Jesus Christ in the forefront of our minds, and our hearts, and our conversation?' I mean — and here I am talking to Christian people, to believers — when we talk to one another, are we always talking about some experience or some blessing we have had, or are we talking about the Lord Jesus Christ? I have no hesitation in asserting that as we grow in grace, we talk much less about ourselves and our experiences, and much more about Him.

Now that is good. I expect it is a little convicting as well. I realize that we must talk 'small talk' in our conversations, it's just a part of life. But I wonder how much we talk of Christ? And I wonder what that says about our level of spiritual maturity?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on some insight into the publishing world

2007-09-14T10:37:00.000-07:00

An article explains some of the reality of Christian publishing:

What's Not Coming to a Bookstore Near You | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction: "Taylor explains the process. An agent approaches the publisher with a can't-miss book proposal by a big-name Christian author. The publisher likes the idea. The agent lets the publisher know that other houses want the book. This project demands a serious advance. Perhaps against better judgment, the publisher bites.

'So we get the deal,' Taylor writes. 'We pay the advance. The manuscript comes in. We begin to wonder why we paid so much for this average manuscript. We edit it and market it and sell it and process the returns. And at the end of the day we take a huge write-off. If we're lucky, the book earns a net contribution to overheads. But in most of these scenarios, the book generates a loss even apart from overheads. Competition (and perhaps some greed) has nearly killed us.'"

Articles like this remind me that most of those spouting off about 'why don't fundamentalists write more books' are totally clueless about how business works. The publishing business is affected by economics like any other business: risk and reward, supply and demand.

It is foolish to imagine that serious books by fundamentalists will gain much headway in the publishing world. A few excellent ones may emerge from time to time (like Jim Berg's Changed into His Image) but by and large, the Christian publishing world is dominated by market demands and is run by evangelicals who have no time for the fundamentalist agenda.

Those who spout off as if fundamentalism has failed because we don't produce enough books are simply ignorant of reality.

In order for fundamentalism to have a wider voice, fundamentalism needs to be wider. That means faithful preaching and teaching in local churches, evangelism and discipleship, building a larger and more faithful constituency. It means hard work. It means to get our eyes off worldly success as enjoyed by evangelicals and a willingness to serve in obscurity until the King comes, if necessary.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Dr. Thurman Wisdom and A Royal Destiny

2007-09-13T22:22:00.001-07:00

Some friends of mine and I completed reading this book today. We had a good time of fellowship discussing it. Dr. Wisdom was the Dean of the School of Religion at Bob Jones University beginning in my senior year. I don't recall ever having a class with him but did have some acquaintance with him and of course delighted to hear his preaching in church services and chapel during my years on campus. My wife worked more closely with him and all the other deans during her six years in the University Records Office. Her recollection of him is that he was one of the finest defined group leading the university in those days. So it was with warm anticipation that I approached reading this book.

Essentially Dr. Wisdom is telling a story. He is telling the story of God's plan to fulfill his purpose in creating man and the universe in which man exists. He states the theme of the Bible this way:

These three dominant themes — Christ, Redemption, and the kingdom of God — are inseparably interwoven throughout the Bible. They are really one theme. The Bible is the story of the redemption and reign of man in God’s kingdom through Christ, the Savior and King. [9]

Dr. Wisdom explains the value of considering the Bible as primarily a story this way:

Stories live on. Outlines and analyses turn yellow and die when exposed to the breath of life. Analytical studies have their place, of course, but only as organ donors for the living. It may be unsettling to think this way; but outlines, paradigms, and critical analyses of Scripture have basically the same function in the religious world as cadavers have in the medical field. Their value lies wholly in the patterns of knowledge they yield that can be taken from the morgue to the world of the living. [xxiii]

Dr. Wisdom spends a good deal of time laying a foundation for the notion that the Bible develops the story of two competing kingdoms, one kingdom the original plan of God and the other kingdom a usurpation of that kingdom by men under the influence of Satan. The first seven chapters covering 97 pages lay the foundation by some careful discussion of the meaning of the first 11 chapters of Genesis.

The next four chapters give us "The Developing Story of the Kingdom", really a summary of the entire biblical message, laying out 'The Promise and the Establishment of the Kingdom' in the story of Abraham and Moses, then moving on to 'The Decline, Death, and Revival of the Kingdom' essentially the story of the vicissitudes of the nation of Israel, from the highs of Joshua to the lows of the judges and from the highs of David to the lows of Manasseh. The story continues with 'The Coming Kingdom Presented and Rejected', essentially a discussion of the kingdom as taught in the Gospels. It was at this point that a great deal of discussion erupted in our group since I don't agree with this aspect of dispensational teaching. I see no offer of the earthly kingdom to Israel during Christ's first coming. The passages suggested concerning this point are ambiguous at best and can be legitimately interpreted in a different way. I agree that Christ's coming is of course about the kingdom and he is the King but his first coming was about suffering and the cross, not about ruling and the crown. This section of the book concludes with a chapter called 'The Coming Kingdom Preached and Received'. In this chapter the story of the acts of the apostles and the victory of Christ at his second coming is summarized.

The next section of the book, chapters 12 through 22 summarize what Dr. Wisdom calls "A Prototype of the Kingdom Saint. This is the story of the concept of the two competing kingdoms as illustrated in the life of Abraham. Abraham seems to me to be a singularly apt choice for our consideration as the prototype of a Kingdom Saint. Abraham is the father of faith and the father of the faithful in the biblical record.

The final section of the book is entitled "The Final War". These chapters are really an excellent summary of the story of the key elements of biblical prophecy from Daniel and Revelation.

In some ways this book turned out not to be what I had expected. I had expected a more theological approach but was delighted to find instead a more approachable and spiritually profitable narrative. I think this book could be an excellent resource for the average layman to gain some understanding of one of the major themes of the Bible and how it all ties together throughout the biblical record. In some ways it is quite complementary to our own study of the Bible chronologically over last two years. While our approach was more historical and 'exhortational', Dr. Wisdom's approach is more thematic, meditative, and is more tightly focused on a unified message. I found to be very profitable personally.

I'd like to close with a few quotes from the book that particularly stood out to me. I'm putting them in the order that they appear in the book, not necessarily in order of importance:

The magistrate who keeps order in the world of language is Context. No word can live — really live — without Context, and those that try have to spend their lives incarcerated in dictionaries. [xiv]

~~~

Most of us tend to use our Bibles as we use daily food. We look for spiritual nourishment, something to satisfy the needs of our souls. Our default approach to the Bible is more analytical than comprehensive. As with our table food, we take our spiritual nourishment in small bites. Except when we are preparing Sunday school lessons or sermons, most of us don’t even stop to think of the Bible’s dominant themes, much less of its overall message. Unfortunately the same is largely true of Bible commentators. Focused on the details, particularly of the difficult or controversial passages, they generally relegate discussion on the overall message of the Bible to a line or two — or, worse yet, to a pronouncement — in the introduction. [6-7]

~~~

The salient points of this foundational revelation call for man to recognize three interdependent principles. If he is to fulfill his purpose in life, he must recognize (1) that God is absolutely sovereign over all realms of life in the universe; (2) that God made man in His image to reign with Him over His earthly kingdom; and (3) that the Creator is the Master we must imitate. [19]

~~~

Ideally, man might like to live as simply a good neighbor of God. That is, he would like to live quite independently of God, perhaps occasionally inviting Him over or seeking His advice, As a good Neighbor, though, God would respect his privacy and not interfere with his life; and he, of course, would do the same.

As long as this good-neighbor policy seems to be in effect, the man of the world can maintain a relatively congenial attitude toward God. Problems develop, however, when God begins to manifest His sovereignty. The Bible characterizes unregenerate men as “haters of God” (Rom. 1:30; cf. 8:7), and they are indeed all that this expression implies. But their hatred is only as clear as their perception of the absolute sovereignty of God — the jurisdiction He has over them. Our Lord declared, “Me [the world] hateth because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil” (John 7:7; cf. 15:24). [34-35]

~~~

Evolution, which professes to promote man’s upward development, is in fact a prime tool for his degradation. Consequently, unregenerate man is constantly toggling between the reality of his weakness and his inordinate ambition for exaltation. Only through Christ can the delicate balance of man’s constitution be restored, for Christianity humbles without degrading and exalts without inflating. [38]

~~~

Redemption is essentially a matter of the heart, and God’s revelation of the need for redemption appeals first to the heart. [107]

~~~

When you think about it, most of our sins are timing problems. God’s plan for His people includes all the things men fight and kill to obtain. If a man steals, he does so because he is not willing to wait for God to give him his desires. It is the same with all sins — and with all the passions and ambitions in which sin takes root. [132]

~~~

The man of the world is preeminently a user of people, He is typically interested in people, but his fundamental interest is self-interest. He takes pleasure in his friendships and does favors for his friends, but his friendships are essentially means of personal advancement. He sees his friends as subjects in his “kingdom.” He may not consciously view them this way, but his actions and attitude will eventually reveal his perceptions.

To the extent, for example, that his friends help him in the fulfillment of his desires, to that extent they remain friends. When his friends’ desires run counter to his, he either finds ways to subjugate them or looks for “better” friends. [167]

~~~

The great and awesome statue Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream, though it represented the kingdoms of many centuries to come, was one statue. It stood as one; and when it fell, it all fell together.

This tells us something about the nature of the kingdom of the world. Though it may exist on the earth in different forms in various ages, it is nevertheless one kingdom. It has, whatever form it may take, one ruling prince and one ruling philosophy. Its ruling prince is the Devil himself. Its ruling philosophy is that man, by means of the Tree of Knowledge, may reign as a god in his own right. If he will but submit himself to the prince of this world, he will ultimately come into his full inheritance. Its ruling impulses are the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life. [267-268]

~~~

When people lose sight of, or blatantly reject, the sovereignty of God, every man does that which is right in his own eyes — each mortal microcosm becoming a law and judge to himself. The starry-eyed promoters of the world’s kingdom would have us hear bells of freedom and songs of harmony in this system, but history has proven this score stubbornly dissonant. The rule is that the strongest takes all, giving only to those who will radiate his glory and promote his security. Everyone else must be content with dreams. [273]

[This particular one reminded me of my post referencing Despair, Inc.]

~~~

Just as the disciples were unable to comprehend our Lord’s announcements of His impending crucifixion, so they found it difficult to grasp heaven’s kingdom program. [304]

And on that last one, so do we …

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on how deep the darkness

2007-09-13T07:46:00.000-07:00

I want to highlight an article that appeared on the Religion News Blog sidebar I run on my blog:

Seekers are heading to the Amazon in search of esoteric highs. Are shamans the new shrinks?: "Deep immersion in a faraway jungle is the latest fix for those stuck in the cultural, spiritual or personal malaise that besets many in the 21st century."

The article is originally from The Times in England, describing the trends of some who are desperately seeking some kind of spiritual experience without God. It shows the deep need of man and the desperate hard-heartedness of men who will not submit themselves to God. I am not sure if anyone with whom I may have a chance to minister here in Victoria will ever go to these lengths for some kind of relief for their spiritual darkness, but the story does illustrate the deep depths of the darkness we fight in our secular city.

Here is a quote from one woman who has delved into this experience (which includes hallucinogens). You can see what I mean by the darkness and the need:

“I went to the Amazon because I felt my whole life needed shaking up, and I just didn’t know how to do that in England. I had everything I wanted, in terms of a stable marriage, lovely kids and a nice home, and although I knew I shouldn’t feel dissatisfied, I did. I wanted to reconnect with myself and the way I live before I got much older.”

May God stir us up to reach men and women who are falling into hell.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on disciple making and church philosophy

2007-09-12T23:57:00.000-07:00

A summary of last Sunday's messages is due...

Competent to Correct, again on the subject of Discipleship and Child Training, drew its theme from the second word for instruction in Eph 6.4, nouthesia - 'admonishment, warning'. The theme of the first message in this series centered around the notion that successful disciple making first of all requires that the disciple-maker be a disciple himself. This message builds on that by focusing on the challenge the disciple-maker faces in this world, leading another person from a mind that is dominated by the flesh (initially) and the world (eventually) to a mind that is fixed on Christ. The extent to which a mind is dominated by the world depends on the amount the natural mind is immersed in the world system, a combination of family environment and how old the person is when they become a Christian.

Regardless of extent, the challenge remains the same. A newly born babe in Christ still has a mind largely influenced by anti-God thinking. That thinking needs correction. Correction is the central meaning of the word 'nouthesia' - it is derived from the idea of 'putting or placing something on the mind', with a notion that the mind has got something wrong and needs to be disabused of its natural notions. God's Word is intended for that purpose, to give us WORDS that correct our thinking, either by narrative example, precept, proclamation, command, doctrine, or what have you. The Lord's church should be the incubator of this kind of correction as the members of the body in love and concern for one another correct blind spots and lead into deeper understanding of God's mind in his Word. This is the object of every Bible-believing pastor.

The application of correction must come by carefully chosen words, at the appropriate time [sometimes 'right now' is good], with a ministering spirit and considering the kind of ministry relationship one has with someone else. Every believer ought to be so concerned about other believers that he is willing to risk offering words of correction when needed, especially in a discipleship relationship, for the sake of building up the body of Christ.

~~~

The afternoon message was It's a Building, emphasizing the need for the people of God in this age to be the dwelling place of God and as such be organized according to His precepts for His glory in this world. I was not overly satisfied with this message. I felt like I had something I wanted to say, but didn't really get it across very well. I am trying to communicate in my series a Biblical philosophy of the church (as I understand it!) but I am afraid that this message was not as well thought through as I wanted it to be.

I don't think I said anything in it that was unbiblical (I certainly hope not!) but I don't think I said anything particularly profound either. I was glad when it was over, if only that it was over. Next week I plan to preach on It's a Body. May the Lord give grace, I hope that message is better.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a green bomb

2007-09-11T17:16:00.000-07:00

At last, a weapon Greenpeace et al can sanction...

globeandmail.com: Russia unveils its ‘vacuum bomb': "'At the same time, I want to stress that the action of this weapon does not contaminate the environment, in contrast to a nuclear one,' Mr. Rukshin said."

Ok, Ok, enough of this. I'll get serious in the next post.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on realism

2007-09-10T22:32:00.000-07:00

I think...

Check out these posters. Perhaps more realistic than most of those 'success' posters you see around...

more: here, here, and here

There are more, but you will have to while away the time yourself.

The web-site is a satirical look at the self-assured corporate culture of today's world. This is from a page where you can design your own poster:

For over two decades, the multi-billion dollar motivation industry has unleashed untold suffering upon the workplaces, schools and civil institutions of the world- in the insidious form of the motivational poster. By the millions they have been sold and displayed- these dark instruments of corporate propaganda. While promising to stimulate "Hope", "Success" and "Teamwork", instead these tools of coercion and intimidation have inspired only grief, anger and nausea.
In 1998, one company dared to fight back, as Despair, Inc. introduced Demotivators®, satirical products reverse-engineered from the most powerful motivational posters ever inflicted upon mankind. And now, with the Parody Motivator Generator, we place those very same tools in YOUR less-capable hands.

And here is an article from an on-line magazine that explains what it is all about.

I am sure there is an Ecclesiastes sort of lesson in all of this somewhere.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a few more Paisley links

2007-09-09T23:55:00.000-07:00

The Daily Express

The Belfast Telegraph

on the end of an era in Free Presbyterianism

2007-09-09T23:52:00.000-07:00

wow!!

Northern Ireland leader Paisley to step down from helm of his Protestant church after 56 years - International Herald Tribune: "The Rev. Ian Paisley, who has angered many of his Protestant faithful by forming a Northern Ireland government with a former IRA commander, is stepping down as leader of the hard-line church he founded 56 years ago."

I wondered a bit on how things would fall out with Paisley after seeing a comment on Ivan Foster's web-page earlier this summer.

The position of the General Presbytery of the Free Presbyterian church on power-sharing with murderers is clear and unequivocal. It is not the present position adopted by its Moderator, Dr. Ian R K Paisley MP.

His agreeing to lead his Democratic Unionist Party into a power-sharing coalition with Sinn Fein/IRA is quite contrary to the political position he espoused just a very short time ago. However, given the propensity of politicians to change their minds and their manifestos, what is far more important is the fact that it is quite contrary to the position he and the Free Presbyterian Church have proclaimed as the teaching of the Word of God.

From a pragmatic standpoint, I can understand both points of view. Paisley is doing politically what he thinks he has to do for his purposes in Ireland. At 81, he is giving up his leadership of his denomination to pursue his course in Northern Ireland. I can also understand the opposition of his men, even loyal, long standing friends like Foster.

It is a sad state of affairs that leads to this breach, but I think I understand the motivations behind either point of view.

I have heard Paisley preach many times. There is no finer preacher on the person of Christ, in my opinion. I have heard Ivan Foster preach a couple of times. The first time I heard either of them was when I visited BJU as a 12th grader at their Bible Conference in 1975. I remember being impressed with both men, but especially with a sermon by Foster on the pierced ear of a Hebrew slave from either Ex 21.6 or Dt 15.17. I thought I had a tape of that message, but perhaps not... In any case, both Foster and Paisley made a big impression on me in those days. Both of them are godly men, in my opinion. (I am sure they have flaws!)

In spite of these differences, may God's word continue to be preached and souls saved through both men's ministries.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on getting ready for Romans

2007-09-07T23:58:00.000-07:00

It's getting serious now. I am planning to begin my series on Romans on Sept 23. In the study the last two weeks I have been working my way through the salutation. The major themes of the epistle are given to us in crystalline form here. As I think through these topics, the overflowing richness and majesty of this, Paul's premier epistle, is beginning to emerge.

I am only working on the first seven verses just now. I can see many messages here. I have ten Sundays until December, when I always break for my month of 'preaching Christmas'. I am not sure if I will get past these seven verses by December...

Donald Grey Barnhouse preached seven messages on these verses. David Martyn Lloyd-Jones preached thirteen (his are printed on 180 pages of his Vol.1 of Romans). I am thinking that it is possible that I will hit the middle between these two. Ten messages until December, and Paul will just be saying 'hello' to us.

Of course, I could double up, do AM and PM on Romans, maybe that way we can get through the first 17 verses by Christmas... but once we get into the nitty gritty of the 'all have sinned' section, I don't think we can handle doubling up. We'll need to turn our mind elsewhere for the afternoon services then.

I am anticipating this series with great delight. After our marathon rush Thru the Bible the last two years (a blessed study!), I am ready to return to my favorite mode: glacial exposition.

Here is a little word from Lloyd-Jones, from the first page of his first message:

I should like this evening to welcome any friends who do not belong to this particular church who may be with us, and who propose to continue with us in these studies of the Epistle to the Romans. For their sake, very largely, perhaps I had better indicated how this service is normally conducted. First and foremost I would emphasize that it is a service. It is an occasion for worship. I am one of those who do not recognize any consideration of the Word of God which is not accompanied by worship. ... The Apostle was concerned to help these Christians in Rome, to build them up and to establish them in their most holy faith, and, God willing, and as I am enabled to do so, I shall certainly be trying to do the same thing. It is an occasion, then, for worship, and not really just a lecture.

Lloyd-Jones preached his Romans on Friday evenings at Westminster Chapel in London, beginning on Oct 7, 1955, ending in 1968 in the midst of chapter 14, his last message as pastor of Westminster Chapel.

Our aim, with this series, is to build us up as worshippers of God.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on darkness and light and grace

2007-09-05T23:31:00.000-07:00

Today I happened to read the last two chapters of Judges and the book of Ruth. The whole period of Judges is a dark period in the history of Israel, the last few chapters of Judges being darkest of all. The book closes with this disheartening sentence:

Judges 21:25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.

Thank the Lord for the next page! The book of Ruth is such a delight! It ends with this line:

NAU Ruth 4:22 and to Obed was born Jesse, and to Jesse, David.

Meditate on the differences between the two verses. One is the sour language of man 'under the sun' [see Ecclesiastes]. The other is the hopeful look forward, to the light. One emphasizes man's desperate and failing attempts to please himself apart from God (in God's kingdom, no less). The other emphasizes God's plan, quietly, mysteriously, deliberately unfolding according to God's sovereign will.

Now concerning the book of Ruth, I am struck again by the simple beauty of this little book. There are so many preaching points in the book that I never tire of reading it or going back to it. Two things struck me as I think about it this time.

1) The redeemer of Naomi. Have you ever noticed this before? The term 'kinsmen-redeemer' is very familiar in connection with the book. Who do you usually think of as the 'redeemer' in Ruth? Boaz, right? Look at Ruth 4:

NAU Ruth 4:14 Then the women said to Naomi, "Blessed is the LORD who has not left you without a redeemer today, and may his name become famous in Israel. 15 "May he also be to you a restorer of life and a sustainer of your old age; for your daughter-in-law, who loves you and is better to you than seven sons, has given birth to him." 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him in her lap, and became his nurse. 17 The neighbor women gave him a name, saying, "A son has been born to Naomi!" So they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

I suppose this struck me forcefully because I was reading the NAU today. The KJV translates this 'kinsman', but the word is indeed the word ga'al, i.e., the kinsman redeemer. Who is that for Naomi? Obed. He is the real redeemer of the lost fortunes of Naomi, for he stands in the place of her dead husband and sons, a seed for her raised up by Boaz and Ruth. I think this is truly remarkable, and of course the whole subject of the kinsmen-redeemer is worthy of a good deal of study.

2) The seed of the woman. It strikes me again, forcefully, how much this theme is played up again and again in the Scripture, and especially in the lineage of the Messiah. Of course there is Eve, our first mother, and the one whose deception led to the fall. But she is promised a seed. Now here is Ruth, of whom is Obed. And there is also another, Boaz, who is the son of Rahab (see Mt 1). Other notable women in the line are Tamar, of whom was Perez, and Bathsheba, of whom was Solomon. Interestingly of these, each one is 'defective' in some way. Eve, deceived; Ruth, a Moabitess; Rahab, a Canaanite harlot; Tamar, well... crude but effective, the concubine of Judah; and of course we know the sins of Bathsheba.

When you consider this aspect of what God was doing in preparing the seed of the woman, we have to bow in shame and humility before God and say again, "Grace, greater than all my sin!"

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 'when confronted with reality, spin'

2007-09-05T21:14:00.000-07:00

This just in from the National Post:

BABY PAYS IF LEAVE TOO BRIEF: STUDY: "Women who rush back to work after giving birth may do so at their baby's peril, suggests a new Canadian study that fuels the emotional debate over career versus parenthood.

The less time a new mother stays off the job, the more likely her child's motor and social development will be impaired, University of British Columbia researchers concluded. The analysis of federal survey data underlines the importance of government-funded maternity leaves, but does not mean mothers should avoid work outside the home, says Dr. Rebecca Sherlock, the neonatology specialist at the BC Children's and Women's Health Centre who spearheaded the research.

[The results] could be used from a public health or policy perspective to say 'We need to fund women to stay at home longer with their kids,' ' she said. 'I hope that what wouldn't be drawn from my conclusions is that all women should just drop their jobs and stay home ... When I found what I found, I thought, 'Oh, God, I hope this isn't used by some ultra-conservative politician.' '"

No of course not... and you aren't letting conservative preachers read the paper, too, are you?

What a shocker. If mom spends more time with the kids, they develop better. Who knew?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

CTV.ca | Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home

2007-09-04T12:01:00.000-07:00

CTV.ca | Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home: "Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home"

Not good. Just heard it on the news... Nobody we know, I don't think, but certainly shocking for sleepy Victoria.

on Sunday, 9.2.07

2007-09-04T11:33:00.000-07:00

While readying myself to launch a new series in the book of Romans, I am taking a few weeks preaching some material from a book by Wayne Mack, A Homework Manual for Biblical Living, vol. 2. The outline is called "God's way of Bringing Up Children". I am essentially stealing the outline, filling it out and personalizing it, and broadening the application to making disciples of any age, including raising children.

The first message in this mini-series was entitled "Pass It On", taking its theme from the word 'paideia' in Eph 6.4 and its text as Dt 6. In this message I focussed on the "How?" of making disciples by answering: by personal integrity in instruction. Dt 6 calls on the nation Israel to love the Lord with all their hearts, and then to instruct their children. Thus the application for discipleship is first of all to be a disciple yourself. Make God the center of your life. While doing so, instruct diligently [while walking, sitting, lying down and rising, i.e., as a natural outflow of every aspect of your life], with a wary eye cast on your surroundings and your attitude lest you stumble in your own discipleship, and to instruct patiently, as your sons come to you with many questions. To sum up this 'how' of discipleship, it means to instruct by personal spiritual integrity, by diligent public expression, and by purposeful preparation. [Come to think of it, that last sentence would have made a good outline. If you check my outline linked above, you will see that I was aiming for that outline, but didn't quite express it that way.]

In our afternoon service, we celebrated our monthly communion service. I preached the second message in a new communion series (begun last month) from Leviticus. I didn't post a link to last month's message: An Acceptable Sacrifice, so there it is. This month, our message came from the same chapter, with the title: An Offering Made by Fire. I emphasized four ideas from the burnt offering with this message: Finding acceptance of offering and offeror [peace with God under God's terms]; Propitiating God's wrath with an offering of a 'sweet savour' [found in the complete destruction of the offering]; Atoning for the sins of the worshipper by the payment of a ransom; and Substituting the victim for the person of the worshipper, making fellowship with God possible.

There are many instructive ideas for our fellowship with God to be found in the Law. It is well worth study and contemplation. It can be very sobering, as we consider the full implications of bloody sacrifice.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 'oh well, it's all right then'

2007-09-04T08:40:00.000-07:00

Human-animal embryo study wins approval | Science | The Guardian: "Plans to allow British scientists to create human-animal embryos are expected to be approved tomorrow by the government's fertility regulator. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority published its long-awaited public consultation on the controversial research yesterday, revealing that a majority of people were 'at ease' with scientists creating the hybrid embryos."

Since a majority is 'at ease' ... we need seek no higher standard, eh?

on one man's move to Southern from Ontario

2007-09-03T10:50:00.001-07:00

I follow a blog by Michael A. G. Haykin. He is extremely Calvinistic, but seems to have a very good understanding of history. As such he is interesting to read.

Today he posts on the reasons for his move from the Toronto Baptist Seminary (where he has been Principal for the last four years) to Southern Seminary in Louisville. TBS is the school founded by T. T. Shields, housed in the Jarvis Street Baptist Church in Toronto. TBS would certainly have been in the fundamentalist orbit in the past, I don't think one would consider it such today.

Dr. Haykin in his post offers these words as an assessment of the situation of orthodox Christianity in Canada, and I don't think he has in view the positions of fundamentalists, but rather of the more conservative Baptists in Canada.

Historia Ecclesiastica: "Thinking of a move, as I have noted above, has not been easy. I love Ontario and I know, after twenty-five years of teaching in this province, the great need we have for solid theological education. In a word, the churches need a school that is deeply committed to orthodoxy, yet fully in touch with the culture. Not an easy thing to be.

"All too often, it is one or the other: conversant with the culture and out of step with Scriptural realities, or rooted in biblical orthodoxy but fighting old battles that most people no longer remember. As Luther is reported to have once said: if we are fighting and skirmishing where the enemy is not attacking, we are failing to truly fight the war.

"And more than ever I believe we need to be committed to networking and the need to labour alongside those who stand for the same core truths that we love. The absolute independency that some in this province prize is, in my opinion, the high road to impotency. To be sure, if we need to stand alone when others are caving in to theological error and the passing fads of theologia, then stand alone we must. Dare to be a Daniel, as we have long sung. But all too often this translates into a pettiness and a refusal to work with others unless they see utterly everything our way. Without sacrificing theological integrity we need to find essentially like-minded brothers and sisters and labour side by side."

These sentiments seem to me to be something of what Bob Bixby calls 'the emerging middle'. There is this anxious desire for something of a less contentious, but still orthodox theological position. It is the viewpoint of the 'young fundamentalist'.

The tension between being 'deeply committed to orthodoxy, yet fully in touch with the culture' is the evangelical proposition. This IS the issue between fundamentalism and evangelicalism in the 1950s and continues to be the issue today. The evangelical answer to the question is to stand on the 'in touch with culture' side of the divide and the fundamentalist answer is to stand on the 'a pox on culture' side of the divide.

Dr. Haykin rightly observes the dangers of both answers. On the one hand is to be so culturally 'hip' that truth, Christ, and Scripture are left by the wayside, with nods of appreciation and protestations of loyalty. On the other hand is the danger of a descent into another world, where petty personal issues become the crusades of the day.

There are Christians on both sides of the question who don't fall into the traps their answers risk. I don't think anyone would seriously question the doctrinal orthodoxy of the current crop of conservative evangelicals the young fundamentalists love so much. That would mean men like Mohler, Dever, MacArthur et al. At the same time, there are men who answer the dividing question with fundamentalist answers. Their orthodoxy is unquestioned, of course, and there is some concession by the young fundamentalist that these, at least, have not strayed into the realm total cultural irrelevancy or descended (too deeply) into petty divisions. In this category we would find names like Bauder and Doran, perhaps.

Those who advocate for the 'emerging middle' seem to think that parties on both sides of this divide are changing and a new reality is emerging. I don't see that happening at all. The divide remains. Those answering the question as evangelicals are committed to the evangelical answer to the question.

A change, nevertheless, is occurring. The change is among those wearing the fundamentalist label. Many among them (many of them young, hence the term) are changing their answer to the dividing question. The evangelicals remain evangelicals still. There is still a tendency to make some kinds of concessions to outsiders (more liberal Christians or even the world) in order to remain 'in touch' with culture.

You can find examples of these concessions in many evangelical commentaries. They make nuanced statements on some areas of orthodoxy to show that they 'get it' and are not so dogmatic as to insist, for example, that John wrote the gospel of John, or that it is possible that Moses' mother was a woman of exceedingly advanced age before she had children. In discussing the 'saints' of this age, they are willing to concede that the works of unbelievers should be 'admired on their own merits', all the while criticising their false doctrine. [See this blog by Rick Phillips on Mother Teresa for an example.]

The emerging middle is not a middle. It is a change by those formerly associated with fundamentalism towards evangelicalism. In time, it will be simply that. Fundamentalism will be abandoned, evangelicalism embraced. Those heading in that direction expect fundamentalism to be shattered by these changes, I suspect.

For myself, I really am not all that interested in being 'in touch with culture'. The culture of this world has nothing to offer in terms of spiritual value. I think we should understand culture in order to understand people, but we should be preaching against the corrosive influence of culture that deadens the soul to spiritual things and we should be calling people out of the culture of this age into a true discipleship of Jesus Christ.

May God grant us the wisdom to do just that.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the power of the mind - what are you thinking about?

2007-08-31T10:10:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking about this article for the last couple of days:

Cyber Sexuality - Newsletter - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com: "According to Dr. Mark Laaser, director of the Christian Alliance for Sexual Recovery, 'Historically we would have said women are addicted to romance novels or women are addicted to chat rooms,' but that's changing. The number of women hooked on pornography and other 'more behavioral ways of acting out' are dramatically rising. Our culture and what we spend our time thinking about are literally changing the way our brains are wired. As a result 'women are getting rewired to be more visual and aggressive' and they're 'acting out in direct ways.'

This rewiring—which happens in men as well—is changing us neurochemically and neuroanatomically, says Dr. Laaser. And it's not only through repeated exposure to sexual imagery on TV, in advertising, or online. The primary agent of this mental transformation is due to how we use our minds: what we spend our time thinking about, fantasizing about, and meditating on. Our brains and thoughts are molded by what we surf for, how we chat, and what we write. This negative transformation is the diametric opposite (and dramatic fulfillment) of the principles found in Romans 12:1-2."

The thing you meditate on tends to dominate your value system and way of life. This article is a negative example of how crucial it is to spend a great deal of time reading and thinking about God's Word.

The last two years our church spent a good deal of time reading the Bible through. All our sermons were geared to preaching the Bible through. The whole experience lifted the spiritual lives of those committed to the project. (Not all were!)

I was talking about this article and this concept with a visiting pastor friend this week. It occurred to me as we talked how difficult it is to by faith make the focus of your mind the Word of God. God's Word, while interesting enough to me as a Christian, doesn't have the sizzle that the world offers to my flesh. The CT article referenced here focuses on illicit and explicit sexuality - an area of huge attraction to the flesh. But there are many other 'sizzling' attractions to the flesh in the world besides this particular topic. Consider the sporting world, the fashion world, the music world, and so on. Consider even dry topics like history or genealogical studies -- I have a distant cousin who is obsessed with our family tree. Through her efforts I know my family history back to 1550. But this woman cannot hear the gospel because she is obsessed with "Johnson".

The Word of God, on the other hand, can seem dryer than dry. It can seem that nothing is happening as I read it faithfully day by day. Some days I can't bring myself to it. That is when faith must act. I look at the Word by faith and I put my time into reading, thinking, absorbing, meditating - and a transformation takes place. This is faith, not sight. And that faith can't be mere words, it must be faithful action or a spiritual vacuum takes place. And where there is a vacuum, other things rush in to take God's rightful place in our lives.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on one more cool thing before the day is out

2007-08-29T23:10:00.000-07:00

This must be my day for commenting on cool stories on the internet... just one more...

Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament - Telegraph: "'This is a fantastic discovery, a world-class find,' Dr Finkel said yesterday. 'If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes on a new kind of power.'"

Read the whole article to get the details, but the gist is this: in searching through financial records from the Babylonian empire, a researcher discovered a clay tablet containing the name of Nebuzaradan, a man whose name appears in 12 verses in Jeremiah. The man is a relatively minor player in the destruction of Jerusalem, a man into whose custody Jeremiah was committed by Nebuchadnezzar.

The tablet discovered in the British Museum is a receipt given to Nebuzaradan from a pagan temple in Babylon. The name is the same, though spelled differently in Cuneiform than Hebrew, and the tablet identifies the man as the 'chief eunuch', a man in the service of the emperor. It is undoubtedly the same man as named in Jeremiah.

In this minor detail, Jeremiah is seen to be accurate. This speaks volumes for the accuracy of Jeremiah, and by extension, the whole Bible.

Of course, believers have no need of archeology to confirm faith, but it is satisfying to have examples like this to point out to unbelievers. The credibility of the Bible in an unbelieving world takes on additional power when finds such as this are made.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on is that cool or what?

2007-08-29T11:20:00.000-07:00

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Diamond star thrills astronomers: "Twinkling in the sky is a diamond star of 10 billion trillion trillion carats, astronomers have discovered. The cosmic diamond is a chunk of crystallised carbon, 4,000 km across, some 50 light-years from the Earth in the constellation Centaurus. It's the compressed heart of an old star that was once bright like our Sun but has since faded and shrunk. Astronomers have decided to call the star 'Lucy' after the Beatles song, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

What a mighty God we serve!

Job 22:12 Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are! 13 And thou sayest, How doth God know? can he judge through the dark cloud?

Psalm 8:1 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. 2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger. 3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; 4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? 5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour. 6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: 7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; 8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. 9 O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on not knowing whether to laugh or cry

2007-08-29T10:29:00.000-07:00

These comments on Canada's alleged public education system:

No student left behind: "'What it really is, is about passing the buck,' said Anton Allahar, a professor of sociology at the University of Western Ontario. 'In a system where one is not accountable you pass them on to the next level, from Grade 3 to Grade 4 or from first year, to second year, to third year, so that somebody else later on down the line someone else inherits the problem.'

In their recent book Ivory Tower Blues: A University System in Crisis, Prof. Allahar and his colleague James Cote lay significant blame for the current state of affairs at the feet of a public education system they say is breeding 'empowered idiots.'

'This idea of boosting self-esteem of students, especially those who don't do well, has led to problems at primary, secondary and university educational levels where you have people who don't aspire to do well, but still expect the star,' said Prof. Allahar in an interview.

'They still expect the reward and they still expect mommy and daddy and teacher to say, 'Way to go! You gave it your best!' But they are not giving it at their best. So what people like Jim Cote and I have inherited at the university level is a lot of people with very high self-esteem who are idiots.'"

Sigh...

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the cult of personality

2007-08-28T09:56:00.000-07:00

One of the glaring weaknesses of large church ministries is the personal popularity of the pastor. The man may have a dynamic personality, attract personal followers, and appear to be building a successful outpost for the kingdom. When the man dies, retires, or resigns, the church may suffer a fairly immediate loss of members and donors, significantly impacting the infrastructure of the church.

This is one reason banks in our area are loathe to accept mortgages higher than 50% of the appraised value of the property. Of course, the limited market for church buildings is another factor. Some banks require personal covenants by the pastor to remain in that particular pulpit for a period of time (say, 5 years) as a means of securing the loan.

An illustration of the difficulties of personality led ministries is the New Life Church in Denver, CO. This is the church pastored by the disgraced Ted Haggard who resigned amid a terrible scandal involving a homosexual prostitute and allegations of drug use. An article on the Religion News Blog today says that church attendance has dropped from 14,000 to 10,000 in the interim, a loss of close to 33%. Offerings have dropped only 10%, suggesting that the loss in attendance reflects the loss of mostly 'hangers on', those most likely to be attracted by the 'cult of personality' a dynamic pastor might offer.

Fundamentalists may look at this situation with a bit of smugness, thinking that such 'couldn't happen here'. I would hope and pray that the specific sins of this pastor wouldn't happen in a fundamentalist pulpit, but human nature is so corrupt that I am afraid of assuming that we are 'above' that. But a more real danger in fundamentalist churches are the dangers lurking in churches that are built on personality. There are folks in churches, large and small, who attend because of the personality and personal dynamics of their relationship with the pastor. When the pastor resigns or retires, the church in transition faces several dangers, especially if it is carrying a heavy load of debt. [I am not against debt in principle, but debt must be managed carefully when it is used at all.]

If a pastor is an especially dynamic person, some may simply fall away because they were followers of that man, instead of Christ. Their commitment to the church is very shallow. To some extent, this is unavoidable. I don't suggest pastors of that sort should change their personalities! May the Lord use them! But I do suggest that they use wisdom in preparing their churches for their own demise. That will include wisdom in debt commitments.

[As an aside, I don't think anyone will accuse me of having a dynamic personality, although I suppose that it is possible for a certain sort of individual to be an inordinant follower of me. I don't expect this is a wide segment of the population, however.]

For some people, any new pastor can never measure up to the former pastor. Whatever strengths the old pastor had, be it personality, be it exceptional preaching ability, be it counseling and compassion, or whatever it might be, the new pastor will bring a different sort of strengths to the pulpit. Those who are committed to the Lord and to the work of Christ in that locale will recognize there will be differences and maintain their commitment. Those committed to the pastor for his strengths may easily become disgruntled at the lack of those same strengths in the new man.

All that to say this, in the pastoral ministry, one must always keep his eye on the future. One must be preparing his people for pastoral departure. I don't expect to depart my pulpit for at least another ten or fifteen years, but I am not in charge of the future. My people need to be disciples of Christ, not of me. My church program (such as it is) must be prudently managed so that the body is not in immediate danger if the Lord suddenly removes me. My spiritual life must be personally completely committed to the Lord and by discipleship and personal involvement faithfully transferred in the lives of the people.

May God give us all wisdom and commitment to His service in the days ahead.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. Additional stories concerning Ted Haggard are appearing at various sites on the internet. They tragically seem to be pointing to a man who still doesn't get it. Repentance would be good, but it seems not to be ensuing...

on the perfect model of separation from the world

2007-08-26T17:48:00.000-07:00

That would be our Lord Jesus Christ. Today I preached an additional message in our Law, Legalism, and Life series as suggested last week by my sister.

The Spiritual Life of Jesus Christ: an exhortation to put on Jesus Christ with Rm 13.14 as its text was our message. I began the message by noting that our ultimate standard for Christian living is our Lord Jesus Christ himself.

When we think of Jesus as our standard, what aspect of his nature comes to mind? Usually I think of Jesus as God - it is a little jarring to think of him in terms of who he is, the God-MAN. Current heresies tend to deny his deity, so we tend to think of him that way in a reactionary defensive kind of mode. In the early centuries of the church, the heretics tended to deny his humanity in some way, in keeping with the Greek/Gnostic notion of the material world being evil.

But when we are urged to 'put on the Lord Jesus Christ', what are we being asked to do? Are we being asked to imitate Christ as God? How can we do that? No, we are being asked to emulate and imitate his perfect humanity.

Proposition: To fully live up to Biblical Christian standards, the eyes of your spirit must be focused on following the pattern of the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ.

What kind of spiritual life did Jesus exhibit?

In the life of Christ we see that Jesus practiced what he preached - true spirituality. The one who exhorted us to love our enemies healed Malchus' ear. The one who told us to turn the other cheek answered not again when falsely accused before Pilate. The Lord Jesus could have called 10,000 angels but denied himself, submitted to the will of the Father, endured the abuse of men, 'as a sheep before her shearers is dumb'. Jesus is the perfect example of spiritual humanity. How was that spirituality developed? Simply by the self-consciously divine nature of God in Christ? Or simply by that nature alone?

We find him persistently praying. His prayers were such that they moved the disciples (men who had heard prayers and been offering prayers all their lives) to ask Jesus to teach them to pray. We find Jesus habitually and persistently in the synagogues. Luke says it was his custom. It is mentioned so much in the Gospels that I think not a sabbath went by that the Lord was not in a synagogue somewhere. Do you realize that synagogue worship is not required by the OT Law? It isn't even on the radar screen in the OT. Jesus was in the synagogue because he loved God.

How did Jesus come to this kind of spirituality?

It is undeniable that Jesus grew physically - he was a babe, a child, a boy, and then a man. It is undeniable that he grew mentally (and that to some extent he limited his omniscience as the Son of man as a part of the mystery of the incarnation). We see him seated at the feet of the doctors of the law in the temple, a 12 year old boy, 'listening and asking questions' - he is growing mentally.

An often overlooked facet of Jesus life is that he grew spiritually. As a babe, he was cared for and led by devout human parents who consistently kept the Law. On the eighth day he was circumcised, in accordance with the law. On the 40th day he was redeemed as a firstborn, in accordance with the law. On the same day his mother was purified by offering two turtledoves, in accordance with the law. His parents both persistently attended the Passover every year (though it was only required of men). When discovered by his parents in the temple, he returned home with them and 'was subject' unto them. Jesus was the perfect model of humanity, growing spiritually each step of the way in his life. The Bible tells us that the child grew in wisdom and grace (Lk 2.40, 52). What is that but spiritual growth?

Jesus is of course on a higher spiritual plane than his parents. John the Baptist considered himself to be unworthy to stoop and loose Jesus shoes, the Lord's parents were certainly not higher than the Baptist. Yet Jesus submitted himself to their authority, obeyed their leadership, observed their rules and the rules of his religion (Judaism) and beyond.

Are you a Christian? Do you want to be like Christ?

Then you need to emulate his spiritual life. That’s how you are going to put on Christ.

• Prayers
• Bible reading, memorizing, study
• Faithfulness to the assembly — really, you should be in every service
• Commitment to membership [accountability and service]

Proposition: To fully live up to Biblical Christian standards, the eyes of your spirit must be focused on following the pattern of the perfect humanity of Jesus Christ.

~~~

In our afternoon service we began a new series on the nature of the Church. The message was It's Not Your Church

Our text was Mt 16.18. We looked at the foundation of the church: Jesus the Christ, the Son of God. We looked at the formation of the church: Jesus Christ, the builder. We looked at the future of the church: victorious over the gates of hell [from the cross onwards to the coming of the King, the grave is no victory over the saints, the Lord is the victory].

If It's Not Your Church, then whose is it? It's His church. The church belongs to the One who builds it. He may use men and the gifts he gives them to build the church, but ultimately, he is the one at work, he is the one who builds.

Our attitude towards His church should be one of submission. Submission for accountability and discipleship. Submission for opportunities to serve.

~~~

We had a number of visitors today, mostly from out of town. We also had a couple of absences today, so we were about average in attendance after all.

I did experience a 'first' for me in preaching the first message. I got about three quarters through and discovered a page of my notes was missing. I had to have some of my people look up a verse for me with their concordances while I was preaching. I managed to remember most of the notes on the page and with the help of our people, carried on. I have forgotten my whole set of notes a couple of times before, but that one was a first!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a disappointing distortion

2007-08-24T14:06:00.000-07:00

I have a clip from a message preached in 1991 called "Gray-Area Decisions Made Easy". The bulk of the message contains reasonable decision making questions Christians should ask about whether they should do or not do something. The subject matter is what the preacher calls 'non-moral' things, but things about which Christians have had questions throughout the history of the church.

I don't agree with some of the interpretations offered in the message. The preacher misses some key passages quite badly. However, as a whole the thrust of the message is reasonably biblical.

Much more than these errors of interpretation, the thing that bothers me most about the message is a statement made in the introduction. I don't know if this will work, but I am including a link to a 27 second clip from that introduction. Below is my transcript of the clip. I think it is accurate:

"I went away to college at a very narrow kind of circumscribed legalistic school and everything was reduced to rules. We had rules for everything. In fact we used to say the school song was 'I don't smoke and I don't chew and I don't go with girls that do.' That sort of summed up the whole approach to spiritual life. Everything was reduced to some kind of list of things that were forbidden."

I, too, went away to that same college. I, too, had to sign the same rule book. But I find it extremely disingenuous for the speaker to suggest that the leadership at that college thought then (or even still think today) that spirituality equalled keeping the man-made rule book of the college. What a foolish and uncharitable misrepresentation! When I was a student there, no one assumed that the student who didn't break the rules was spiritual. Keeping the rules was one thing, spirituality something else again.

Even more disturbing to me is this question: What does such a distortion say about the credibility of the one speaking?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

P.S. Yes, I know the clip is from 1991. Would anyone care to confirm a change of attitude in the intervening years?

on the Quebec Mennonite oppression case

2007-08-23T09:09:00.000-07:00

From Today's Family News:

"We hoped to grow old here," Mennonite resident Ron Goosen told CBC News. "We have our burial plots and we hoped to be buried here, but it doesn’t look that way."

As a follow-up to the story I linked to earlier, it seems that the provincial authorities are digging in their heels while the 'little people' are voting with their feet.

The Quebec government is particularly secular. It may also be the most oppressive regime in Canada. The history of Catholic dominance always meant many difficult hurdles for any kind of protestant/evangelical/Bible-believing group within Quebec. The secular mood of the last 40 years or so changed none of the oppressiveness, only adding increasingly unbelieving authorities in charge.

The rest of the country is not quite as oppressive, but the general mood of politicians, especially on the left, is antagonistic to freedom. Conformity to the norm is the goal of the state, as it has ever been in history, and as it always will be. The only way that real freedom of religion can be maintained is if Bible believers maintain status as a significant minority in the population and tend to vote in a unified pattern. When that happens, the pols pay attention.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on 'what's that musty smell'

2007-08-21T23:56:00.000-07:00

This morning, early, my wife took our daughter and son off to Sea-Tac for their return to BJU. A few tears were shed, I can assure you. I want them both to launch out on their lives of service for the Lord, but in my heart, I'd kind of like to keep them as kids forever.

After they left, I got one of my deacons and we proceeded to demolish the main bathroom of our house. We have had a long standing problem with leaks in the shower. It is time to fix it, and with the shower population cut in half, now was the opportune time.

Man... what a mess. I discovered that my leak (yes, it was my fault!!) had soaked into the particle board on the floor (the particle board was someone else's fault) and the musty smell was emanating from there. Tonight, as we head for bed, the floor is ripped up, the drywall around the tub is ripped out [and partly replaced] and the place is drying out. Tomorrow we should get the drywall in, a ceiling fan installed and the subfloor replaced. We also hope to have the tub surround in place. The painting and linoleum will have to wait a day or two, but at least the bathroom will be functional again.

NAU Genesis 3:17 Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Jesus, Inc.

2007-08-20T21:45:00.000-07:00

"Sales of Christian products increased to $4.6 billion last year, according to reports by the major trade association for Christian retailing."

The numbers reported here are kind of staggering. Ties in with a post Chris Anderson made today, linking to an article on the philosophy of cartoonist Bill Watterson, creator of the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip.

Luke 18:8 ... However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?"

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on separation from the world

2007-08-20T14:31:00.000-07:00

I thought yesterday might bring the conclusion of our 'Law, Legalism, and Life' series, but my sister made a suggestion that will extend the series by one week.

This week, our subject is 'Separation from the World'. The sermon is a culmination of all that went before.

In the series, we established that the Christian church has always called for morality and holiness in its people (with varying degrees of success). It is true that mistakes have been made in application, but the energizing spirit behind the call for holiness is the Spirit of the Lord. Those who decry standards of holiness today are the innovators.

Our intent has been to uphold salvation by grace alone and not to impose a new structure of law on the Christian church. Rather, we want to establish minimum standards of conduct as a guide (and a goad) on the path to perfect holiness, the goal of Christian life. [And our expectation is that none of us will achieve that goal in this life - but we will die trying.]

We offered seven reasons why Christians should proclaim and practice standards of holiness in Christian living:

1. There is such a thing as behaviour that pleases God
2. The fact is, faith is more than just your ticket to heaven
3. The operation of God’s grace in a Christian life tends towards godliness (Tit 2.11-12)
4. The notion of lawlessness is incompatible with Christianity
5. The liberty part of Christian liberty means ‘set free’, not ‘self serve’
6. The Christian mission is ultimately tasked with the discipline of discipleship (Mt 28.19-20)
7. The nature of Christianity is that its people are subjects of The King

This brings us to Separation from the World. Our text was 1 Jn 2.15-17.

In this message we defined the world as the value system and philosophy of men without God. I noted that our text calls us not to love this world, neither the things in this world. The phrase 'in the world' here bears some resemblance to Paul's phrase, 'in Christ'. Just as the believer is 'immersed in Christ', made a wholly new man, under new lordship, and so on, just so the 'things in the world' are immersed in the world system and are thus affected by its values and thinking.

It is important to recognize that the 'things in the world' as defined in 1 Jn 2.16 are actually 'outside' of us, they are things in the world. One of the complicating factors in understanding the passage is that we recognize these things as also being in us, that is, in our old nature. The apostle's focus here is not on us, however, it is on the world. We are not to love the world nor the things-in-the-world. They are dominated by a world-system opposed to God. So for example, we have these kinds of things 'in the world':

The sex-saturated advertising world – almost every product you can imagine is sold somewhere with subtle (or very unsubtle) suggestions of illicit sexuality.
The sex-saturated music world: sexuality saturates the driving beat, the sensuous mood, the sultry sound of almost all modern music.
The earth-centered world of myriads of possessions…
The ego-saturated business world, housing market, political world, etc.

There are things in the world that are just things. No inherent moral value involved... just things. But the world system takes those things and invests them with its values, creates a culture around them that makes them worldly. For example:

Skiing – just a thing, not worldly, it is just an activity; but the ‘ski-bum’ culture, the partying, the immorality, the ‘playboy’ mentality; that is the world taking something and making it its own.
Biking – just a thing, an activity, no inherent evil in it; but the ‘biker’ culture surrounding it, the loud driving music, the dress, the attitudes, the drugs [often, not always], the language; that is the world taking something and making it its own.
Clothing – just a thing [and a necessary thing]; but the culture of fashion [whether high fashion or low grunge fashion] becomes the world taking something, investing it with sexuality or rebellion, and making it its own.

Worldliness is simply a mindset that loves the world and its things. This is wrong for a Christian for several reasons.

First, because God commands us not to love the world.

Second, because worldliness is evidence of no love for God - 'the love of [for] the Father is not in him' [an extremely sober possibility for a Christian].

Third, because worldliness wastes a life that could have been lived for eternal things on temporal things (1 Jn 2.17).

Fourth, because worldliness is a betrayal of Jesus Christ (Jas 4.4).

Our response to worldliness should be to flee: flee worldly lusts (1 Tim 6.10-11, 2 Tim 2.22). We should understand the world's strategy to pressure our conformity, but we should not give in. We should instead live as ambassadors for Christ in a broken, failing, and sin-sick world.

~~~

In our Bible study time, we devoted our efforts to a discussion of Separation from the World and Christian standards in two categories: How we dress and Church attendance. Next week we will touch on Music, then on topics our people bring up.

~~~

For our afternoon service, Rory preached his last message of the summer on the topic Christian Runners from Heb 12.1-3. He admonished us to lay aside the weights and sins that hinder our Christian race and to follow Christ, enduring the difficulties of the race for the glory of God. His message was a great complement to our study in the morning and a welcome admonition for our lives.

Tomorrow he and Susan head off for school again. I do look forward to the day when there is no more leave taking and we will all stand perfected in the presence of the King.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the world's perception of fundamentalism

2007-08-19T22:04:00.000-07:00

For the last few weeks (maybe a month already) I have had a daily download of links from Google News using the search terms "Christian fundamentalist". (I have had two other alerts from Google for some years now, one for any article containing the words "Bob Jones University" and the other for "Gleevec", my wife's anti-leukemia drug.)

The words 'Christian fundamentalist' are applied quite loosely to a wide range of characters by the world's media. Generally speaking, they seem to use them as a pejorative against various evangelical groups, most of whom would shun the term. To the world, however, anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible is a 'Christian fundamentalist'. The misunderstanding of the term by the media is probably somewhat self-conscious (my opinion), but it does illustrate the overwhelming task real Christian fundamentalists have in making much of an impact in the world.

A recent piece on the Powerline blog illustrates the obtuseness of CNN and their star reporter Christiane Amanpour. The Powerline bloggers are a team of lawyers who I have followed for some time. They would not be Christian fundamentalists at all, but they are reasonable men who have a more objective view of the news than most of the media.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on something cool from my family tree

2007-08-17T22:40:00.000-07:00

Pictured here are my great grandfather, Thomas Watters Doggart and his wife Alice. Thomas was born about 1854. They were from Northern Ireland. His daughter emigrated to Canada alone to teach school on the prairies. There my grandfather spied her and made her his wife.

The picture her appears to be one taken especially for the couple's fiftieth wedding anniversary in 1928. A notice appeared in a Christian paper concerning the occasion:

ACTIVE IRISH TEMPERANCE

WORKERS

Well-known as active Temperance workers in Nothern Ireland, Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Watters Doggart, of Newtownards, Co. Down, have recently celebrated their golden wedding. Mr. Doggart was for many years actively engaged in Temperance work, being associated with the late Rev. John Pyper in his fight against the use of alcoholic wines at the Lord's table, a fight which ended in a victory for righteousness. A staunch Baptist, Mr. Doggart for a long period has contributed much literature in support of the principles he holds dear, and the Irish Northern Baptist Association, in 1926, unanimously appointed him as their president. Being a capable and forceful public speaker, he has occupied pulpit and platform in many parts of the country, and has been much used of God in the advancement of His kingdom. In February, 1923, a Baptist church was established in Newtownards, when Mr. Doggart was unanimously appointed the first elder of the assembly, and both he and his wife have contributed largely to the abundant success that has crowned the work then commenced. Mr. and Mrs. Doggart were the recipients 'of a large number of congratulations on the occasion of their golden wedding, and we are sure that their friends everywhere will pray that the "last lap" of their race may be the brightest and best. Both Mr. and Mrs. Doggart have been readers of the "Christian Herald" for many years. — (W.W.)

From The Christian Herald and Signs of our Times, February, 1928, p. 168.

Is it wrong to feel some personal joy at this kind of heritage? We have been talking of the grace of God in some other posts. While there are differences on the nuances of theological points, it is beyond debate that the life of this man, three generations removed from me, yet continues to have an impact in the world. While there are many factors that contribute to the grace of God leading succeeding generations to saving faith and into Christian service, there is no doubt that one of them is the lingering effects of a life well lived in service to God.

I obtained this gem of my past through the efforts of my nephew. He wrote to the pastor of the church in Northern Ireland that my great grandfather was instrumental in founding. The church still exists, holds to an orthodox statement of faith and preaches the gospel (see the link to an online version of Ford Porter's famous tract, God's Simple Plan of Salvation). The current pastor of the church read my nephew's letter to the congregation and through various connections was able to put the letter into the hands of my father's 86 year old cousin who wrote and sent my nephew this picture, a copy of the article and other information. I got my first look at it today when my nephew and his family visited.

I am rather tickled to be able to look at this picture and think of meeting my great grandfather in glory some day.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on free will

2007-08-17T08:37:00.000-07:00

Returning to my favorite online source of definitions, here is the definition of 'free will':

1 : voluntary choice or decision [I do this of my own free will]
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Question for the class:

If an individual can only choose one path out of two possibilities, is his will free?

KJV Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

ESV Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.

NAU Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.

NET Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let the one who hears say: "Come!" And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wants it take the water of life free of charge.

Not to be contentious, but some theologies deny that men have a will while claiming to affirm it.

See also Isaiah 55.1, John 7.37

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Dick Armey for president!

2007-08-16T18:04:00.000-07:00

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news: "One of my axioms is the market is rational and the government is dumb. Let the market find a rational solution to the subprime mortgage correction on its own."

One of the saner voices in America, I think.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the gospel

2007-08-16T10:41:00.000-07:00

What does the word 'gospel' mean?

Here is Merriam-Webster OnLine

1 a often capitalized : the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation b capitalized : one of the first four New Testament books telling of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; also : a similar apocryphal book c : an interpretation of the Christian message [the social gospel]
2 capitalized : a lection from one of the New Testament Gospels
3 : the message or teachings of a religious teacher
4 : something accepted or promoted as infallible truth or as a guiding principle or doctrine [took her words as gospel] [spreading the gospel of conservation -- R. M. Hodesh]
5 : gospel music

Funny... to hear some bloggers talk you would think 'gospel' = 'Calvinism'. Odd, eh?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Mennonites may flee Quebec town

2007-08-16T10:00:00.000-07:00

Mennonites may flee Quebec town: "Mennonites may flee Quebec town"

A little disconcerting... What will be next in this most 'tolerant' of societies?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the rationale of liberated righteousness

2007-08-13T22:03:00.000-07:00

Kent Brandenburg has an excellent post on Laws about Grace, well worth your contemplation.

His post reminded me of a summary of our series on Law, Legalism and Life that I did in Sedro Woolley, WA on Saturday morning. I was over across the pond for the ordination of a friend and new church planter, Tom Parr. Friday afternoon was the occasion for grilling the preacher. All went extremely well. Tom acquitted himself excellently and the council of preachers offered a thorough examination with no sideshows. (Those who have attended a number of ordinations might know what I mean by sideshows!)

The next morning after the ordination council was a men's prayer breakfast at First Baptist, Sedro Woolley. The pastor asked me if I could offer a brief challenge, so I gave the men a summary of my series so far, under the title: Reasons for Christian Standards. I thought the list might be of some general interest, so I offer it here:

I. There is such a thing as behaviour that pleases God

Colossians 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

NOT works done in order to obtain salvation
NOT works done in order to gain a pious reputation
BUT works done out of a heart of personal devotion

II. The fact is, faith is more than just your ticket to heaven

James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

You must believe from the heart in order to be born again
Your faith will be seen in behaviour that shows you are believing the promise of God

III. The operation of God’s grace in a Christian life tends towards godliness (Tit 2.11-12)

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;

Denying ungodliness
Living soberly, righteously and godly

IV. The notion of lawlessness is incompatible with Christianity

1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Lawlessness = without law, outlaw behaviour
"You can’t tell me what to do" "Your laws don’t apply to me"

V. The liberty part of Christian liberty means 'set free', not 'self serve'

Galatians 5:13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

Set free to serve Christ [free from bondage of sin]
Not set free to do what I want ['self serve']

VI. The Christian mission is ultimately tasked with the discipline of discipleship (Mt 28.19-20)

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Imperative – make disciples
Process [from least to greatest]

Going
Baptizing
Teaching them to observe (obey) all things I commanded you

VII. The nature of Christianity is that its people are subjects of The King

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power [authority] is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Who is your king?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on two more messages on legalism and liberty

2007-08-13T11:11:00.000-07:00

We are nearing the end of the series. The first message this Sunday was 'What is Christian Liberty?' Our text was Gal 5.13. I discussed the nature of Christian liberty as a spiritual possession of the believer, granted at conversion, breaking the bondage to sin and the sin nature and thus providing the freedom to actually perform works that please God. Taking our admonition from Gal 5.13, we looked at the notion of the misuse of liberty as an occasion to the flesh, indulging self because of our new freedom. Such an attitude is contrary to Christianity. It is certainly contrary to the message of the apostles. From misuse, we turned to the productive use of Christian liberty - by love serving one another. The impact of living a life as a slave to righteousness is far greater than the impact of the life lived as a slave to sin. Sin binds in ever increasing entanglements. Righteousness frees unto limitless glory in the eternal life of perfect fellowship with God. I closed with a quote from Alexander Maclaren:

"Liberty is not exemption from commandment, but harmony with commandment. Whoever finds that what is his duty is his delight is enfranchised. We are at liberty when we walk within the limits of the gospel; and they who delight to do the law are free in obedience; free from the tyranny of their own lust, passions, and inclinations; free from domination of men and opinion and common customs and personal habits."

Alexander Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture, James 1:25, quoted by George M. Cowan, "The Prohibitions of Grace", Bibliotheca Sacra (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1946; 2002). 103:232.

Our afternoon service continued the series with a message entitled "Disciples of the King", from Mt 28.18-20. The imperative in this passage is 'make disciples'. The process of making disciples involves three activities: going, baptizing [which I take as the culmination of evangelism, i.e., soul-winning], and teaching. The activities are given in chronological order (you must go first) and also in priority: merely going is not enough. Tourists are on the go. Disciple-makers go and work. The ultimate end of the commission, however, is not baptism, it is teaching to observe [obey] the commandments of Christ. This is the Christian mission. The notion that Christianity is bereft of commandments is an anti-Christian notion. But even more importantly, the commission is given by The King: 'All authority in heaven and earth is given unto me.' (v. 18). The Christian mission is to make disciples for The King. Two points closed the message:

This King is perfect
This King's subjects love to serve Him

~~~~

I hope these thoughts are a blessing. I hope to conclude this series in one or two more messages.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on anti-authority everywhere

2007-08-06T22:51:00.001-07:00

The media of course thinks Christians who have rules are fundamentalists. In a review of a book called People in Glass Houses, the Sydney Morning Herald identifies a Pentecostal church in Australia as such. (Another bloggish sort of review is found at a site called Web Diary.

The woman who wrote the book appears to be an unbeliever, but what is striking to me is how much many of her complaints carry the same anti-authority attitude that many 'young fundamentalists' manifest. Granted, a great gulf is fixed between her beliefs and the beliefs of young fundies. Don't get sidetracked by her infidelity - notice the attitudes and the complaints. Are they so different?

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Lawlessness and Righteousness

2007-08-06T10:08:00.001-07:00

The next message in our series on legalism is prompted by a section in David Hesselgrave's paper, referenced earlier, where he begins: 'As for lawlessness, in the case of born-again Christians, it is an impossibility.'

In order to understand what Hesselgrave is saying, you need to gain an understanding of a difficult passage, 1 Jn 3.2-10, and 3.24. The apostle John's words can be very troubling to the believer, especially words like this: 'Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God' (v. 9). As you work through the passage, beginning in v. 2, you will see that John is contrasting two sorts of people: the ones born of God and the ones sinning. Of the ones born of God, he says that we will be like Christ when he appears, but what we are now doesn't make that apparent. Nevertheless, the believer is purifying himself because of his hope, while the one who is doing sin (the unbeliever) is also doing lawlessness. John makes a point of identifying the sin of the unbeliever as lawlessness. The rest of the passage is repetitive, contrasting the two classes of people and emphasizing the great gulf between them.

The key to understanding the passage is the emphasis concerning the sin that the unbeliever is doing, lawlessness. The unbeliever is 'without law', lawless, an outlaw. Hesselgrave illustrates it this way:

"For example, if I were to be stopped for speeding while driving in our neighboring state of Wisconsin, I might be willing to admit that I had indeed been driving 80 miles an hour in a 65mph zone. That would be tantamount to admitting that I am a 'lawbreaker.' But suppose I simply disregard the speed limit and respond to the officer by saying something like, 'You can't give me a ticket. I'm from Illinois. Your Wisconsin laws don't apply to me and you have no right to arrest me.' At that moment, I become something other than just a lawbreaker. I become an 'outlaw.' I become 'lawless.'"

The unbeliever shouts to God, in effect, 'You can't tell me what to do.'

On the other hand, the believer, purifying himself, asks God, 'Please tell me what to do.'

This attitude illustrates the difference between a spiritual heart and a rebellious heart. Our basic human nature chafes at rules, restrictions, directions, and authority. Ultimately, this is a remnant of our enmity with God, even in believers. If we are walking in the Spirit, we will put down the flesh and submit to God, asking for his guidance, direction, and rejoicing in the freedom from sin and guilt that God's restraints provide.

I concluded the message with this:

"The heart of the Christian is that he is under the Law of Christ. He wants to please Christ, not himself.

"How about you? Who do you want to please?'

UPDATE: Here are the sermon notes if you are interested.
~~~

In our afternoon service, I preached a communion message from Lev 1.1-4. We considered first the context of God's instruction - not from Mt Sinai, but from the Tabernacle, in the midst of the people, just as God's final solution to sin is Emmanuel, God with us, the incarnate God among the people, bearing with them and bearing their sin. We considered two concepts required for the sacrifice, the concept of cost and the concept of excellence. We compared that with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish. We considered the consequence: atonement, a substitute dying the death the worshipper deserved. This indeed is what Christ did for us.

Hallelujah, what a Saviour.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the downward slide

2007-08-03T17:55:00.000-07:00

In looking over some old notes [almost 19 years old, to be exact!] I ran across my sermon outlines from a series preached through the book of Leviticus. This was pre-computer, boys and girls, in a day when I had to write my notes with a quill pen. Well, actually, I had progressed to ball-point by then... probably a fine Cross writing instrument as I recall. In those days, I scratched out my notes on whatever paper was handy, crossing things out, drawing arrows, etc., then carefully recopied them so that I could actually read them in the pulpit. Thank the Lord for computers!

The message was entitled "The Slippery Slide" [harking back to a Dr. Custer expression]. In this message I listed the stages of sin (as seen in Genesis).

Rebellion - the first stage of sin (Gen 3)
Self-justification - the perpetuation of sin (Gen 4.1-15)
Repetition - the continuance [sic] in sin (Gen 4.16-24) [should that be 'continuation of' instead?]
Satiation - the complete dominance of sin (Gen 6.1-8)
Rejuvenation - the disregarding of grace by sin (Gen 11.1-9)

As I closed the message, I have this in the notes: Sin is a growth industry. Sin is degenerative. Sin separates man from God, temporally, personally, and eternally. Temporally, because sin separates man from the Ways of God in this age. Personally, because sin separates man from a relationship with God in any age. Eternally, because sin separates man from the Person of God forever.

~~~

As I think about that message, I realize how much I still need daily access to God. The book of Leviticus is all about achieving and maintaining holiness by a continual relationship with God. As a redeemed sinner, the way into the holy of holies is made open by the blood of Christ, but I must enter every day.

May God help you and me to maintain such a walk in the fear of the Lord.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Ryle's Expository Thoughts on the Gospels

2007-08-02T12:45:00.000-07:00

I mentioned these volumes in an earlier post. The books arrived just the other day and I decided to take a quick look at them this morning.

It turns out that these volumes are not intended as commentaries but as devotional expositions of the Gospels, about 12 verses at a time. Ryle wrote them with the view that they might be something read aloud with three possible audiences in view:

He hoped that the works might be "suitable for use at family prayers."

He also hoped that they may prove "an aid to those who visit the sick and the poor," commenting that "There is reason to believe that proper books for reading on such occasions are much wanted."

And last, he trusted that the works might be profitable "for private reading, as a companion to the Gospels."

On the strength of the first reading (the genealogy of Mt 1.1-17), I would say that Ryle accomplished his purpose. These books appear to be well worth having especially for devotional purposes from a man who doesn't offer froth in his writing.

Here is a comment on the character of the men in the list and the responsibility of parents to pray for their children:

Observe how many godly parents in this catalogue had wicked and ungodly sons. The names of Roboam, and Joram, and Simon, and Jechonias, should teach us humbling lessons. They had all pious fathers. But they were all wicked men. Grace does not run in families. It needs something more than good examples and good advice to make us children of God. They that are born again are not born of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1.13.) Praying parents should pray night and day, that their children may be born of the Spirit. [Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels, vol 1, pp. 3-4]

Having made the purchase, I thought it a good idea to let you know what it was I had recommended sight unseen. I still recommend it! I am thinking these will be good for me and also for my family as we use them in 'family prayers', just as Ryle hoped.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on how we are sanctified - a difference with a friend

2007-08-01T17:06:00.000-07:00

Pastor Chris Anderson is one of my great online friends. I really appreciate his ministry. We most often agree on many matters. But...

But we have a difference on a matter of sanctification. I don't know if we have wrestled through this on his blog or elsewhere before, but this week I expressed some differences with him on this topic. You can read about it in the comments section of this post.

There are a couple of possible explanations for the difference that might make our difference not much of a difference at all. I could be totally misunderstanding what Chris is saying. Or I could be abysmally inarticulate in attempting to express my point of view. Or both.

There is a particular point of view that Chris seems to be articulating in his post. As I understand it, this view comes from a reading of Piper, Owen, perhaps Edwards, and others. The notion is that the key to sanctification is a sort of mindset of meditation and contemplation on the glories and beauties of God (and of Christ). Somehow, such meditation is supposed to make you so in love with God that you will have less of a desire to sin and hence more victory. [Perhaps I am misstating the case, if so, I'd appreciate clarification.]

Chris quotes someone named Kelly Kapic who is in turn supposed to be quoting Owen, but I haven't been able to see the Owen quote in context. [If someone has a link, I'd be interested in seeing it.]

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections but rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’ Here one is not trying to escape the painful realities of this life but rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life around a much larger canvas that encompasses all of reality. To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel: ‘Were our affections filled, taken up, and possessed with these things . . . what access could sin, with its painted pleasures, with its sugared poisons, with its envenomed baits, have unto our souls? Resisting sin, according to this Puritan divine, comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself. Do not seek to empty your cup as a way to avoid sin, but rather seek to fill it up with the Spirit of life, so there is no longer room for sin.’

Well...

You can read the back and forth on Chris' blog. I don't want to dominate his blog with a long essay from me, so I am going to use my own blog to work through a few points that Chris made in his latest response to me. He can respond wherever he likes, whenever he likes, or not at all if he so chooses.

Here is the last comment from Chris on this:

Don, I can’t pursue this further today. However, your suggestion that meditating on and worshiping Christ isn’t the way of sanctification is mistaken, probably because it compartmentalizes aspects of the Christian life in artificial ways. (This is worship; this is sanctification; etc.) I don’t think that demonstrates a right understanding of either, frankly.

Psalm 115:1-8 and 135:15-18 indicate that our worship greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship.

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

Some things to consider, anyway.

First, to respond to paragraph 1:

Which comes first, worship or sanctification? I think this is where my comments have been particularly inarticulate. Sanctification produces worship produces sanctification. I am fine with that notion. Meditation is a tool that can and does produce sanctification, as long as meditation is on the right object. I don't think I am compartmentalising things, just having difficulty expressing my misgivings about statements such as the one quoted.

Now, as to Ps 115 and 135, let's see what they say before we make statements concerning them:

Ps 115.1-8

NAU Psalm 115:1 Not to us, O LORD, not to us, But to Your name give glory Because of Your lovingkindness, because of Your truth. 2 Why should the nations say, "Where, now, is their God?" 3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they cannot speak; They have eyes, but they cannot see; 6 They have ears, but they cannot hear; They have noses, but they cannot smell; 7 They have hands, but they cannot feel; They have feet, but they cannot walk; They cannot make a sound with their throat. 8 Those who make them will become like them, Everyone who trusts in them.

Ps 135.15-18

NAU Psalm 135:15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them.

I assume that it is the assertions of Ps 115.8 and Ps 135.18 upon which Chris bases the notion that our worship "greatly influences our character for good or bad–we become like what we worship."

First, it must be said that these passages only affirm a sort of 'negative sanctification', if any at all. But do these passages actually teach that idolaters will become blinder, dumber, deafer, etc as a process of negative sanctification? The notes of the NET Bible on 135.18 suggest this:

Because the idols are lifeless, they cannot help their worshipers in times of crisis. Consequently the worshipers end up as dead as the gods in which they trust.

I offer this not as proof, but to point out that at least one interpreter looks at the passage and sees it as a reference to the judgement the idolater receives, not the process which he undergoes. [Although I must say that Chris is in good company in his view, John MacArthur declares it an 'inexorable law' that you become like what you worship, citing the Ps 135 passage. -- Master's Journal, Spring 1994, p. 15.]

Other commentators see the verse as referring to the dead spirit the idolater possesses, he who thinks he is enlightened by his worship of something other than the true God is in fact in darkness and is as blind, deaf, and dumb as his idol.

Can we turn these passages around and make them say that the converse is also true, that if we will but contemplate the glories of the person of Christ, we will automatically by virtue of such meditation become like Christ?

MacArthur says yes:

If the heathen become like the lifeless gods they worship, how much more like Christ will Christians become, since they have the Holy Spirit working to accomplish that very goal? As they fix their hearts on Christ, they discover their worship has the effect of conforming them to His image...
The Master's Seminary. (1994; 2002). Master's Seminary Journal Volume 5 (5:15). Master's Seminary.

These passages cannot bear this interpretation by themselves, as MacArthur turns quickly to the next passage Chris cited, quoting immediately after his statement above, 2 Cor 3.18.

Chris says:

Much more clearly, II Cor. 3:18 teaches that looking at Christ in the Scriptures and meditating on His person and work is the key to being changed into His image through the Spirit’s ministry. I can’t think of a clearer passage on our sanctification. True sanctification and worship are absolutely inseparable.

All right, let's look at 2 Cor 3.18:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Does this verse make worship the key for sanctification? Note again my friend Chris' statement: "looking at Christ ... is the key to being changed". Does the passage actually bear that bold statement?

Look at the context:

NAU 2 Corinthians 3:7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory. 12 Therefore having such a hope, we use great boldness in our speech, 13 and are not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel would not look intently at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ. 15 But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their heart; 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18 But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit. [italics mine]

In the passage, what is veiled? From what is the veil taken away when we turn to the Lord? Is it not the Law, i.e., the written revelation of God? What are the glories by which we are transformed but the glories found in the Word?

Meditate in order to grow, yes, but meditate in the Word.

Worship in order to grow, yes, but worship according to the Word.

Am I making too fine a point? I admit that I react to Piperism. I believe that Piper is mistaken on this point and that he has misled many by his mistake. I believe that the emphasis on a mystical experience with Christ is no better a means of sanctification than the Keswickian 'Let go and let God.'

The Bible pattern is found in Romans 6-8 and Ephesians 4-6 and Colossians 3, among others.

In the end, it is the hint of mysticism that I react to. It is not that we shouldn't meditate and worship, of course we should. But sanctification is not a simple process and I find it dangerous to suggest to young people that if they will just love the Lord enough, they don't have to sweat sanctification. And isn't that what the Kapic quote is saying?

So the path forward is not to decrease one’s affections...

...rather to enlarge them and fill them with ‘heavenly things.’...

...not trying to escape the painful realities of this life...

...rather endeavoring to reframe one’s perspective of life...

To respond to the distorting nature of sin you must set your affections on the beauty and glory of God, the loveliness of Christ, and the wonder of the gospel...

Resisting sin ... comes not by deadening your affections but by awakening them to God himself.

Yes, worship, but don't assume that you don't have to put to death the old man. Don't ignore self-denial and keeping the body under.

~~~~

I hope that all makes some sense and that I am not making a distinction without a difference!

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the next installment of our legalism series

2007-07-30T08:58:00.000-07:00

We took one week off for a week of evangelistic meetings. The meetings went reasonably well, we had a number of visitors and there seemed to be a positive reaction to the proceedings. Time will tell if the week will make an impact in lives or not.

Yesterday I returned to our summer series, 'Law, Legalism, and Life'. The message this week was entitled "The Saved are Being Saved". Our topic was the ongoing work of grace in our lives after salvation. Our text was Titus 2.11-12:

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,

The first part of the message explained the nature of ongoing grace. There is such a thing as saving grace, the grace that saves men the moment they put their trust in Christ, repenting of their sins. If one were to die immediately after being born again, the grace of God in salvation would usher the soul into heaven.

Very few people enter heaven this way! Most believers are left on earth to experience the ongoing grace of 'being saved', the process of ongoing sanctification. Our passage says first that saving grace has appeared (most translations I consulted insert the word 'bringing' into v. 11, but the Gk suggests that 'salvation for all men' is in apposition to 'the grace of God'. The main point of the verse is that saving grace has appeared.

The next verse begins with a word that shows us the process of ongoing sanctification: saving grace is 'instructing' us - in other words, a process of instruction is going on, all brought about by the saving grace of God working its way in our lives.

The content of the instruction is first seen in the negative, then the postive aspects. Saving grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. Ungodliness is that which has contempt for God and spiritual things. Worldly lusts are those desires characterised by a 'world-like-ness', they are like the corrupt world around us. For example, some of our world exalts violence and rage - do you think grace has something to say to us about violent video games or movies or the like? We could multiply examples of things of this world in various categories, but grace teaches us to deny these things, to renounce them.

Saving grace also teaches us to live soberly (sensibly), i.e., with a disciplined mind under control. It teaches us to live righteously, i.e., according to a rule and standard. Yes! Standards are biblical! What is the ultimate standard? Jesus Christ. And saving grace teaches us to live godly, i.e., with our whole pattern of life, every moment of every day lived according to a rule of reverence for God and the things of God. It is the notion of 24/7 religion, not just Sunday AM religion.

May God help us to learn the lessons of grace, eschew the world, and live for Christ!

~~~~

Rory gave us another excellent message on identifying ourselves with Christ, not considering the risks to a Christian testimony, but trusting God for the power and love and sound mind to identify one's self with the Lord. His text was 2 Tim 1.1-7, his title: "Take Your Stand for Jesus Christ." His message was an excellent complement to the one I preached, but he arrived at his text and message with independent study and no hint from me what I was preaching about. Who do you suppose arranged that?

~~~~

We had fifty folks in church this week, mostly regulars with only a few visitors. We seem to be making some progress and have a solid group gathering together each week.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

UPDATE: Oops, forgot to post the notes for this message. Thanks to Jerry Bouey for pointing it out.

on the non-stand against false apostles by Charisma

2007-07-29T09:25:00.000-07:00

Greg Linscott points us to an editorial on the Charisma magazine website. In it the columnist speaks against abusive practices by 'prominent preachers' demanding exorbitant appearance fees and even worship by conference attendees. Some apparently demand cash gifts for a moment of counsel from the 'big man'. [And some accuse fundamentalist preachers of being egomaniacs!]

The article concludes:

New Testament Christianity is humble, selfless and authentic. And those who carry the truth don’t preach for selfish gain or to meet an emotional need for attention. May God help us root out the false apostles and false teachers who are making the American church sick with their man-centered, money-focused heresies.

You won't root out false teachers without naming names, brother. You won't cure your assemblies without separating from such.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the week that was - Calgary

2007-07-27T09:43:00.000-07:00

A few more thoughts from last week...
~~~

The first two days last week were spent at a meeting in Calgary, AB, sponsored by Foundation Baptist Church and Cornerstone Baptist Church. These churches are pastored by friends of mine from my student days in Greenville, SC: Bud Talbert at Foundation and Rod Alsup at Cornerstone. The conference featured the preaching of Dr. Bob Jones III and Dr. Stephen Jones, both of Bob Jones University, our alma mater.

We all profited from the preaching of the Joneses. Dr. Bob is very familiar to me, and his messages 'felt like home'. I have heard him preach countless times over the years. This was my first occasion to hear Stephen preach - he was 'just a lad' when I was a student at BJU. My wife, when on staff at BJU, frequently was asked to take care of Stephen and his siblings when their parents were away. Thus, to hear Stephen preaching now as president of BJU was a special treat for me. He gave us a fine message on the confidence we can have in the Bible as our sure Word from God.

I guess about fifteen or twenty preachers managed to attend the conference meetings. Most were from Alberta, with a few from as far as Manitoba and me representing the opposite extreme in British Columbia. The distances between towns [something I exulted in with my earlier post] is a factor in the difficulty of ministry in Canada, especially in the West. From the ferry to the meetings is almost 700 miles for me. If my kids had not been attending camp, I would have been unlikely to attend. I am sure others considered the distance too great to make a special trip.

The camaraderie in such meetings, even regular fellowship with like-minded preachers in a local coffee shop, is a great encouragement in the ministry. Our geography makes this difficult. The work of several fellows to build the fellowship of preachers on the prairies is commendable and a great help to them. Of course, distances make it prohibitive for some, but I appreciate the effort that is being made. I want to make it a point to support at least the major meetings of the fellowship and to encourage younger fellows coming up to do the same.

*****

A few words about church planting in Western Canada:

The two churches I mentioned in Calgary both meet in Community Centres. Property of their own would be a great blessing, but property isn't easy to come by in Calgary. Land costs are high. Even with congregations that are becoming self-supporting, the necessary funds are long in coming. To build churches in such an environment requires long term vision and diligent effort.

There are similar challenges to church planting in Victoria. The people of Calgary will tend to be less left-wing politically than those in Victoria, but they are just as secular. Calgary is a city of over a million people now. Yet it has only a few really solid fundamental churches. It has a few other churches in the evangelical camp, but most of these wouldn't be considered conservative evangelicals.

The dearth of solid fundamental churches in Calgary is replicated in every city in Western Canada. We need more churches and men who are willing to spend years in small, difficult works. Occasionally God will bless with tremendous results in a particular church, as has been seen in Meadowlands Baptist in Edmonton, pastored by Jim Tillotson. Yet the usual pattern is slow growth which requires long-term commitments.

In the real estate world I was told that Japanese mortgages are sometimes taken for terms of 100 years. Their view of the family is that the investment is not for the first generation, but for the third generation. In some ways, ministry in a secularized culture (from a formerly 'Christian' culture) must take on this same outlook. Our labours are not in vain, they are not for ourselves, they are for the Lord and for the future, if He tarries. May God find us faithful.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on a dangerous reactionary response to legalism

2007-07-26T08:14:00.001-07:00

Dr. Thurman Wisdom in his excellent book, a Royal Destiny: The Reign of Man in God's Kingdom made this little comment near the end of the first chapter:

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

This quote came to mind reading the blog of a fellow who was raised in a fundamentalist church of some kind. He apparently continues as a member of such a church. I don't know him or his church. I only know what he has written on his blog. Some of the things he says show a discontent with fundamentalism as such, something all too common among many. In fact, my involvement in the fundamentalist 'blogosphere' is largely due to my dismay at the attitudes so many openly express.

While I often contend that legalism is in the eye of the beholder, there is no doubt that Pharasaic tendencies exist within fundamentalist ranks. (The fact is, these tendencies exist in any social group, especially and including doctrinaire evangelicalism, but that is another post.) I am currently working on a series of messages about Christian standards and legalism, contrasting the difference between legalistic hairsplitting over minutiae and personal devotion, the practice of submitting one's whole life to the searching gaze and approval of the Holy Spirit. Pharisaism is about pleasing man - either self or others - with one's own efforts. Devotion is about seeking to please God.

The fact is, personal devotion may look like Pharisaism to an outside observer. David Hesselgrave makes that point clear in an article posted by Bob Bixby, referenced earlier in my blog. The devotee is earnest about following God and eschewing the world (i.e., personal separation from the world). Both the Pharisee and the devotee can coexist within one local church body without either really being aware of the difference. On the outside, the lifestyle is the same. The Pharisee, in fact, may even appear more holy than the mere devotee. The difference is largely a matter of heart. It is an attitude towards Christian living, a matter of goals and objectives.

The presence of Pharisaism on the one hand and the devotee on the other can and does lead some to cry, 'a pox on both your houses'. In reaction to Pharisaism, some will entirely abandon the heart attitude fundamentalism intends to foster. To them, fundamentalism equals a myriad of rules, establishing the length of men's hair [short] and women's skirts [long] and a host of other things.

Fundamentalism is not really about establishing how long a man's hair or a woman's skirt should be. The devotee will want to answer those questions for himself and to some extent will answer them for others, even making such applications a part of his preaching. But fundamentalism isn't a new Pharisaism, it is a political position within 'broader Christendom'. Fundamentalism is a reaction to the abandonment of doctrine and holiness by modernists/liberals and a resistance to the compromise of doctrine and holiness by evangelicals.

As movements decay (and they always do) proponents can descend into petty nitpicking about minutiae which can produce a drive to maintain 'the standards' as the be all and end all of spiritual life. Quite frankly, such an approach reduces religion to the minimums and quenches the development of personal devotion to some extent. That is, it quenches the Spirit. The pursuit of minutiae leads to Pharisaism, the attempt to please self or others by the perfections of one's own disciplined life.

Individuals tend to react to Pharisaism in differing ways. Some try to 'out-Pharisee' the rest, perpetuating the ossification of the movement. Others rebel, one way or another. Usually rebels don't just move 'one notch' over, to a more 'reasonable' position. Instead, they cast off all the restraints they feel imposed on them and move fairly far afield from their original moorings. Some may even abandon Christianity altogether. Most will at least abandon fundamentalism.

All of these reactions are a great concern to me. I believe that the philosophy of fundamentalism is biblical, though the practice of fundamentalists (including, alas, myself) often is not. My writing and thinking on this subject has one aim: to urge others not to abandon fundamentalism while wrestling with the biblical applications of fundamentalist thought. In other words, don't abandon holiness and separation from the world, false teachers and disobedient brethren just because no fundamentalist is perfectly obedient!

Having said all that, let me get back to the blog that motivated this post. The fellow has a somewhat oxymoronic section on his blog called 'Current Status of My Beliefs' [...how can something in a state of flux be a belief?]. This fellow evidently comes from a King James Only background. He is seriously questioning that position as well as a number of other points of his fundamentalist background. Evidently along with the KJO position, his background includes a seemingly heavy dose of Pharisaism [although I make that statement based only on his observations, I don't know anything about the reality of the churches this fellow has been involved with].

For example, on a page re-evaluating fundamentalism, he says this:

A lot of the legalism that our church teaches is due to their understanding of "Holiness". Are they correct? Holiness is why we can't wear shorts to church functions in summer. It's why we can't go to the movie theater. Why we can't drink, smoke, have piercings or tattoos. Why we can't listen to music with drums. How do you quantify holiness?

The points following this post indicate the fellow senses something wrong with the church and identifies the problem as 'fundamentalism'. [At least, that is the way I am reading it.] As I understand what this fellow is saying, his response is typical of many who are wrestling with the fundamentalist label. They are disgusted with something which they think equals fundamentalism. What they are disgusted with is Pharisaism. I would suggest that their disgust with Pharisaism is appropriate. The Lord never intended for us to descend to the level of the Pharisees. In fact, Jesus said our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees.

On another page our blogger friend also questions what he calls 'teetotalism'. The page illustrates my point in making today's lengthy post. It is a reactionary approach to Pharsaic legalism. Once the tent pegs are loosened, the whole tent comes down. Consider this statement in that light:

Teetoalism [sic] is taught by my church, most of the ideas of which I am suspect [sic] right now.

To be fair, the points that follow on this page are barely a cursory examination of the premise. Further, I don't really want to debate the issue of alcohol itself in this post. I draw attention to the post since this is one of the areas that a reactionary response to legalism seems to immediately go.

I have gone round and round on this with many people who claim to be fundamentalists. It is shocking to me that there is an argument at all. Alcohol is a drug with particularly harmful side-effects. The arguments made for its use 'in moderation' could be made for almost any illegal drug - and sometimes are, by Christians. The only restraint on illegal drugs in the minds of some is that they are illegal.

An online friend, Scott Aniol, notes that perhaps after music, no subject is more contentious than the question whether Christians should use alcohol as a beverage. Scott points us to a fine sermon by my friend Gary Reimers as well as an article Gary has written on the subject. Bob Bixby posted a passionate article in opposition to the use of alcohol some months back. He posts on the topic here as well. I have posted the notes from sermons I have preached on the subject here and here.

But as I said, I don't want to rehash the arguments against alcohol here. What I want to point out is that antagonism to Pharisaism often leads people far from their fundamentalist roots to a place of casting off restraints and indulging the flesh. Though right in suspecting the legalistic excess of Pharisaism, they fail to exceed the Pharisees in righteousness as Jesus calls us to do.

Recall Dr. Wisdom's comment:

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

Is it true that fundamentalists are guilty of legalistic excesses? Well, are fundamentalists human? Of course some of them are guilty. Perhaps all of us are guilty of it at one point or another. What human being isn't? We all like to approve ourselves and we all are most impressed with our own righteousness. Sometimes we are able to impress others with our righteousness as well.

But how should we react to the legalistic excesses of others? Is the right response a move towards less restraint? Towards more self-indulgence?

We see many young people raised or trained in fundamentalist homes, churches, and institutions moving lemming-like towards increasingly wilder forms of music, lowering the restraints on alcohol, lowering the bar on various forms of entertainment, spending their leisure in increasingly self-indulgent ways. They embrace the world and call it godliness. Is this a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees? Is this kingdom living?

Is this a violation of Dr. Wisdom's wise counsel?

Legalistic excesses never justify licentious extremes. [p. 28]

It really ought to be a concern to us when the 'solution' to fundamentalism is self-indulgence. In particular, the instinctive reaction of spiritually minded Christians against alcohol use is not Pharisaism. It is wisdom. It is holiness. It is Christian love. It is self-preservation.

There is no need for using alcohol as a beverage today. It serves no purpose but self-indulgence today. It is a means Satan uses for seducing the unwary into all kinds of licentiousness.

I urge any Christian, of any kind, to turn away from the temptation to indulge self with alcohol. I especially urge young fundamentalists to consider the danger of falling into bitterness over Pharisaical failures by some fundamentalists. Bitterness will only propel you to ruin. Beware of your own brand of Pharisaism, seek to help others caught up in Phariasaism, but don't be tempted to abandon the cause of holiness and orthodoxy that Christian fundamentalism truly is.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on J. C. Ryle's work on the Gospels

2007-07-24T10:30:00.001-07:00

Cumberland Valley Bible Book Service has just announced a deal on the newly published 4 volume set of J. C. Ryle's commentaries on the Gospels. Ryle is an Anglican and Calvinistic, but an excellent and godly man. His book Holiness is well worth having. I expect these volumes are also worthy. This 4 volume set is on for just $32.99.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on our legalism series - 'how does faith work?'

2007-07-21T23:37:00.000-07:00

I guess I need to get caught up...

I want to give you a summary of our message last Sunday, preached after my marathon across the mountains the day before. I am thankful for portable computing! I had my message all ready for printing and preaching before I left Alberta.

Our subject this week: How does Faith Work? The idea of the message was to impress on our people the fact that saving faith is recognizable. The proposition I was working on was this: Faith is seen in the fruit it bears. Faith is the life of heaven lived on earth. There are several ways the notion of faith is seen in the New Testament. First, we have faith as a noun. "The faith", Jude calls it. He refers to 'the faith' as a shorthand for an objective confession that is the foundation of saving faith. Without it, you cannot be a Christian. Paul speaks about believing in the Lord Jesus and confessing the resurrection in the heart. John speaks about confessing the Lord Jesus as the Christ come in the flesh. From incarnation to resurrecton, and every aspect of the doctrine of Christ in between, this is 'the faith'. If you won't accept this, you cannot have Christ.

The next aspect of faith is faith as a verb. This is Hebrews 11 faith. Faith that trusts. Faith that trusts God's promises, though invisible, though not yet reality. This is how our understanding of creation works: we weren't there, but we trust God's word. God made promises to Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, etc. and they believed God. These men staked their lives on the invisible promises of God. As a matter of fact, we who are called believers today must also stake our lives on God's invisible promises as well. Faith is a verb. We trust God.

Last, we looked at faith as a work or as a way of life. This is James 2.18 faith. 'Show me' faith. How does James urge us to 'show' faith. By caring for widows and orphans. By keeping unspotted from the world. By bridling the tongue. By self-control. By being a doer of the word. Faith works by personal devotion to the standards of holiness God lays out for us in the scripture. Faith works by love (Gal 5.6) - love for Christ, first of all, and for the saints throuh Him. Those who claim that Christianity has no need to conform to standards of holiness have a low regard for the Christ who bought them.

~~~

In our afternoon service, Rory preached on the subject of Paul's conversion under the title 'Getting to Know God'. Rory's message described how Saul's life was radically changed by the gospel and called us to know God as Paul did in order to experience the same kind of change for ourselves.

~~~

Next week we have evangelistic meetings with evangelist Dan Manka. He has his family here to minister with us on Sunday through Friday. We are handing out many flyers for the meetings and hope to see a few new faces in the meetings. A few? Well, we hope to see many, but we are of little faith.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the week that was

2007-07-18T22:12:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I mentioned I was headed to the ferry and to Alberta to take a couple of my kids to camp. A number of events highlighted the trip and I thought them worthy of a post or two...

First, Alberta.

What is there about Alberta that so enthralls me? It is the land of my birth and rearing. Of course I am partial to it for these reasons. If you are not prairie born and raised, you may find my fascination with a mostly flat province a little odd. I have always said that there is nothing wrong with BC that clear-cutting and a lot of dynamite can't fix! I love the flatlands. The flatlands are not really flat, each long rise of the undulating prairie reveals new and gorgeous vistas. In some places you can see fifty miles or more. There is a spot on the highway home where you can see my home town from over 20 miles away. The effect is best at night, when the lights of the town twinkle in the distance. During the day it is a little harder to distinguish the town in the distance. I am always reminded of the verse, 'a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid' when I see my home town twinkling in the distance.

July is the month of harvesting hay all over Alberta. The sight of fields being cut, or cut hay curing in the sun, or fields filled with bales for mile after mile is a welcome and familiar site to me. The smell of freshly cut hay is one that spells summer time and sunshine. Many of the fields of Alberta are sown in canola, in full flower during haying season. Canola fields are a brilliant yellow, stretching sometimes for miles, bordered by patches of green ... hay, oats, wheat, barley, whatever... The oats, wheat, and barley will turn golden by the harvest with new vistas spread before your eyes as the summer wanes into fall..

The roads of Alberta are mostly straight and a good many of them are lightly traveled. You can go miles without seeing another vehicle, especially off the 'main drag' between Edmonton and Calgary. When I was younger, I put my first car (1972 Dodge Charger, 400 cu in engine) to the test on a lonely stretch of these highways. When I hit 110 mph with my car not straining at all, I decided that was fast enough. I drove over that same stretch of highway on this trip. My more sedate Dodge Caravan wasn't up to Charger standards (and I am more mature now???). The roads of Alberta invite going out 'for a spin' just for the sheer pleasure of driving and looking out over those distant miles. When I was a youngster and began driving, it was nothing for someone to run into Edmonton (90 miles away) for a cup of coffee. The prairies invite such mobility, especially now that we have passed the muddy pioneer days and are in the days of the automobile and paved highways. I suppose people don't take such larks that much anymore. We even have several coffee shops in my home town these days, even a McDonald's!

Most people we know rave over the beauty of my current home in British Columbia. But for me, the Alberta countryside beats the Pacific rain forest hands down.

The needs of people are the same in both places. Secular, worldly, and in need of a Saviour. I am not overly partial to the big cities in either place. I am a small town boy, after all. But if I had my druthers, you could bury me on the lone prairie.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on God's view of righteous human works

2007-07-08T12:36:00.000-07:00

Our next installment in our 'Law, Legalism, and Life' series addresses the subject God's Viewpoint of Righteous Human Works.

The main idea of the message is that God evaluates all human works. The Bible reveals that certain kinds of human works are unacceptable to God while other kinds of human works please God. The devoted Christian must turn his mind to understanding what those works are that please God.

There are two sorts of righteous works that are unacceptable to God. First are those that are intended to oblige God’s grace. This is salvation-by-works legalism. It is an attempt to manipulate God as if he were an idol. The notion is this, 'If I stroke God certain ways, he will give me what I want.' Thus the prophets of Ba'al attempted to manipulate their idol on Mt Carmel. The fact is God's grace is obliged to the works of one man, Jesus Christ, who perfectly kept the law for fallen men. All men who are 'in Christ' are recipients of God's obligations to the perfect obedience of his Son.

The second sort of righteous works that are unacceptable to God are works intended to impress man. These are the works of the Pharisees who sounded the trumpet when they gave alms. They had their reward. These are the works of the Pharisees when they sought to please themselves with their own righteousness. God has no time for self-righteous hypocrisy. No higher spiritual plane is found by 'working the right works.'

Nevertheless, there are works that do please God.

Colossians 1:9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

There are many other passages that highlight this concept. Eph 2.8-10 tell us that salvation is not of works, but unto works that we were ordained to walk in. This is where a godly Christian ministry points the saints to. I said this, 'Our ministry among you is to call you to a life of spiritual fervour — we aren't satisfied with merely supplying 'fire insurance', i.e., 'get out of hell free' cards.' We are after developing devoted saints who delight to please God and delight in the things of God rather than the things of the world.

~~~

After the morning message, two of our youngsters and I are off to Alberta for C.O.W.s - a traveling mission camp ministry that we are glad to support. While the kids are at camp, I will get to hear Dr. Bob and Stephen in Calgary, then off home to Drayton Valley to visit my parents.

Rory is preaching our afternoon message as we travel. We plan to be back next Saturday for another great day in the Lord.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on paganism is alive and well in north america

2007-07-07T17:15:00.000-07:00

Today is 7/7/07 - perhaps thousands of couples are besieging churches, chapels, and justices of the peace in order to 'say their vows' on this supposedly especially fortuitous day. One woman, the proprietor of a wedding chapel in Las Vegas, said that she has never seen it so busy in fifty years in the business. Cars were 'lined up' for the 'drive thru'. The drive thru??? You can have a drive thru wedding? Unbelievable!

The news about the multitudes of wedding plans on this day made the front page of the National Post today, one of Canada's major newspapers. I imagine the same was true of many papers around North America.

Isn't it a bit pathetic that people are so insecure in their souls that they think a day with some numbers on it will make them perhaps that much more fortunate in their wedding vows? Don't they realize how arbitrary calendars are? If we were still following the Julian calendar instead of the Gregorian one, July 7, 07, would be long gone by now. [Not to mention that the year 1 is off by at least four years. We should be in 2011-2013 by now.]

Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

Quite clearly, the problem is that these people do not know God. They are bound by superstition and pagan thinking.

Our church only has a few young people in it, none of them close to marriage. If we had eligible couples though, I think I would have refused them this day, just because...

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on one of my liberal magazines

2007-07-06T23:15:00.000-07:00

I am just about through with my latest issue of Biblical Archaelogical Review. The magazine can't really be classified as a Christian magazine, though the articles usually relate to Bible topics. The general editor and the vast majority of contributors appear to come from at best a fairly liberal position, which is to say an unbelieving position. The editorial pages are especially galling, and I have to remind myself that I don't subscribe for the editorials!

The content of the articles is usually a fairly objective discussion of the facts along with argumentation oriented to one archaelogical theory or another. Occasionally there are liberal notions present and the galling dating system BCE/CE. I mostly am looking for background information concerning the biblical record from this magazine and on that score it delivers.

For example, the recent issue has an article on Joseph, asking a question about the passage in Gen 41.14 where Joseph is said to have shaved prior to his first audience with Pharaoh. The auther asks why would Joseph do this? The suggested answer is that the Pharaoh would be considered a god in the Egyptian system and as such could only be attended by people who were 'clean'. In the Egyptian system, the priests were completely shaven, all bodily hair removed, as a sign of their cleanness entering into the courts of their gods (i.e., the temples, including the palace). The reference in Genesis, one I noticed again just the other day in my regular reading, is fairly obscure and perhaps isn't intended to convey a lot of meaning. But understanding the context of this 'by the way' type of remark might cast some light on the whole story, including the relationship between Pharaoh and Joseph and contributes to a better understanding of why Joseph's brothers did not recognize him at all. He would have appeared comepletely other-worldly to them, if indeed his hair, beard, etc, were all completely shaved off in his position as second in command to Pharaoh.

The previous issue contained a particularly distressing article on the loss of faith. Four archaeological scholars were interviewed, two who claimed to have lost their faith, two who claimed not. Given BAR's slant, it is not surprising that it appears none of these men actually ever have had saving faith. Those who claimed to have lost faith came from fairly conservative evangelical backgrounds, but their current testimonies show they never exercised living faith. Such stories are heartbreaking.

Resources like BAR can be useful, but they must be handled with care. There be dragons [of unbelief] there.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on Sword and Trowel part two

2007-07-05T10:34:00.000-07:00

I have mostly finished my first look at the modern Sword and Trowel. If this issue is typical, the magazine is worth receiving. The second article by Peter Masters is also excellent. Entitled 'Paul's Positive Plan for Holiness', Masters outlines from Rm 7-8 eight essential steps for pursuing personal holiness. Masters critiqued John Piper's theories elsewhere for his denial of personal effort in sanctification. I agree with Masters on this point. Piper is guilty of a neo-Keswickian view of sanctification which distorts the Christian life.

Here is a summary of Masters' eight points:

Recognize the Problem - I still have a sin nature, defeated by the cross, but still alive and a powerful force in my soul, if I allow it.

"A serious determination to struggle against sin is the only way to live as a Christian, yet it is a stance that modern evangelicalism, saturated in worldliness and show-business informality and entertainment, does not want to take."

Have Positive Aims - have a goal of godliness, an objective to strive after, a 'good I would' do, much as an athlete sets objectives for his physical progress, so too we must set objectives for spiritual progress.

Plan to Avoid Sin - the antithesis of point two: have an objective NOT to sin, an evil 'I would not'.

"Sin will not be broken and overcome without a longing to avoid it, and the preparation of a prior battle-plan of intentions."

Keep Up Self-Examination - constantly put yourself under scrutiny from the objective perspective of God's word. Be ready and quick to confess sin that is exposed.

Long for Overall Improvement - longing for improvement stretches out towards the goal, presses on to victory as in Phil 3.13-14. This is a daily dedication to holiness.

Seek Spiritual Help - by this Masters means the help that is readily available from God, even as the Lord taught us to pray 'Lead us not into temptation'.

"Daily we pray for a lively conscience and a fresh realization that we are observed by the Lord. Strong and besetting sins always yeld following earnest prayer, because the Spirit gives power to resist them, often along with a sense of revulsion against sin."

Mind Heavenly Things - actively direct your thoughts to spiritual things, mind the things of the Spirit, set your affections on things above. Masters points out that we are often too much minded with earthly things. Like sports, for example.

"Whatever engages the believer most will shape that person's heart and outlook, in line with the words of Christ, 'For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also' (Matthew 6.21)."

Mortify Sin

"Mortification means putting to death these aspirations, and quenching sinful moods, tempers, words and acts. ... Not one of these steps may be overlooked, but this eighth is probably the decisive one. Grasping the help of God, by prayer, we put the sin to death and redirect the thoughts to something higher and better."

~~~

I hope you find this helpful. The whole article is well worth your reading if you can find a copy. Subscription info can be found here.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the FBF and illegal aliens - reprise

2007-07-04T22:13:00.000-07:00

I received the latest copy of Frontline today. This is the one that includes the articles accompanying the annual resolutions. Earlier, I was quite critical of the last sentence of the resolution.

The article is much better than the resolution and clearly spells out some of the ethical (and possibly legal) pitfalls dealing with illegal aliens who might be converted and attempt to be involved in a local church.

Nevertheless, I still remain convinced that the concluding sentence of the resolution is too weak.

Ministry to illegal people of any kind involves huge stumbling blocks immediately. If a person repents and comes to Christ, they must really bring forth works fit for repentance. For a person guilty of a crime (any crime, including illegal immigration) the number one stumbling block is to make their crime right, whatever the consequences to themselves.

Ministry to illegal aliens is fraught with difficulty at the point of conversion because of this stumbling block. In my view, real faith in Christ will evidence itself if the convert is willing to repent of his lawbreaking and make things right.

Ministry to professing Christian illegal aliens is hard as well - they may be genuinely converted, but may have foolishly justified illegal activity for one reason or another. Regardless of the situation, I don't believe tolerating these offenses is any help to brethren guilty of them.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the place of law

2007-07-03T12:02:00.000-07:00

My third installment in the series Law, Legalism, and Life examines The Place of Law [Morning Message, 7.1.07]. I was working on this proposition: 'The goal in preaching Christian standards is not to impose law on the Christian church – no law can achieve the goals of sanctification and personal devotion.'

First, law, especially God's Law, is defined. God has authority to impose law and his people yield their wills to God's authority.

Second, the design of law is to protect sovereignty and promote the general good. Likewise, God's Law protect's God's glory and promotes order and well-being in society, but it is designed for more than that. God's law imposes a spiritual dimension and accountability to God in the mix. When God's laws are broken, man is spiritually accountable, for he has sinned. In the end, we need to see that God's Law is designed for man's good, not man's grief.

Finally, however, we come to the crux of the matter with respect to law. Law has a defect - it can call us to account (conviction) but it cannot change us (conversion). I noted four defects that manifest the inability of law to change hearts: First, men cannot keep the law. 'Most of the time' isn't good enough. The Law demands perfection. Second, there is a danger of making the law an end in itself. The keeping of the law becomes an idol and men construct a labyrinth of means to keep from breaking the letter of the law (Pharisaism). Third, as mentioned, it is impossible for the Law to make man righteous. Law is imposed by power (authority). If I have the power, I can make a man conform to my law, but I cannot change his heart. He can still be 'standing up on the inside' to cite an old illustration of a little boy made to sit in the corner by his mother. For the power of law to have any lasting effect, something has to happen to the heart first. Fourth, the Law is not enough. In other words, the Law actually only expresses a minimum standard. The Ten Commandments say, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Is that all there is to the standard? That is the bare minimum! God says, be ye holy as I am holy. Jesus said that if you hate, you are guilty. The law isn't enough. Don't congratulate yourself if you can keep a law or two, you need to be perfectly holy, just like God.

In the end, we need to learn the lesson of repentance, just like Job. Laws are good and are meant for good, but the real lesson we need to learn is not to congratulate ourselves for law-keeping but to fall on our faces before our holy God and shut our mouths. We have nothing to say to him with whom we have to do. We must bow our hearts in repentance and ask for God to change us. No amount of lawkeeping will bring about the change we need.

Next week I will look at what God thinks of our good works.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the FBF and illegal aliens

2007-06-29T14:10:00.000-07:00

I am a member and enthusiastic supporter of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. I am pleased with the direction it is taking and was especially pleased recently by the inclusion of Clarence Sexton as one of the speakers at the annual meeting just a few weeks ago, despite the criticism of naysayers [see my comments in the comments section there].

Having said that, let me offer a criticism of one of the 2007 resolutions as published at the FBF website here. The resolution concerns illegal aliens. I think the general meaning of the resolution is correct, but that the resolution doesn't go far enough. Here is the resolution in question:

Resolution 07-02: Concerning Ministry to Illegal Immigrants.

Recognizing the New Testament church's obligation to win and disciple the world, the FBFI acknowledges the responsibility of fundamental Baptist churches to reach the growing number of immigrants in our communities regardless of their legal status. We urge churches to avoid making legal status, in any way, a condition of evangelism. But we also urge churches to practice and teach submission to human governmental authority as an essential aspect of Christian growth. Churches should act consistently in the matter, not treating the legal status of an immigrant differently from other issues of equivalent moral and spiritual import in the lives of church members. We recognize the autonomy of each local church to implement these principles in harmony with its own understanding and application of church polity.

The problem I have with this resolution is the last sentence. Yes, local churches are autonomous, but we as believers ought to call our autonomous brethren into account concerning their obedience to Scripture.

I am especially concerned with 'Spanish' churches who claim to be fundamentalist but at the same time knowingly use illegal aliens in any capacity of ministry. Do they ever preach Romans 13? What about 1 Peter 2? Should illegal aliens serve as deacons in any local church? Should they teach Sunday School? Should they serve in any capacity or even be admitted to membership?

There are all kinds of stories offered concerning the hardship that individuals experience in their home countries. I appreciate the difficulty people have in some countries, but these stories of hardship are meant to justify lawbreaking. The solution to problems for believers can't be to simply flout the laws of more prosperous countries. The excuses of illegal aliens are not persuasive. I recall a chapel speaker many years ago uttering the line, 'an excuse is the skin of a reason stuffed with a lie.'

I say this as the descendant of immigrants, as a friend of immigrants, and in particular as a friend and former pastor to some whom I know are persisting as illegal aliens in the USA. I have counseled my friends to get themselves legal. I am told that I don't know the 'prejudice' in the system, that the cost is very high, etc, etc. I really can't buy that argument. It is right to do right and we ought to do it.

And the so-called Fundamental Baptist churches that tolerate illegal aliens need to read their Bibles and submit to the Word of God. They should encourage converts to get legal, whatever the cost, or go home and serve God there. Excuse making needs to come to an end.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

ebaptist.blog

on a change of locale

on Piper's advocacy of sinning less often

on a Sunday with the 'outlaws'

on a significant biblical revival

on a light to the nations and prayer

Galilee of the Gentiles (Mt 4.12-17) Audio Notes

Ask (Lk 11.5-10) Audio Notes

on embracing anti-intellectualism

on our Christmas series, communion, and our website

The Nations Divided (Gen 10-11) Audio Notes

Sup With Me (Lev 3) Audio Notes

on Nehemiah's wall

on softness and specifics

on a wise word from a young fundamentalist

on Rm 1.7 and Lk 11.1-4

To all that be in Rome (Rm 1.7)

1. Does God have any less care for you or for this local church than he does for the ‘Grace Baptist Church of Rome’ in ad 57?

2. Our union as a local church is created in the love of God and the grace and peace offered personally to you in Jesus Christ.

When Ye Pray (Lk 11.1-4)

on Romans and prayer

By Whom and Among Whom (Rm 1.5-6)

Teach Us to Pray (Lk 11.1)

on the Evangelical Theological Society and fundamentalists

on the highway of heroes

on an Alberta perspective of a certain theological development

on 11.11.07

Lloyd-Jones on sin

a little plug for my friend in Mongolia

on caring for the dying

on CT and divorce etc

on a cool blog editing tool

Heading One

Heading Two

Heading Three

Heading Four

Heading Five

Heading Six

on Sunday 11.4.07

Morning Service

Afternoon Service

on traveling sermon summaries

on sunday oct 21

on more politics

on yankee politics

Church Matters: 9Marks Blog

on the 10.14.07 sermons

on the possiblity of being overly Christo-centric

on gorebal warming

on the decline of religion in the True North

on the chasm between evangelicalism and fundamentalism

on so much for my quote game

on Thanksgiving Sunday

on admitting it - no one cares about my quote game

on a different kind of quote game

on our second message in Romans

on faith and works

on Love, Liberty, and Christian Conscience by Randy Jaeggli

on BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Burmese riot police attack monks

on a sad commentary on the modern world

on the dishonesty of David Cloud

on the curse and the kingdom

on moving right along

on the necessity of discipline and on the body

on the glacial method of exposition

on a quote just for Chris Anderson

on some insight into the publishing world

on Dr. Thurman Wisdom and A Royal Destiny

on how deep the darkness

on disciple making and church philosophy

on a green bomb

on realism

on a few more Paisley links

on the end of an era in Free Presbyterianism

on getting ready for Romans

on darkness and light and grace

on 'when confronted with reality, spin'

CTV.ca | Multiple bodies found in Victoria, B.C. home

on Sunday, 9.2.07

on 'oh well, it's all right then'