If Ephesians 5:12 Had Never Been Written

Watching the flurry of posts recently on Driscoll's new book on marriage, I rather enjoyed this quote by Carl Trueman on the Ref21 blog-

I have often in the past stood with those who laughed at what we regarded as the ignorant, unsophisticated taboos of the older generation. But now I worry about the ease with which the rising generation talks explicitly of 'the fruitless deeds of darkness' in the name of cultural engagement, fear of being thought passé or simply a desire to slough off the legalisms of their fathers in the faith. You can, after all, get to heaven without ever having seen an R-Rated art house movie or having enjoyed a spectacular love life.

Here's a question: would it make any difference to you, any difference at all to the way you talk, to what you watch, to the wayyou 'engage culture', if Eph. 5:12 had never been written?

Would it?

A Better Way to Handle The Question

I've lampooned Joel Osteen here several times, most recently over his mishandling of the question of Mormonism.  But I haven't given an alternative, mostly because I hadn't seen one in the media that was worth mentioning.  I still haven't seen one in the US media (imagine that!), but thanks to the Ref21 blog, I found a pastor doing a pretty good job of it in the British media.

Here's the link.

I especially liked his comment that we (humans) won't be going to heaven or hell in groups.  Our eternity depends on what we do with Jesus' question in Matt 16:15, "Who do YOU say that I am?" (emphasis mine)

Two Views of October 31- One Thoughtful, One Fun

Today is both Reformation Day and Halloween.  In honor of the former, and in retrospect of the latter, here are two YouTube videos.

John Piper on Halloween.

Piper is introspective and balanced...well worth hearing in you have radicals on either side of the issue screaming at you.


Manic Monday Luther.

This one is just fun, but it is very much historically accurate.

HT: Dan Phillips, DG Blog

Bounded Sets

This past Sunday, my SS class started chapter 2 of Galatians.  In the first section, we saw how important it is for us to confront changes to the gospel, while not being confrontational people over non-essential issues.

Chebyshev center

The Housewife Theologian posted a blog article today that explains very clearly this concept, along with a logical reason why it is both true and important.  She cites a lecture by Don Carson on how we should view fellow believers with whom we don't fully agree on all issues regarding our church practices.  Carson uses a 'sets' illustration from mathematics to create an image of orthodoxy. It was immensely helpful to me; I wish I'd seen it before the lesson last weekend.

Here's her post.

I highly recommend this blog.  You should be reading it regularly.  If you only have time for one blog, dump mine and read hers instead.  I bet she won't put scary math equations up, there.

He Opened His Mouth

Sometimes adversaries are clever; one has to do his homework before he can find evidence of wrongdoing.  On the other hand, there's Joel Osteen.  It appears that no one need do any digging at all; in fact, all that needs to happen for there to be empirical evidence that Osteen has no clue what the gospel is, is for him to open his mouth.



I'm not looking for a fight here, but there's a serious problem when the pastor of the largest church in America is teaching something other than the gospel.  My Sunday School class is going through the book of Galatians right now, and we are just starting chapter 2.  We've seen something important in chapter 1, particularly with regard to getting the gospel right.

If you look at the combination of Paul's writings and information found in the gospels, it is easy to conclude that we are much better off preaching the right gospel with the wrong motives than we are preaching the wrong gospel with the right motives.  On the one hand, when the gospel is preached by those seeking gain, the apostles praised God, saying, "The gospel is preached!"  On the other, the purveyors of the wrong gospel are clearly in danger of condemnation to hell.

Here's more, if you need it:  Al Mohler's Blog

Barack Obama is not nearly the threat to the church in this country as is Joel Osteen.

Religion or Relationship?

I've often heard Christianity dichotomized into these two choices, with the right answer being, 'relationship' of course.  But that sentiment has always bothered me, particularly in light of James 1:26-7, and even 1 Tim 5:4 (and a few others, if you dig for them).

How about a tertium quid?*  Stephen Lutz posted this blog post over on the Gospel Coalition this morning, and it makes a lot of sense.  He says,

"Both religion and relationship capture helpful aspects of what 

Christianity is, but neither word is strong enough to fully encapsulate 

what Christianity is about. Only gospel can do that. The gospel alone is 

the power of salvation for all who believe (Romans 1:16); no amount of 

our religious observance or relational feeling has the power to save."

His blog is about college ministry, but this make sense for ministry at any level.  Chalk one more up for gospel centeredness.

* literally,  the 'third this'...Latin for third option

Where's the Gospel in Hater Vids?

Stephen Furtick, a 'pastor' of a large culturally-relevant gathering called Elevation Church, posted this video a while back.  It's as full of, if not more full of, hate than anything said by those he accuses in the video.

Finally, Frank Turk posted this video response.  It is tremendous.  Watch it, even if you choose not to watch the first one by Furtick (which really isn't bad advice).

Christian Love vs Self-Love

Recently, the bumbling buffoon Pat Robertson, who calls himself a pastor, but is rather more a pester than a pastor, made an idiotic remark that a man was justified in divorcing his wife after she became ill with alzheimer's disease, and he was lonely.

I agree with another blogger: this is a repudiation of the gospel of Christ.

In contrast, watch this video about a man who left his job to spend all of his time with his stricken wife.



If there's any divorce to happen, it needs to be the divorce between the church as a whole and Pat Robertson (and all the other prosperity-gospel nuts like him).

I made the following comment in my Sunday School lesson last Sunday:  "Barack Obama is not nearly the threat to the church in America as is Joel Osteen."  I thought there might be some disagreement (you see, Obama isn't very popular here in Texas).  There was none.  The first comment I heard was, "Amen.  Preach it."

Now I think I'd be almost as correct to go back and re-state the comment with Robertson's name in place of Osteen's.

Secularization as a Christian Heresy

“Secularization—that is, the gradual conformity of our thinking, beliefs, commitments, and practices to the pattern of this fading age—is not just something that happens to the church; it is something that happens in the church.  In fact, it’s difficult to think of secularism as anything other than a Christian heresy.” 

When I read Michael Horton, the going is usually slow, and every couple pages, I have to put the book in my lap, lean my head back, and think.  The above quote is from the introduction to his recent book, The Gospel Commission: Recovering God's Strategy for Making Disciples.

It shall be an interesting read.

Wednesdays Were Pretty Normal

Here is a link to the book trailer (or click through below) for a new book coming out in few months by Canyon, TX native (and current Nashville resident) Michael Kelley.

The Kelley's two-year-old son Joshua was diagnosed with leukemia; this is the story of what it was like to live in and battle through those days, and how the grace of God was revealed to them in diverse ways through the process.

Michael has preached in my church on numerous occasions, and is the real deal...I can highly recommend this book even though I haven't seen a copy yet because I know Michael and know his strength of character and love for the Lord.

Run, don't walk, to get this book when it is available.

Sola Mortalis (Justification by Death Alone)

As R. C. Sproul has pointed out in numerous places, the prevalent belief in America today about the mode of justification is not sola fida, nor is it justification by works, or some combination of the two.  It is in fact sola mortalis, or justification by death.  That is, the only thing most people believe is required to be ushered into the glory of heaven after we die is to, well...die.

How did this come to be so?  Where did our culture adopt such a non-biblical idea of justification in the face of contrary claims of scripture and of pretty much every church, conservative or liberal, up until very recently?

I think it is the innate humanism that resides in the heart of all of us.  We continually walk away from the stated claims of the gospel and back into our natural state of, I-can-do-this-for-myself.  It is the antithesis of the gospel to rely on ourselves for our own justification, yet it is our natural tendency.  As one author put it recently, we don't need heretics in the church to pull us away from the gospel...all we need is a good night's sleep.  Our natural character (fallen souls) pull us away from the gospel unless we are continually reminded of what it says and what it means.

So what conclusions can we draw from this, given it is true?

One, we need fellowship with other believers.  Christianity is not a go-it-alone religion, as going-it-alone usually results in a therapeutic religion rather than a relationship with Christ.

Two, study of history, particularly historical theology and church history, is critical if we are to avoid making the same mistakes over and over again.  It seems like anytime a new controversy turns up in Christianity, its not long before someone points out that this controversy has happened before, and was dealt with by some council about fifteen-hundred years ago.  As G. K. Chesterton once said, 'The wit of man is insufficient to invent a new heresy.'  I think he's right.

Three, we need to hear solid biblical exposition, especially from our pulpits on Sunday mornings.  Deistic therapeutic moralism won't cut it.  (Yes, I renamed that...see this post for why.)  We need to hear the word of God and see the Word of God in our worship.  In many places, that's not happening.

Four, we must always reforming.  We must constantly test ourselves against what orthodox Christianity has always believed and be less enamored with innovation and more enamored with faithfulness.  God doesn't change.  Why is it that we always desire change, even when change isn't warranted?

Five, we need to stop talking about justification as sola mortalis.  This is the hardest for many of us, especially if we have family and friends who are not believers. If you spent much time on my blog, you know of the respect I have for the US Marine Corps.  They are all honorable men.  Yet there is a common belief, spoken openly amongst Marines, that when a Marine dies, he goes to guard Heaven's gates.  Even Marines need Christ if they hope to guard Heaven's gates.  I pray they all heard the gospel, but I fear it is not so.  We can't continue to talk like semper fidelis is the same thing as sola fide.  (Though I'm sure that is a tradition that will not change.)

And six, in order to accomplish number five, we need to start talking about these things before someone dies.  We need to proclaim the good news of Christ- sola gratia through sola fide, and why it is vitally important (pun intended).  And in conjunction, we need to keep praying for those we know who are not believers, so that when they come to faith in Christ, we can rejoice with them that they no longer hold the view of sola mortalis.

Harry Potter...Who Woulda Thunk It?

Was all the brouhaha over Harry Potter over the last ten or twelve years a tempest in a teapot?  Or was it something worse, an example of law-based parenting over gospel-based parenting, and the legalistic foundation therein?

Jerram Barrs has this fascinating review (on YouTube) of the last book and movie, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

J. K. Rowling a Christian. Who woulda thunk it?

Why Is My Church So White?

Here's a very moving post from the Gospel Coalition blog...it is worth the read.

Why Do Youth Stay in Church?

We've talked about why youth leave the church on this blog several times (here, here, and here).

But why do they stay?  Jon Nielson gives this review and three critical points about why...every youth pastor in the country ought to reflect on these points, even if briefly.

1. They are converted.
2. They have been equipped, not entertained.
3. Their parents preach the gospel to them.

How Could God Ask Abraham to Sacrifice His Son?

I've heard this one thrown around a lot of different ways, and most often as a criticism of God and His character.

Nancy Guthrie has a very good post on the Gospel Coalition blog today- "How Could God Ask That?"

Here's a quote-  "Why would God ask Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice? Is God trying to teach us that we should be willing sacrifice what is most precious to us? No. This story is not recorded to inspire sacrifice to God. Instead, it paints in vivid colors the sacrifice of God. The point of this story is not to convince you that you must be willing to sacrifice to God what is most precious to you, but rather to prepare you to take in the magnitude of the gift when you see that God was willing to sacrifice what was most precious to him—his own beloved Son—for you."

Kinda changes the perspective, no?

The Finished Work of Christ in Our Lives

Here is a great post by Dane Ortlund over on the Gospel Coalition blog.  It is a story of how Francis Schaeffer realized (pun intended, but you won't get it until you read the post) the importance of the gospel in our lives.

270th Anniversary

It was today, July 8th, 1741, that Jonathan Edwards preached what some have called the most famous sermon (or the greatest sermon) ever preached on American soil:  Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.

I wonder how that sermon would go over in one of our megachurches today?

The Christian and Education (Homeschool, Private School, or Public School?)

Tim Challies has written this post about homeschooling versus public schooling, and of course the post elicited quite a few responses, including some nasty ones.  A lot has been written on the subject of how Christians should see to the education of their children, and much of it has been polemic.

I think the solution to the problematic question is rather simple.  It goes something like this- if you raise your kids with mostly biblical imperatives and few biblical indicatives (in other words, with mostly the law and little of the gospel), sending them to a public school would be a very bad idea.  If you raise them focused on the gospel (the indicatives), not sending them to public school would be a very sinful idea.

I understand there will be exceptions based on locale.  Our own kids have attended both private Christian schools and public schools.  When they were in second grade in Rio Rancho, NM, and the secretary's lesbian partner came to the office and sat in her lap while they made out, we decided that private school might be important in that locale.  When we lived outside St. Louis, MO and here in Canyon, TX, the public schools have worked fine.  So in general, I think kids raised on the indicatives of the gospel will approach their secular world (still as sinners, of course) with the right attitude of being witnesses of their Lord and savior first rather than serving themselves.  Of course there will be mistakes.  But learning to live in a secular world will be fraught with mistakes no matter which direction you choose for them, and this way (living in light of the indicatives of the gospel) will give them a much better path and foundation to choose what is right based on what's in their heart rather than because it's the cultural thing to do.

 There's a spectrum somewhere between the tiger mom and the dad in, 'A Boy Named Sue' where raising kids works best.  But I don't think it's a narrow line nor hard to find.  I do think we are all prone to extremes one way or the other, however, and that's what makes raising them difficult.

Multi-Site Churches...Good or Bad?

The whole idea of these multi-campus, multi-site churches is a confusing one.  I can see some very strong positives and some very strong negatives, mixed in with a whole bunch of gray area 'what-ifs' in the concept.

On the one hand, I'd love to sit and hear a Matt Chandler or RC Sproul or Mark Dever sermon on Sunday mornings at my local church.  We continue to be without a pastor fourteen months ongoing, and we've had fill-ins, guest speakers, an interim pastor (for a short time), and so on.  Not all the sermons have been bad, but all have been somewhat disconnected (and some of them have been pretty close to sleep medication).  We've had a few that have been gospel-centered, encouraging, and provoking (thank you, Michael Kelley...want a full-time pastorate?). So the idea of listening to one of these types of pastors on a weekly basis is very interesting. 

On the other hand, it looks to me like we are headed toward a situation with megachurches that looks like the cola wars of the 80s...a few really big churches spending millions of dollars on top celebrities trying to coax huge segments of the population to attend one of their local satellite campuses.  We'll see which pop star goes with which church.  (Hopefully, no one's hair will catch fire this time.)


You have Driscoll's church with campuses in multiple cities (mouse over the 'Locations' drop-down), expanding to more; you have Lifechurch with around fourteen campuses now (click on the 'Select Campus drop-down), and other megachurches interested in getting into the mix.  What happens when Joel Osteen decides to compete with these folks for headcount?  (Just think of the advertising budget he'd have.)  How many lost souls would that facilitate?

I still haven't decided one way or the other on the worth of these multi-site churches, but my gut feeling about them is not good. We need pastors who know their local members.  But we also need preachers who engage their congregations with in-depth gospel preaching.  Are these two things mutually exclusive?

But God...

R. C. Sproul has said several times that the most important word in the Bible is the word, 'but'.

I'm reading Trevin Wax's book, Counterfeit Gospels.  On page 98, he illustrates Dr. Sproul's point with this section of text-

  "Because Jesus was filled with horror and cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" we are filled with wonder and cry, "My God, my God, why have you accepted me?

  Because Jesus cried, "Father, forgive!" the taunts we hurled at Him on the cross are transformed into praise for His generous mercy.

  Because Jesus said, "I thirst," we can drink from the fountain of living water and never thirst again.

  Because Jesus said, "Woman, behold your son," and felt the pain of separation from His earthly family, we can experience the blessing of being united with a heavenly family.

  Because Jesus cried, "It is finished!" our new life can begin.

  Because Jesus committed His spirit into the Father's hands, God commits His Spirit into our hearts."

...but God, who is rich in mercy...

Outstanding stuff.