Defending Job’s Wife July 09, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.Tags: dehumanizing Biblical characters, euthanasia, faith, fearful Christians, Job, Job 2:9-10, Job's Wife, like a fool, Mercy, Was Job's Wife a blasphemer, weakness
add a comment
Recently, I read an article that really came down hard on Job’s wife because of the statement that she makes to her husband, to “curse God and die.” The author went as far as to suggest that this was a woman who clearly had no faith and was a blasphemer because of the statement that she made and her unwillingness to follow her husband’s example. Granted, Job’s wife does not follow her husband’s example, but that being said, we need to be very careful about making judgments about her character and about her faith.
All too often, when folks come to texts like these, the matter of primary concern is, “What is the doctrine in question?” or “What moral or ethical principle can I learn?” And while texts like this do raise moral and ethical questions, when we look to answer these questions first, we oftentimes lose the people who are living out the event. Job and his wife are not fictional or allegorical characters, but they are real, historical people—human beings like you and me. They come complete with worries and fears, good days and bad days. They struggle with the same kind of struggles that you or I would struggle with, and Job’s wife, more-so than others in the narrative, needs to be looked at through this lens. We need to see her humanity and her hurt and as a result, we need to discuss her character flaws with compassion and not analytical scorn.
Look to other characters in scripture that have committed equally heinous sins. Look to King David who had his friend murdered to cover up his adultery with Bathsheba. Look at Peter who denied our Lord three times and then later, after Pentecost, still falls into fear of the Judaizers and had to be rebuked by Paul, “to his face.” Look at Abram and Sarai who doubted God’s promise and tried to force God’s hand through Hagar. Look at God’s people through history and their stumbles and failures, their doubts and their fears, and when we look at Job’s wife in this light, we see her very differently. Granted, we never see her recanting her statement, but she is restored in the end alongside of her husband. Eliphaz, Zophar, and Bildad are strongly rebuked in the end; Job’s wife is not.
Remember something as well, it is not just Job that is going through this trial, but Job’s wife is going through the testing and trial as well. Are not Job’s children also the children of his wife? Are not the lands, the wealth, and the property of Job also the lands, wealth, and property of his wife? Thus, in all these things, she has lost and suffered and hurt and grieved right alongside of Job—and been faithful, according to the account. Now, though, she sees the hand of trial turn upon her husband to the point where he is reduced to a wretched state, covered with sores and scraping himself with pottery shards, sitting in ashes. And it is here, at this point, that she breaks down and makes the comment that is recorded above.
Let me pose the question, how many confessing Christians have you known through the years who have come to this point? How many Christians have sought euthanasia for a loved one to end their suffering? Is this not the same thing as what Job’s wife is advocating? How many confessing Christians have been so overwhelmed by the grief over the loss or suffering of a loved one, that they have railed against God in anger and rage? Even many of the theological giants have gone through such crises—C.S. Lewis does us the favor of allowing us to see his inner doubts and fears about God as he watched his wife, Joy, wither and die of bone cancer. Friends, if you do not see her grief in these matters, you will interpret her badly, but when you see her grief you will see that these are not the words of a faithless blasphemer, but are the words of a fearful, hurting believer who is not able to bear what she sees taking place in the body of her husband.
The beauty of this whole event, and of our own lives when we face such trials, is that God is bigger than our grief. He is gracious in our doubts and merciful to us even in our anger. And sometimes we need to be brought by God to that point where we can just stop and be still, finding peace in Him—even in the midst of our lack of understanding. He is like a loving Father that once he has loved and held his child through a fit of rage, sits calmly with them and comforts that child in the wake of the fit. The beauty, loved ones, is that we don’t need to understand, simply trust that God understands and will work even the most horrendous things for our well-being. Thus, the next time you are ready to condemn Job’s wife, remember that she is human and remember that you are too; that ought to show her in a different light.
Is the Bible Inerrant? July 04, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Reality Check.Tags: Bible, Christ, death, eternal life, faith, God's Word, Inerrancy, Jesus, Scripture, Truth
add a comment
One of the things we talk a lot about in church circles is the authority of scripture—that it is given by God and is designed to instruct us in every area of life. One of the terms that we use when we speak of why the scriptures are authoritative is the term “inerrant.” But I have found that while we often throw that term around, a lot of times, people aren’t entirely sure what the term means.
To be “inerrant” means far more than something has no errors in it. When I was in school, I regularly had “error-free” mathematics tests; when I was in seminary, many of my Hebrew vocabulary tests were found to be “error-free,” but none of these were inerrant. The word inerrant means not only that something has no errors, but that it is incapable of making an error. The Oxford American Dictionary defines “inerrant” as “incapable of being wrong.” One writer described the inerrancy of the scriptures in this way: “They are exempt from the liability to mistake.”
So why do we ascribe such a nature to the scriptures? To begin with, they are God’s word, and if God is incapable of making a mistake, then his word also must be incapable of making a mistake—remembering that those who wrote down God’s word were “moved along by the Spirit” as a ship is blown by the wind filling its sails (2 Peter 1:21). In the language of the Apostle Paul, scripture is exhaled by God (2 Timothy 3:16) and thus is the source of all training and guidance for the believer. These are God’s words and not man’s and thus we ought to expect them to carry the authority and attributes of God’s character and not man’s character.
It is granted that there are many these days that doubt the inerrancy of scripture. For some, it is a plain matter of unbelief. For others it is misinformation or not having studied the evidence. For others it is the fear that if one acknowledges these words to be the inerrant word of God then one must submit one’s life to scripture’s authority and demands, and such is true. Regardless of the reason that people doubt, Scripture has withstood every test and challenge that has been leveled at it.
There is one other thing that is worth noting about such a book as we have. Not only are the scriptures our only guide for faith and life, but they are the only book to guide us as we go to our deaths. The Bible shows us Jesus Christ, our need for him as a redeemer, and his promise that if we trust in him in life, confessing him with our lips and believing in him in our hearts, he will confess us before the Father and guarantee us eternal life in paradise. For the one who is facing death, this is the kind of knowledge that brings peace and enables them to leave this world with grace and not fear. It is no wonder that the Scriptures are what most people ask to have read to them on their deathbeds, and not Shakespeare or Coleridge. The Bible is the one book that transcends death because it was written by a God who died and rose again—promising that he would do the same for us.
Education Versus Programming June 13, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.Tags: Imago Dei, Christian Education, Education, Imitatio Dei, teaching, philosophy, instruction, genetic programming, pedagogy, purpose of education, educere, instruere
add a comment
(the following is excerpted from my essay, “Teaching Image Bearers, not just Warm Bodies,” which is part of the compilation: Docens Coram Deo: Teaching Before the Face of God. This book is written as a festschrift in honor of Bob Grete and Harold Thomas, the founders of Rocky Bayou Christian School, on the school’s 35th anniversary. Copies can be acquired at the above link; I served as the editor of this Festschrift.)
As mentioned before, the naturalistic model sees the human mind as nothing more than a super-computer, capable of processing and retaining a vast array of data which is then manipulated by genetic programming in such a way as to output a result that we commonly describe as thought. Thus, in principle, educating a human is akin to programming a computer. Yet, if humans are altogether different than a computer, what must our approach to education be?
The beginning of the answer to that question is found in the very meaning of the word, “educate.” The English word derives from the Latin verb, educere, which literally means, “to lead out. Thus, the purpose of education is not so much that of putting in, but bringing out. Now one might argue that children are not born with an innate knowledge of history, mathematics, or even of the Bible and thus, “putting in” is an important part of education. And indeed, that is where instruction comes in—instruction coming from the Latin verb, instruere, which literally means, “to pile in.” Yet notice the relationship of these two terms. Instruction is not the end goal—education is. In other words, you instruct towards the end of educating a student—you pile in mathematics, history, science, and Bible not so that a student will be full of ideas (many of which a student may never use again in life), but you instruct so that something will be brought out in them. What needs to be brought out? It is the image of God that they bear which needs to be brought out.
In the fall, the righteous image of God in man has become warped, distorted, mangled, and bent, but not lost (Genesis 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; James 3:9). We are born in the state of sin (Psalm 51:5), by nature we do not seek righteousness (Romans 3:10-11), we are at enmity with God (James 4:4), our hearts are corrupt (Mark 7:21), we commit sin through both action and inaction, and we sin with our intentions (Matthew 5:21-48) as well as with our activities. In addition, when we break a portion of the Law, we are guilty of breaking it as a whole (James 2:10). There is nothing good in us by nature (Romans 7:18)—we have been corrupted by sin in every aspect of our being. Of course, education is not a substitute for the work of the Holy Spirit in redemption and sanctification, yet it is a tool by which the Holy Spirit can and does use, both in the process of growth in grace and to enable parents to fulfill their God-given mandate to raise up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; Deuteronomy 4:9; Proverbs 22:6).
Thus, if our teaching reflects only the idea of giving students information, we are not fulfilling our calling. When little Billy asks, “Why do we need to study literature?”, it is not enough to tell him that he needs the knowledge of literature so that he will be able to communicate ideas with others in this world, nor is it enough to tell him that God has called him to take dominion of the world, and that means taking dominion of the literary culture as well as the geography. These statements both may be true, but they are yet insufficient. We must also be telling little Billy that he is made in the image of God and that God loves language and that God loves expressing himself through every form of language; thus, if he is to reflect that image of God faithfully, he needs to nurture within himself that same kind of love for language and the study of literature is designed to help nurture that love and appreciation for the expression of ideas through language. I have applied this to literature, but the same argument can and should be applied to every discipline of study. There is a reason that we expose students to a broad array of academic studies rather than allowing them to concentrate their studies in a particular area of interest, and it is not to make students more “well-rounded,” but it is because God’s character is reflected in each of these disciplines and to reflect the Imago Dei, each of these disciplines must be applied to our character. Thus, if we are to educate and not program, and if education is a tool used by the Holy Spirit in sanctification to bring out the Imago Dei, we must instruct in every academic discipline.
Foundational Biblical Principles to Classroom Management May 23, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Uncategorized.Tags: Bible, Biblical Principles, Christian Education, Christian Philosophy, classroom, Classroom Management, discipline, Education, homeschooling, Imago Dei, living faithfully, parental responsibility in education, parents teaching, Peah 1:1, Philosophy of Christian education, Philosophy of Education, sanctification, Sin, teachers
add a comment
Some initial thoughts as to some Biblical principles that ought to shape the way Christian schools and Christian teachers order their classrooms. These thoughts are not meant as exhaustive, but instead are meant to be a Biblical foundation upon which a philosophy of Christian education can be built.
1. The interaction with students, from instruction to discipline, must be built on the principle that students bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26), and though that image was twisted and deformed as a result of the fall through the entrance of sin and death (Romans 5:12), the image of God was not lost in the fall (Genesis 9:6). Thus, a large part of the role of Christian education is that of “straightening” the fallen person—helping to restore the person in such a way that they accurately reflect the image of God. As Christ is the perfect reflection of the invisible God (Colossians 1:15), it is into the image modeled for us by Christ that we seek to direct the transformation of our students. The life and well-being of the child is seen by scripture in a special way (Psalm 127:3; Matthew 19:14; Mark 9:42). How we handle sin in the classroom as well as education in the classroom must be seen in this context, and teachers are to understand that they are to be held to a higher standard than others (James 3:1).
2. Education is a divinely ordained responsibility of parents, but particularly that of the Father as the covenant head of the household (Ephesians 6:4; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:10; 6:7, 20-21; 11:19; 32:46; Psalm 78:5; 2 Timothy 1:5). It is also noted in scripture that the Levitical priests were to come alongside of the parents for the purpose of educating their children (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10; Judges 13:8; 1 Samuel 12:23; Ezekiel 44:23; 2 Chronicles 15:3) as part of the larger covenantal community of believers (Exodus 6:7; Leviticus 26:12; Matthew 2:6; Romans 9:25; 2 Corinthians 6:16). There are also occasions where others within the covenant community who had particular gifts and skills were gifted to teach (Exodus 35:34). While it is recognized that God’s people can learn things from non-believers (1 Kings 5:6; Acts 7:22), the Bible presents teaching as an activity to be undertaken by the covenant community. Though the Levitical Priesthood has fallen away and been replaced by Christ (Hebrews 7), all believers are now priests (1 Peter 2:9; Isaiah 66:20-21) and thus responsible to fulfill the Levitical functions which are not a part of the sacrificial system as that role has been fulfilled by Christ alone (Hebrews 10:10-14). Hence, Christian parents must not only seek to oversee the education of their children, but they also have a Biblical mandate that the education of their children is done by Christians, and not by non-believers. In turn, teachers must be mindful that they are serving as proxies for the student’s parents, not as replacements and are to instruct in such a fashion as to honor the parents for whom they are acting.
3. The teacher must understand that the Biblical end of education is to equip the students to obedience to God’s commands so that their days may be long in the land (Deuteronomy 5:33; 11:9). Hence, children are also commanded to honor their parents (which implies an honoring of their instruction) so that their days may be long in the land (Exodus 20:12). The Biblical idiom of “living long” does not so much refer to long physical life in the land as it refers to the life and essential health of the covenantal community of the faithful in the land which God had given them. This language, though, is later applied to the church (Ephesians 6:3) under the auspices of living faithfully in the world. To accomplish this, teaching is to include the law for righteous living (Exodus 24:12; 2 Kings 17:27) and also instruction in more mundane areas (2 Samuel 1:8; Exodus 35:25; Isaiah 28:23-29). In addition, scripture mandates the teaching of the history of God’s acts (Exodus 12:14; 2 Samuel 1:18; Psalm 66:5). Thus, teaching that is scriptural (and hence mandated to be done within the community of faith) is teaching that covers every discipline of life and is designed so that the believer may walk in reverence and obedience to the commands of God (Deuteronomy 14:22; Micah 4:2; 1 Peter 1:16). The implication of this marks Christian teaching as being something distinct from secular (the Greek model) education. For the heathen, religion and faith have no bearing on one’s thinking, philosophy, or ordinary life; for the Christian, knowledge of God lived out in faith is everything—there is no aspect of life that religion is not meant to touch and inform. Hence, the Christian classroom needs to reflect that principle.
4. Discipline is a God-given tool by which education is furthered (Hebrews 12:5-11; Psalm 50:16-23; Proverbs 12:1; 13:24; Revelation 3:19). It is designed to keep children from vicious teachings and error, to suppress feelings of bitterness of students who have been wronged, to punish wrongdoing, and to show the repulsive nature of sin and the pains that are associated with it. Said discipline should be non-preferential and balanced to suit the infraction. Discipline also should not be designed to break, humiliate, or discourage the child from a pursuit of a God-honoring life. It should be firm, but delivered with a spirit of kindness and not vengeance or anger. Ultimately discipline should build up not only the student being disciplined, but the entire class as well. Finally, once discipline is administered, the student is to be considered as justified as to the law of the classroom and should be reinstated to the covenantal community of the class in question without lingering reminders of said sin.
A few final thoughts about the childhood education that Jesus would have received:
- Synagogue schools were funded by the parents of the children attending. The education of poor students was funded by donations given in the temple or at Sabbath worship.
- Teachers were salaried by the synagogue and were not allowed to accept money from wealthy families lest favoritism be given.
- Teachers were forbidden from losing their patience with students for not understanding concepts, but were expected to be able to make them plain to all.
- Kindness was encouraged and schools used the strap in discipline, not the rod.
- Parents were prohibited from sending their children to schools in other communities for the purpose of eliminating rivalries and to maintain the educational level of the town.
- Leviticus was the first book taught to children (particularly Leviticus 1-8).
- Other passages of scripture that were found in Children’s primers were: the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 11:13-21; Numbers 15:37-41); the Hallel Psalms (Psalms 113-118); and The Creation and Flood narratives (Genesis 1-11).
- To the Jew, the study of scripture was of greater importance than any other study they could pursue. The culture considered it profane to even learn a trade apart from a study of the scriptures. The study of trades did not replace scriptural study, but flowed out of scriptural study.
Part of a Traditional Jewish Morning Prayer:
“These are the things of which man eats the fruit of the world, but their possession continues for the next world: to honor the father and mother, pious works, peacemaking between man and man, and the study of the law, which is equivalent to them all.”
(Peah 1:1)
Angry with God’s Mercy (Jonah 4:1) April 27, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Devotions, Various.Tags: angry against God, angry with God, Assyrian, Evangelism, evangelizing our enemies, God's grace, God's mercy, Grace, Jonah 4:1, Mercy, ministry, Nineveh, serving one's enemies
add a comment
“And it was evil to Jonah—a great evil—and he burned over it.” (Jonah 4:1)
In case you hadn’t noticed Jonah’s attitude toward the Ninevites by his lackluster sermon in Nineveh, the true feelings of our wayward prophet come out as we move to the final chapter of this story. Most of our English versions water down the wording of this verse some, putting Jonah in a little better light; only Young’s Literal Translation seems to grasp the full strength of the situation when they translate it, “It was grievous to Jonah.” Literally, the Hebrew reads that it was evil to Jonah and then emphasizes again that it was a great evil to Jonah! Just as the Ninevites’ idolatry was evil in the eyes of God; God’s mercy toward the people of Nineveh was evil in the eyes of Jonah. And not only that, his anger burned toward God on account of this mercy. You can almost picture Jonah, standing at the edge of the city with clenched teeth and fists, his face red with rage, and steam coming out of his ears. This guy is about to explode.
It is easy to want to find excuses to water this image down a bit. Nobody likes to see one of the Biblical heroes completely lose his cool—especially when it comes to God’s mercy. But the reality is that Jonah was human and Nineveh was the winter capital of the Assyrian Empire, people that the Jews desperately hated. These two nations were fierce enemies and no good Jew in his right mind would want to see the people of Nineveh blessed. These people of Nineveh were violent pagans and idolaters; there was nothing in them that seemed redeemable in the eyes of Jonah. Yet, these people repented and God showed them mercy. This kind of thing was just simply not right and proper! God had some teaching to do with his prophet.
It is easy to jump on Jonah’s case and start wagging our fingers in accusation. Oh, how sophisticated we have become in sending missionaries to all the corners of the earth. See how we have such a broad view of God’s mercy toward the nations! At the same time, what about those ministries to people groups we don’t particularly like? What about ministries to the street people in our culture or to the prostitutes? What about ministries to the drug users in our culture or to the gay community? Sometimes we are a little less comfortable about the mercy of God when dealing with these folks. Probably about the closest we can get to how Jonah felt toward the Ninevites would be the feeling of a black pastor working with Ku Klux Klansmen or that of a white pastor working with Black Panther members. Jonah was more than out of his comfort zone; he was in enemy territory.
Yet, beloved, that is exactly the way God works! When Jesus gave the apostles the great commission, he did not qualify what “all the corners of the earth” meant—he simply said, “go.” When we begin to come to terms with just how grievous our own sin is, then how can we who have already received the mercy of God begrudge another from receiving it? Oh, how we are like Jonah, though, when we see God’s blessings poured out somewhere other than on ourselves. Beloved, let us keep Jonah always before us as a reminder that we should rejoice in the mercy of God to all who would repent and believe—let us rejoice as the angels rejoice when one sinner comes to faith—even if that sinner is one we don’t particularly like.
O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be;
Let that grace now, like a fetter,
Bind my wandring heart to thee.
Prone to wander—Lord, I feel it—
Prone to leave the God I love:
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for thy courts above.
-Robert Robinson
Is God Changing His Mind? (Jonah 3:10) April 27, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Devotions, Various.Tags: changing mind, character of God, does God change his mind, finite, God's will, infinite, Jonah 3:10
add a comment
“And God saw their works, that they had turned from their way of the evil, God grieved over the evil which he had threatened to do to them and he did not do it.” (Jonah 3:10)
Now, before you go running off to burn all of your copies of John Calvin’s Institutes and to declare to me that this verse proves that God changes his mind, let’s stop for just one minute and see what it is that is going on in this passage and place it in the context of the rest of God’s revelation. As well, let us keep Ephesians 1:11 and Job 23:13 before us, being reminded that God has ordered all things (not just some, but all) according to his will. Also, God’s will is perfect and right and he does not need to go back to the drawing board periodically to modify his plan to suit the happenings of the world.
God is infinite, timeless, changeless, and boundless; there is no measuring him or constraining his will and plan. At the same time, we are finite and bound by time. For us, there must always be a chronological sequence of actions and reactions—we understand cause and effect, not infinite design. Thus, God condescends to us within history, not because history in some way binds him, but because he wishes to be understood and this is the only way we will understand his revelation. Thus, at times, when God’s activities are described in manners like this, they are described in terms of cause and effect that we might be able to understand what it is that God is doing.
Thus, the language here is not the language of God changing his mind, but it is describing in terms that we can comprehend, all that is going on. Was God’s threat to destroy the city a real one then? Yes, indeed! At the same time, God intentionally moved on the hearts of the king of Nineveh and the people of the city and brought them to repent of their sins. God is a God of mercy, and in bringing them to repentance, he relented of his threat to destroy the city (at least for a time). This is the mercy of God.
Beloved, this mercy of God is the most important thing that you walk away with from this verse or even this chapter of Jonah. God is merciful and kind and those who repent of their sins and turn to God through his son, Jesus Christ, will find forgiveness—that is not just a nice, theological statement, but this is revealed fact. What God has promised, he will do and he does not change his mind mid way through the process. Friends, cling to the mercy of God that is in Jesus Christ. Remind yourself that if God is willing to forgive even the Ninevites, he will also be willing to forgive you of your sins and even the most vile pagan of his or her sins as well. There is no sin too terrible that the blood of Christ can not wash it clean—this is God’s promise to us, and oh, what a blessed promise it is!
Arise, my soul, arise,
Shake off your guilty fears;
The bleeding Sacrifice in my behalf appears;
Before the throne my Surety stands,
Before the throne my Surety stands,
My name is written on His hands.
-Charles Wesley
Fasting (Jonah 3:7-9) April 24, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Devotions, Various.Tags: Christian Fasting, Fasting, Jonah, Times to Fast, Ways not to Fast
add a comment
“And he made a proclamation, saying, ‘From the learning of the king and his great ones—neither man or beast, nor cattle or flock should taste anything. Let them not pasture nor let them drink water. Rather, they shall cover themselves with sackcloth—man and beast—they shall call to God in strength, and each man shall turn from his way of the evil and from the violence that is in their hands. Who knows, God may turn and relent and turn from his wrath and we will not perish.” (Jonah 3:7-9)
And here we have the king’s proclamation and call to national repentance (or at least city-wide repentance). The proclamation begins with a rather formulaic introduction—“from the learning of the king and his great ones.” We could probably translate this more idiomatically as: “according to the wisdom of the king and his nobles” or “This is the discernment of the king and his advisors.” The general idea is to clearly communicate the authority that this proclamation has. Not only, thus says the king and those governors that are under him in power, but assuming that the king is either the wisest or has access to the wisest men in the area—here is the wisdom of all of these fellows.
The king’s response is to call a fast. Fasting is an important element in the Christian faith that we often ignore in our self-centered culture. When Jesus was preaching what we know as the Sermon on the Mount, he made the assumption that faithful believers did fast. His language is unambiguous, he does not say “if you fast,” but Jesus clearly states, “when you fast” (Matthew 6:16). Given the importance that scripture places on fasting, it would do us well to build an understanding of just what fasting is and what it should be used for.
Perhaps it would be best, though, to first set out a few things that fasting is not. First of all, fasting is not accidental. Because you had a busy day and decided to work through lunch does not mean that you had a fast. Because you forgot to take lunch with you does not mean that you had a fast. As a young man, when my parents were serving liver or tuna-fish casserole for dinner, I often told them that it was my evening to fast as a way of getting out of eating dinner. Though I called these things fasts, they really were nothing of the sort.
Fasts are also not to be done for the praise of men. When fasting, Jesus says, the people around us should not recognize that we are fasting—that is unless they are fasting with us (see Matthew 6:17-18). Fasts are not to be detrimental to your health. God means for our times of fasting to build us up in faith, not for them to tear us down. That means that if you have serious dietary restrictions like diabetes or anemia, you should consult with your doctor before embarking on a time of fasting (it is worth noting that I do know of people with diabetes who do fast, but who take special precautions when doing so). Also, if you happen to be recovering from a sickness or are fighting an illness off, you need to eat to keep up your strength and you should consider postponing your time of fasting until you are well. Though fasting may be done during a time of intense grief and mourning, as a whole, it should be a positive experience, not a detrimental one.
Lastly, fasts should be irregular. They should be the exception in the life of the believer, not something that you do in the course of habit. When we do things on a regular basis, our fallen human nature begins to take things as a matter or routine and habit, and that often decreases the value of such an experience to the participant. Fasting is meant to stretch you and teach you to rely more strongly on the provision of God—routine does not do this.
The point of fasting is not simply that you are giving up food for a time, but that you are subjecting your physical body for spiritual purposes. All too often our lives are dictated by the desires of our flesh. We eat when we get hungry and we sleep when we get tired. In fasting, you submit your body to the needs of your spirit.
Fasting is something that can be done individually or corporately. What we have here in the Jonah account is an instance of a corporate fast and it is done in conjunction with a national tragedy (in this case, the preaching of Jonah). There are certainly plenty of reasons in our day that would spur on a corporate time of fasting within the church. The world threat of terrorism that is going on today, the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies in our own nation, and the way the evangelical church in our culture is losing the purity of its witness are a few examples that might spur us to fast as a body of believers.
On an individual level, scripture gives us a number of examples of reasons to fast. Fasting is something that is done in connection with intense grief over the effects of sin, as David fasted for his dying child after his sin of adultery (2 Samuel 12:16). It is to bear witness to our contrition and humiliation before God, as was part of the king’s motivation in Nineveh. It is meant to stir up our devotions and to set our minds to God, especially when it comes to matters of spiritual discernment. Before choosing Paul and Barnabas to go as missionaries, the church in Antioch was involved in fasting to guide their wisdom (Acts 13:2). In turn, Paul and Barnabas fasted and prayed before choosing elders in the churches they established (Acts 14:23).
Yet, we must always keep before us the fact that while fasting is an important part of the life of the believer as well as being an important aid to prayer, it is not a sure-fire means to getting what we want. God is not a gumball machine in the sky, just because you put a quarter prayer in, does not mean that you will get a sweet treat out. God has ordained all things from before the beginning of creation and when you pray, led by the Holy Spirit, you are praying for those things that God desires you to pray for. You are not changing God’s mind, but are gloriously being allowed to participate in the redemptive plan of God. Often, God will use prayer and fasting to put your heart and mind in the right place so that he can work through you. Never forget what God spoke through the prophet Joel: “rend your hearts, not your garments.”
Beloved, never forget the importance of fasting, but when you do so, do so for the right reasons. Never do it out of a sense of personal holiness, but do it in brokenness. Never do it for the praise of men, but do it in secret—God will know the motivations of your heart. God places no value in empty ritual, but seeks to conform you to his heart, and fasting is one of the means that he uses to do just that.
Thoughts on Structuring a Discipleship Program April 22, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.Tags: character of God, Christian, discipleship, Holy Spirit, Salvation, sanctification, Theology, work of Christ, work of the Holy Spirit
add a comment
Recently, I was asked for some input on how I would structure a discipleship program if I were to have about 6 months of fairly intensive time to work with a small group of men. I thought that I would share my initial thoughts here.
When I began doing homeless ministry, I spent some time looking at some of the sermons found in the book of Acts to gain some insight into a model to base evangelistic preaching/teaching on. The model I came up with covered things in this order: 1) God’s glory, 2) man’s fallen state, 3) the work of Christ, 4) the promise of salvation coupled with the hope of ongoing sanctification in this life.
Unpackaging this in terms of a longer study would look something like this:
I. God’s Glory
a. Who is God?
i. names of God which reflect God’s character
ii. character traits of God
b. What has God done?
i. Creation
ii. Ordaining and Governing history
II. Man’s Fallen State
a. What does it mean to be made in God’s image?
i. the doctrine of the Imago Dei
ii. human dignity as a result of the Imago Dei
iii. the doctrine of the Imitatio Dei (how do we imitate God?)
b. What happened when Adam and Eve sinned?
i. Genesis 3
ii. The promise of a redeemer in Genesis 3
iii. Inherited sin guilt and the impossibility of our paying God back that sin debt on our own merit
c. How has the fall corrupted and contorted the Imago Dei?
i. Our aversion to the things of God and suppression of the truth
ii. The problem of pain–why do bad things happen to good people?
III. The Work of Christ
a. Who is Jesus and why is a Savior important?
i. the person and character of Christ
ii. the names of Christ
iii. the Old Testament prophesies of Christ
iv. The work of a mediator and paraclete
b. How Did Christ save us?
i. the preexistence of Christ
ii. the humiliation of Christ in life and in death
iii. the exaltation of Christ and his ongoing work as mediator at the right hand of God the Father
IV. The Promise of Salvation and the Hope of Sanctification
a. Who is the Holy Spirit?
i. the person of the Spirit
ii. the work of the Spirit
b. What is Faith and how is that tied to salvation?
i. The nature of Faith (Hebrews 11:1)
ii. Regeneration, Conversion, Repentance
c. What does it mean to be saved?
i. Justification
ii. Adoption
d. What happens next once I am saved?
i. Sanctification as a means to prepare for glory
ii. Living all of life “Coram Deo” or “Before the Face of God”
iii. 2 Peter 1:3-11 and adding to the faith as “Partakers of the Divine nature” (untwisting the Imago Dei–like having broken bones set)
iv. The fruit of the Spirit
v. The gifts of the Spirit
vi. Glory
To be Dynamic or not to be Dynamic, that is the question… (John 12:44) April 11, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Bible Translation, Reflections.Tags: Dynamic Equivalence, essentially literal translation, John 12:44, problems with dynamic equivalence, problems with NIV, translation of John 12:44, translation techniques
2 comments
I received a very interesting question recently regarding the translation of John 12:44. The English Standard Version (ESV) translates the passage this way: “And Jesus cried out and said, ‘Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.’”
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) renders it: “And Jesus cried out and said, ‘He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.’”
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translates it: “Then Jesus cried aloud: ‘Whoever believes in me believes not in me but in him who sent me.’”
The King James (KJV) renders it as follows: “Jesus cried and said, ‘He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.’”
Okay, okay, there is not a lot of difference to be found in the translations above; yet look at how the New International Version translates this passage: “Then Jesus cried out, ‘When a man believes in me, he does not believe in me only, but in the one who sent me.’”
For what it is worth, the New Living Translation (NLT) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) render this verse in a similar way to the NIV.
When I was initially asked about this, the person was doing a Bible study and comparing different translations—an excellent habit to get into—and the variation between the NRSV and the NIV was what caught her eye. She said, ‘this seems to change the meaning.’
My initial instinct was to check my Greek testament to see if there was a textual variant in play, but that was not the case. This case has to do with translation methodology. There are different philosophies in Bible translation—at one extreme being a literal translation where every word from the original text is rendered as closely as possible into English. Then, at the other extreme you find paraphrasing, where the author of the translation communicates what their understanding of a particular passage happens to be. In the middle is a philosophy called “dynamic equivalence,” which seeks to translate the passages concept for concept as closely as possible. Now there is certainly a spectrum that these philosophies cross as some are either more literal or more paraphrased than others, but this presents the broad categories at least (for more on translation philosophies see some of my other blogs in this category).
Now back to John 12:44. In the case of this verse, the word “only” is not in any of the Greek manuscripts that are available to us. But instead, the translation committee of the NIV (and other dynamic equivalence translations) felt that the inclusion of the word “only” would help to clarify the meaning of Jesus’ statement. Yet, rather than clarify the statement, it seems to confound it. In the passage, Jesus is saying to his disciples that if we believe in Him, we are not really setting our faith in him but in the Father, who sent Christ. God is one, it is impossible to put one’s faith in Jesus Christ without resting one’s faith in God the Father, and visa-versa. The same applies to the Spirit as well, the three persons of the Trinity are not separable. Jesus is speaking of the unity of the Godhead.
When you include the word “only” in the translation, the passage loses this sense of unity that Jesus is speaking of and interjects the idea that it is possible to believe in one member of the Trinity and not the others, potentially even suggesting a divisibility in the Trinity. This is opening the door to serious Trinitarian error, suggesting a divisibility within the Godhead, a form of polytheistic error.
My purpose in writing this is threefold. First, I think that it serves as an excellent example as to the differences between an essentially literal translation like the ESV or NASB translations and the dynamic equivalence models like the NIV and the NLT. My second purpose is to illustrate the value of reading multiple translations side by side in your Bible study (unless you are going to learn the original languages. While my third purpose is not to knock translations like the NIV, it is to remind folks that the NIV is not the best Bible to be working from for serious Bible study.
Please do not misunderstand me, if you love the NIV and that is the only Bible you have or the only Bible you can understand, then please read it. Read it with gusto! God will bless your reading of the NIV, the NLT, or even my least favorite, the Message. God will bless the reading of anything that approximates his Word. Even the NASB and ESV have flaws. My point is simply to say that for Bible study, where you are trying to get as close to what John (or whoever the writer happens to be) is actually writing. To do that, you ought to seek to have several essentially literal translations at your disposal to compare so that you can get a clear sense of what is being said.
One final note: as pastors we have the responsibility of teaching and guiding our flocks on the path of truth. But this responsibility does not lie with pastors alone. It resides with church leaders, with parents, and with every Christian believer. We must teach ourselves to recognize error in our culture and in our churches so that we can take a stand for the faith that was once and for all time delivered to the saints.
What does Church Architecture Point Toward? April 02, 2009
Posted by preacherwin in Odds & Ends, Reflections.Tags: architecture, center of worship, Church, Church Architecture, contemporary worship, implications, most important aspects of worship, non-traditional church, non-traditional worship, Reformed Church Architecture, Roman Catholic Church architecture, traditional church, traditional vs. non-traditional worship, traditional worship, warehouse churches
add a comment
With the coming of the reformation, particularly with the coming of Calvin’s reformation in Geneva, came a shift in the architecture of the Church building. In the architecture of the medieval Roman Catholic church, the central item in the front of the church—the area that everything in the church pointed, so as to direct one’s attention toward—was the altar. In the Roman Catholic service, it is the Mass that is central to worship, and since the altar was central to the Mass, the altar was made to be the focal point of the church.
Yet, for Calvin, it was not the Mass that was central—in fact, the Mass was done away with altogether as being unbiblical and in contradiction with Christ’s sacrifice being once and for all time as pointed out in Hebrews 10. For Calvin, the Holy Scriptures were central along with their exposition and proclamation. Thus, as a result of the Calvinistic influence, the pulpit and the scriptures were moved to the central part of the church symbolizing its importance and its centrality to worship.
This abovementioned transition is fairly well established in history, but I began to reflect recently on other changes that seem to be taking place in church architecture as churches move away from a traditional church model to a more non-traditional, assembly room/warehouse model of worship. Architecturally, what is center? In many instances, the stage has been cleared as to place nothing at the central point. One of the trends that ties in with this has been a move toward a translucent pulpit, almost as if nothing is there at all.
Now, I confess that I have a bias toward a traditional church worship and traditional church architecture with the Lord’s Sacred Desk (the pulpit) placed centrally in the church to visually make the statement, “This is the most important thing we do!” And, I suppose that by posting these views here I will be stepping on the toes of some folks even in my own denomination who have embraced a more non-traditional model. I know that when you are reaching out to unchurched folks, many times they feel intimidated by the traditional elements of church architecture and worship—then again, is church supposed to be about making people comfortable or is it supposed to be about pointing toward Truth (and Truth never makes people feel comfortable, not even me). The traditional architecture and the scriptures presented remind us that we are part of a tradition that is far older than we are.
But can we set our biases to the side for a moment and pose the question as to what this new, non-traditional architecture points toward? In other words, what does the eye focus on, what does the church layout communicate as being central? I would suggest that in the absence of the pulpit or the altar, what is presented as central is the man, whether that man be the pastor or the worship leader, it seems to be the man that all of the eyes turn toward. It is also worth noting, and this is where many more toes are going to be stepped on, that preaching has also reflected this change. The systematic and consecutive exposition of scripture has largely been replaced by topical and practical preaching. This does not mean that the preaching is not laced with scripture, it is, but the scripture becomes secondary to the topic and the topics tend to be very anthrocentric, dealing more with how to live in this world than with how God has revealed himself to this world.
In making this assertion, please do not think that I am rejecting application in a sermon—sermons must be laced with application, but I would suggest that application needs to be drawn out of the scriptures, while in the non-traditional model, the scriptures are used to support the application. In the first, the scripture is the primary focus, in the latter, the application is the primary focus. In a very real sense, this is reflected in the changed architecture where no longer is every eye drawn to the pulpit, but where every eye is drawn toward the man. Every decision we make carries with it ramifications, and I think that we must be careful in seeking new models and contexts for church worship, for when we change the focal point, oftentimes other changes follow as well.
