Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Monday, January 29, 2007
Solomon’s Benediction
‘Now as Solomon finished offering all this prayer and pleas to the Lord, he arose from before the altar of the Lord, where he had knelt with hands outstretched toward heaven. And he stood and blessed all the assembly of Israel with a loud voice, saying, “Blessed be the Lord who has given rest to His people Israel, according to all of His good promise, which He spoke by Moses His servant. The Lord our God be with us, as He was with our fathers. May He not leave us or forsake us, that He may incline our hearts to Him, to walk in all His ways and to keep His commandments, His statues, and His rules, which He commanded our fathers. Let these words of mine, with which I have pleaded before the Lord, be near to the Lord our God day and night, and may He maintain the cause of His servant and the cause of His people Israel, as each day requires, that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other. Let your heart therefore be wholly true to the Lord our God, walking in His statues and keeping His commandments, as at this day.’” 1 Kings 8:34-61.
What a wonderful benediction. I especially love verse 60. For God does all so that His name may be made known among all nations. Praise His name.
What a wonderful benediction. I especially love verse 60. For God does all so that His name may be made known among all nations. Praise His name.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
God’s Personalized Will
Today’s sermon was very good. The speaker talked about the common folly in the evangelical world of attempting to discern God’s specific will for your life.
He said that ‘God opens doors of opportunities’ is actually a Christian way of saying that everything depends on circumstances. He had issues with people who say that God told them to do something, and noted that when the person gets tired of doing what God has told them to do that he or she moves onto to something else.
He pointed to the story of David. He had two opportunities to kill the man who was seeking to end his life, but he didn’t. The speaker also pointed to Acts where Paul and Silas could have escaped from prison after an earthquake but choose not to. God may have provided an opportunity for them to escape, but instead they used the opportunity to continue witnessing to the prison guard.
He noted that many people attempt to discern God’s leading by ‘listening to a small voice’ or acting on a ‘right and peaceful’ feeling.
James McGoldrick, professor of Church History at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, also takes the ‘God spoke to me’ mentality to task.
“Living in the center of God’s will has achieved the status of a pious platitude, a perceived mark of spirituality,” he wrote.[i]
He says that many evangelicals, “profess to be in immediate contact with God, whom, they assert emphatically, gives them specific directions in addition to the moral precepts of the Bible.”[ii]
He continues, “Their error lies in a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide for all of life. It is, for example, not unusual for evangelicals to explain the movement of their membership from one congregation to another as the consequence of the Lord’s leading. Pastors sometimes relate that they entered the ministry in response to a divine call in the nature of a vision or an audible voice. At times many Christians make crucial moral decisions, for example, whom to marry, on the basis of an emotional experience they choose to regard as the leading of the Lord.”[iii]
[i] James McGoldrick, Christianity and Its Competitors: The New Faces of Old Heresy. Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2006, (p. 68).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
He said that ‘God opens doors of opportunities’ is actually a Christian way of saying that everything depends on circumstances. He had issues with people who say that God told them to do something, and noted that when the person gets tired of doing what God has told them to do that he or she moves onto to something else.
He pointed to the story of David. He had two opportunities to kill the man who was seeking to end his life, but he didn’t. The speaker also pointed to Acts where Paul and Silas could have escaped from prison after an earthquake but choose not to. God may have provided an opportunity for them to escape, but instead they used the opportunity to continue witnessing to the prison guard.
He noted that many people attempt to discern God’s leading by ‘listening to a small voice’ or acting on a ‘right and peaceful’ feeling.
James McGoldrick, professor of Church History at Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, also takes the ‘God spoke to me’ mentality to task.
“Living in the center of God’s will has achieved the status of a pious platitude, a perceived mark of spirituality,” he wrote.[i]
He says that many evangelicals, “profess to be in immediate contact with God, whom, they assert emphatically, gives them specific directions in addition to the moral precepts of the Bible.”[ii]
He continues, “Their error lies in a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture as a guide for all of life. It is, for example, not unusual for evangelicals to explain the movement of their membership from one congregation to another as the consequence of the Lord’s leading. Pastors sometimes relate that they entered the ministry in response to a divine call in the nature of a vision or an audible voice. At times many Christians make crucial moral decisions, for example, whom to marry, on the basis of an emotional experience they choose to regard as the leading of the Lord.”[iii]
[i] James McGoldrick, Christianity and Its Competitors: The New Faces of Old Heresy. Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2006, (p. 68).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Secular Façade
An advocacy group called Secular Ontario formed last year has been complaining to municipal councils that their policies contravene a 1999 ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Councillors continue to open meetings with the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, and that, according to Secular Ontario, is inappropriate.
I’m agnostic about the issue itself. It’s a nice tradition, but if most of the people are unregenerate, then I don’t see the usefulness in reciting the prayer. I do think that municipalities should be able to decide what they want to do, without the meddling of Secular Ontario.
However most concerning is how Secular Ontario frames their position. They are arguing that the Lord’s Prayer violates the Charter rights of non-Christians attending the council meetings. According to Secular Ontario’s president, Henry Beissel, their objective is to ensure different religions can live in harmony.
That argument, of course, is a façade. Secularists are secularists because they believe religion – that is all religion – is inappropriate in the public square.
The same Henry Beissel who claims that he’s only trying to promote tolerance for religious minorities has also said that human survival depends on eliminating religion.
Secular Ontario is not only being dishonest but they are being uncongenial to adherents of non-Christian religions by presumptuously speaking on behalf of them.
Other people have caught onto Secular Ontario’s disgraceful tactic.
Natalie Alcoba wrote:
“Rongna Liang, a Chinese immigrant who lives in Whitby, Ont., took issue with using the rights of immigrants as an excuse to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from the process.
''We certainly did not come here to pursue a secular society,'' said Liang. She wondered why ''this most valuable tradition'' was being pushed around.”
I wonder too.
Source: Natalie Alcoba, Lord's Prayer compromise reached in Ontario. CanWest News Service, 25 Jan 2007. Accessed 27 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=fd234c72-422c-4714-ac8b-119b55e3955b&k=11628
I’m agnostic about the issue itself. It’s a nice tradition, but if most of the people are unregenerate, then I don’t see the usefulness in reciting the prayer. I do think that municipalities should be able to decide what they want to do, without the meddling of Secular Ontario.
However most concerning is how Secular Ontario frames their position. They are arguing that the Lord’s Prayer violates the Charter rights of non-Christians attending the council meetings. According to Secular Ontario’s president, Henry Beissel, their objective is to ensure different religions can live in harmony.
That argument, of course, is a façade. Secularists are secularists because they believe religion – that is all religion – is inappropriate in the public square.
The same Henry Beissel who claims that he’s only trying to promote tolerance for religious minorities has also said that human survival depends on eliminating religion.
Secular Ontario is not only being dishonest but they are being uncongenial to adherents of non-Christian religions by presumptuously speaking on behalf of them.
Other people have caught onto Secular Ontario’s disgraceful tactic.
Natalie Alcoba wrote:
“Rongna Liang, a Chinese immigrant who lives in Whitby, Ont., took issue with using the rights of immigrants as an excuse to eliminate the Lord's Prayer from the process.
''We certainly did not come here to pursue a secular society,'' said Liang. She wondered why ''this most valuable tradition'' was being pushed around.”
I wonder too.
Source: Natalie Alcoba, Lord's Prayer compromise reached in Ontario. CanWest News Service, 25 Jan 2007. Accessed 27 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics/story.html?id=fd234c72-422c-4714-ac8b-119b55e3955b&k=11628
Friday, January 26, 2007
Church Growth
Hartford Seminary recently released an interesting report on church growth based on data collected from hundreds of American congregations across a spectrum of religions and denominations.
Several of the findings are not surprising; churches most likely to grow are those in the Sunbelt suburbs, which, of course also correlates with the fastest-growing areas in the country. Conversely, rural and small churches are least likely to grow.
Additional information fits well with the well-known narrative of church growth. Conservative evangelical churches are growing faster than liberal mainline churches. Of interest though, is that the study found a slim number of very liberal churches also growing.
As Al Mohler noted in his radio commentary about the report, it’s another stats-based addition to the growing evidence that churches which preach what they believe and believe what they preach (whether it’s conservative or liberal theology) attract people.
Other tidbits of interest: Despite a surging Roman Catholic population, attendance at Mass is not rising; churches with a web presence are more likely to get bigger than those with no web site; and many inner city churches have experienced a rebound.
Most humorous: Brethren are classified as ‘other Christian’ alongside Latter-day Saints and Seventh Day Adventists.
Perhaps most interesting is another defining factor of church growth. Churches most likely to grow are those attract young adults.
Al Mohler noted that this is probably because young adults are the most difficult demographic to reach, and churches that are able to do this are obviously doing something correct.
My experience matches perfectly with the research. I’ve been active in six churches; three Anglican & three Baptist. Three were growing; three were not. Many young adults attended the churches that were growing. The three that were stagnant or declining had next to no young adults (I was usually the only one). The fastest-growing church among the six was also the most theologically conservative. The most stagnant was the most pragmatic.
The report, in its entirety can be found here:
http://fact.hartsem.edu/CongGrowth.pdf
Several of the findings are not surprising; churches most likely to grow are those in the Sunbelt suburbs, which, of course also correlates with the fastest-growing areas in the country. Conversely, rural and small churches are least likely to grow.
Additional information fits well with the well-known narrative of church growth. Conservative evangelical churches are growing faster than liberal mainline churches. Of interest though, is that the study found a slim number of very liberal churches also growing.
As Al Mohler noted in his radio commentary about the report, it’s another stats-based addition to the growing evidence that churches which preach what they believe and believe what they preach (whether it’s conservative or liberal theology) attract people.
Other tidbits of interest: Despite a surging Roman Catholic population, attendance at Mass is not rising; churches with a web presence are more likely to get bigger than those with no web site; and many inner city churches have experienced a rebound.
Most humorous: Brethren are classified as ‘other Christian’ alongside Latter-day Saints and Seventh Day Adventists.
Perhaps most interesting is another defining factor of church growth. Churches most likely to grow are those attract young adults.
Al Mohler noted that this is probably because young adults are the most difficult demographic to reach, and churches that are able to do this are obviously doing something correct.
My experience matches perfectly with the research. I’ve been active in six churches; three Anglican & three Baptist. Three were growing; three were not. Many young adults attended the churches that were growing. The three that were stagnant or declining had next to no young adults (I was usually the only one). The fastest-growing church among the six was also the most theologically conservative. The most stagnant was the most pragmatic.
The report, in its entirety can be found here:
http://fact.hartsem.edu/CongGrowth.pdf
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Amusing Goats
I’m often asked, or ask other people myself ‘How was church?” But upon reflection, this isn’t a very good question to ask. For it’s too much like asking ‘How was the movie?”
And church is hardly a movie theatre. At least it’s not supposed to be. Many churches though have tried to make their services more entertaining, either through sermons delivered by preachers pretending to be stand up comics, or strobe lights and fog machines brought in to ‘enhance’ the worship experience.
A move to entertain congregations isn’t new. Charles Spurgeon delivered a message in the 1800s called, Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?
Spurgeon said,
"An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.
From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses. My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him.
In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.
Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire."
Source: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/amusement.htm
And church is hardly a movie theatre. At least it’s not supposed to be. Many churches though have tried to make their services more entertaining, either through sermons delivered by preachers pretending to be stand up comics, or strobe lights and fog machines brought in to ‘enhance’ the worship experience.
A move to entertain congregations isn’t new. Charles Spurgeon delivered a message in the 1800s called, Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats?
Spurgeon said,
"An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it during the past few years. It has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.
From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses. My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if He had added, "and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel." No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him.
In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of this gospel of amusement! Their message is, "Come out, keep out, keep clean out!" Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon.
Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment has been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire."
Source: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/amusement.htm
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
January 24
Early this morning (1 am) I was perusing the New Testament I had pulled off my bookshelf several hours earlier. It was the first time I had picked up this particular copy of the New Testament in a while.
After reading some passages I turned to the back to see what date I had ‘signed’ my name to receive Christ. I had, in fact, already received Christ several years earlier, but I decided one night to codify this event. It was important to me to imprint my signature into the copy of the New Testament that the Lord used to save me.
The date?
January 24, 1999.
After reading some passages I turned to the back to see what date I had ‘signed’ my name to receive Christ. I had, in fact, already received Christ several years earlier, but I decided one night to codify this event. It was important to me to imprint my signature into the copy of the New Testament that the Lord used to save me.
The date?
January 24, 1999.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Skill Testing Question
This evening I decided to investigate why Canada has skill testing questions as a legal attachment to many contests in Canada.
Well, thanks to wikipedia, I now know.
Apparently, the combined effect of Sections 197 to 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code bans for-profit gaming or betting, with exceptions made for provincial lotteries, and licensed casinos and charity events.
However, stores, radio stations and other groups want to hold contests. These organizations take advantage of the fact that the law does allow prizes to be given for games of skill, or mixed games of skill and chance. Therefore, in order to make the chance-based contests legal, such games generally have mathematical skill-testing questions incorporated.
For contests held in the United States or other countries that are open to Canadians, the questions must also be asked of any Canadian winner.
The same section of law prohibits receiving consideration in exchange for playing the games, resulting in a related peculiarity of Canadian contests: the "free entry alternative", which is why we see "No purchase necessary". This means it is possible to enter the contest for free by writing a letter to request a game piece or entry form.
Well, thanks to wikipedia, I now know.
Apparently, the combined effect of Sections 197 to 206 of the Canadian Criminal Code bans for-profit gaming or betting, with exceptions made for provincial lotteries, and licensed casinos and charity events.
However, stores, radio stations and other groups want to hold contests. These organizations take advantage of the fact that the law does allow prizes to be given for games of skill, or mixed games of skill and chance. Therefore, in order to make the chance-based contests legal, such games generally have mathematical skill-testing questions incorporated.
For contests held in the United States or other countries that are open to Canadians, the questions must also be asked of any Canadian winner.
The same section of law prohibits receiving consideration in exchange for playing the games, resulting in a related peculiarity of Canadian contests: the "free entry alternative", which is why we see "No purchase necessary". This means it is possible to enter the contest for free by writing a letter to request a game piece or entry form.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Heavenly Resort?
I saw a commercial this morning for a luxury resort with the tagline ‘It’s like heaven, but without the long term commitment.’
What an odd thing to say, I thought to myself.
A swanky resort can hardly be compared to the glories of heaven. People go to a resort to escape reality by endulging in an artificial realm. It’s a place where, they imagine, their pains and aches can be soothed (especially at resorts with spas).
Similarly, many people envision heaven to be a place without physical pain. But Charles Spurgeon points out:
“Here has been the very ground of that error into which many persons have fallen concerning heaven. They have said that they would like to go to heaven. What for? For this reason: they looked upon it as a place where they should be free from bodily pain. They should not have the head-ache or the tooth-ache there, nor any of those diseases which flesh is heir to, and whenever God laid his hand upon them they began to wish themselves in heaven, because they regarded it as a heaven of the senses - a heaven which the eye hath seen or the ear heard. A great mistake; for although we shall have a body free from pain, yet it is not a heaven where our senses shall indulge themselves.”[i]
Others say they look forward to heaven to have access to “think, there (heaven) shall we have all the delights of the flesh; there shall we drink from bowls of nectared wine; there shall we lavishly indulge ourselves, and our body shall enjoy every delight of which it is capable.”[ii]
But Spurgeon notes, “What a mistake for us to conceive such a thing! Heaven is not a place for the delight of mere sense; we shall be raised not a sensual body, but a spiritual body. We can get no conceptions of heaven through the senses; they must always come through the Spirit.”[iii]
Most troubling to me though, was the suggestion in the commercial that the everlasting nature of heaven is a negative thing.
Not so. Indeed, the very opposite is true; for the everlasting nature of heaven testifies to God’s extraordinary power and mercy. That we, sinners, should dwell with Him forever is a gift that makes even the most luxurious resort seem crass and gaudy.
[i] Charles Spurgeon, Heaven, 16 Dec. 1855. Accessed 22 Jan 2007. Available: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0056.htm
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
What an odd thing to say, I thought to myself.
A swanky resort can hardly be compared to the glories of heaven. People go to a resort to escape reality by endulging in an artificial realm. It’s a place where, they imagine, their pains and aches can be soothed (especially at resorts with spas).
Similarly, many people envision heaven to be a place without physical pain. But Charles Spurgeon points out:
“Here has been the very ground of that error into which many persons have fallen concerning heaven. They have said that they would like to go to heaven. What for? For this reason: they looked upon it as a place where they should be free from bodily pain. They should not have the head-ache or the tooth-ache there, nor any of those diseases which flesh is heir to, and whenever God laid his hand upon them they began to wish themselves in heaven, because they regarded it as a heaven of the senses - a heaven which the eye hath seen or the ear heard. A great mistake; for although we shall have a body free from pain, yet it is not a heaven where our senses shall indulge themselves.”[i]
Others say they look forward to heaven to have access to “think, there (heaven) shall we have all the delights of the flesh; there shall we drink from bowls of nectared wine; there shall we lavishly indulge ourselves, and our body shall enjoy every delight of which it is capable.”[ii]
But Spurgeon notes, “What a mistake for us to conceive such a thing! Heaven is not a place for the delight of mere sense; we shall be raised not a sensual body, but a spiritual body. We can get no conceptions of heaven through the senses; they must always come through the Spirit.”[iii]
Most troubling to me though, was the suggestion in the commercial that the everlasting nature of heaven is a negative thing.
Not so. Indeed, the very opposite is true; for the everlasting nature of heaven testifies to God’s extraordinary power and mercy. That we, sinners, should dwell with Him forever is a gift that makes even the most luxurious resort seem crass and gaudy.
[i] Charles Spurgeon, Heaven, 16 Dec. 1855. Accessed 22 Jan 2007. Available: http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/0056.htm
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Speechless
Here’s the lyrics to my favourite song, Steven Curtis Chapman’s Speechless:
Speechless
Words fall like drops of rain
My lips are like clouds I say so many things
Trying to figure You out
But as mercy opens my eyes
My words are stolen away
With this breathtaking view of Your grace
CHORUS
And I am speechless,
I'm astonished and amazed
I am silenced by Your wondrous grace
You have saved me
You have raised me from the grave
And I am speechless in Your presence now
I'm astounded as I consider how
You have shown us
A love that leaves us speechless
So what kind of love could this be
That would trade heaven's throne for a cross
And to think You still celebrate Over finding just one who was lost
And to know You rejoice over us The God of this whole universe
It's a story that's too great for words
CHORUS
Oh, how great is the love
The Father has lavished upon us
That we should be called
The sons and the daughters of God
CHORUS
We are speechless, so amazed
We stand in awe of Your grace
We stand in awe of Your mercy
You have saved us
We stand in awe of Your love From the grave
We are speechless
CHORUS
We are speechless in Your presence now
We stand in awe of Your cross
We're astounded as we consider how
We stand in awe of Your power
You have shown us
A love that leaves us speechless
We are speechless
I am speechless
Speechless
Words fall like drops of rain
My lips are like clouds I say so many things
Trying to figure You out
But as mercy opens my eyes
My words are stolen away
With this breathtaking view of Your grace
CHORUS
And I am speechless,
I'm astonished and amazed
I am silenced by Your wondrous grace
You have saved me
You have raised me from the grave
And I am speechless in Your presence now
I'm astounded as I consider how
You have shown us
A love that leaves us speechless
So what kind of love could this be
That would trade heaven's throne for a cross
And to think You still celebrate Over finding just one who was lost
And to know You rejoice over us The God of this whole universe
It's a story that's too great for words
CHORUS
Oh, how great is the love
The Father has lavished upon us
That we should be called
The sons and the daughters of God
CHORUS
We are speechless, so amazed
We stand in awe of Your grace
We stand in awe of Your mercy
You have saved us
We stand in awe of Your love From the grave
We are speechless
CHORUS
We are speechless in Your presence now
We stand in awe of Your cross
We're astounded as we consider how
We stand in awe of Your power
You have shown us
A love that leaves us speechless
We are speechless
I am speechless
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Elephants Are Us?
Elephants Are Us?
CBC’s The National aired an interesting piece last night on an elephant sanctuary in Tennessee called Elephants Are Us. One of the founders said that the value of the life of an elephant is equivalent to the value of a human life.
“Life is life,” she said.
Not quite.
God made people in His own image, so that human beings are like God as no other earthly creatures are, including elephants. The editors of the Reformation Study Bible wrote, “The special dignity of being human is that as men and women we may reflect and reproduce at our own creaturely level the holy ways of God. Human beings were made for this purpose, and in one sense we are truly human to the extent that we fulfill it.”[i]
God’s image in humanity at creation consisted in, as noted by the editors:
a) existence as a soul or spirit (Genesis 2:7), that is, as personal and self-conscious, with a God-like capacity for knowledge, thought and action;
b) being morally upright, a quality lost at the Fall but now progressively restored in Christ (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10);
c) dominion over the environment
d) the human body as the means through which we experience reality, express ourselves and exercise dominion; and
e) the God-given capacity for eternal life.
[i] Reformation Study Bible, pg 9.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Quote of the Day
“Philosophy is an off-shoot from the true inborn theology of our first ancestor before the fall, amplified by the revelation proclaimed by the works of God, refined by deep intellectual speculation, but always lacking the elements needed to deal with the fatal handicap of sin.”
Source: John Owen, Biblical Theology. The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Morgan, Penn: Soli Deo Gloria Publications (1661), 2002, (p. 85).
Source: John Owen, Biblical Theology. The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Morgan, Penn: Soli Deo Gloria Publications (1661), 2002, (p. 85).
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Lullabies
I remember my mom singing lullabies to my brothers and I when we were young. (My dad sang to us a beer jingle, but that’s another story all together). :)
The lullaby tradition is rooted in the early Christian and Medieval stories of the Virgin Mary nursing the Christ child and rocking Him to sleep while singing lullabies.
Visual artists including Rembrandt, Luis de Morales, Leonardo, and Artemisia Gentileschi depicted various scenes in which Mary holds her son in her arms and rocks Him to sleep.
The Austrian ‘Silent Night’ the Polish ‘Infant Holy’ and the North American ‘Away in a Manger’ are Christmas carols that often function as lullabies in Christmas season.
Source: Bert Polman, “Child So Lovely – Hymn of the Month” Reformed Worship. Issue 29, Sept. 1993. Accessed 16 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://http://www.reformedworship.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=565
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Three Stories, Three Reflections
I watched the National on CBC Monday and was surprised to see someone I know. The story was about the winter storm and she was in Pearson airport. The woman (who is a customer a the store I work) wished that the storm had arrived a day later. I was stuck at the self-centredness of the statement. If the storm struck a day later, then all of the travellers on that day would be affected.
The New York Times recently ran an excellent series called House Afire. The reporter spent a year interacting with members of a storefront Spanish-speaking Pentecostal church in Harlem. He captured the energy and distinctiveness of Pentecostalism very well. Despite my reservations about some of Pentecostalism’s beliefs and practices, the movement is truly astounding. There are an estimated 400 million Pentecostals worldwide; Impressive for a movement just a century old.
According to the story, the number of Pentecostals in New York City has risen by over 40 % since 1995 to over 850,000. Or one in every ten New Yorkers is estimated to be a Pentecostal.[i] (Also of interest, BBC recently aired a radio piece about the explosive growth of Mormonism in America’s largest city in the last decade).
The Washington Post published an insightful story into the history of the two large Virginia Episcopal churches that recently broke away from the American Episcopal Church.
The reporters noted, “As Truro and The Falls Church adopted a conservative approach, dissenting members retreated to more liberal Episcopal churches in the area, such as Christ Church Alexandria. New worshipers, many of them born-again Christians who had grown disillusioned with their denominations, streamed in.”[ii]
And then this interesting tidbit. “These days, Truro is a magnet for conservatives across the Washington area, and the percentage of "cradle" Episcopalians among its 2,000 regular worshipers has dropped steadily. In the 1980s, more than two-thirds of its members had been raised Episcopalian, according to church surveys. Today, fewer than 40 percent grew up in the church.”[iii]
Apparently two-thirds of the worshipers are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists. This doesn’t surprise me. Most of the members of St. Alban’s, the thriving evangelical Anglican Church I attended for three and a half years, did not grow up in the Anglican Church.
The story’s kicker is also revealing. A pastor recalled a conversation he had with several other priests about how to respond to a teenager who asked, “Do you really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?” "The rest of the priests agreed that it was a sticky question, and they felt that way because they didn't believe in it, but they didn't want to say so," he (Rev. Rick Wright) said. "That's where the Episcopal Church has been for the last 20 years. It's not where we are."[iv]
[i] David Gonzalez, “A Sliver of a Storefront, a Faith on the Rise.” The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2007. Accessed 15 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/nyregion/14storefront.html?pagewanted=print
[ii] Alan Cooperman, Jacqueline L. Salmon, “Episcopal Churches' Breakaway in Va. Evolved Over 30 Years” Washington Post, 4 Jan. 2007. Accessed 17 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301952_pf.html
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
The New York Times recently ran an excellent series called House Afire. The reporter spent a year interacting with members of a storefront Spanish-speaking Pentecostal church in Harlem. He captured the energy and distinctiveness of Pentecostalism very well. Despite my reservations about some of Pentecostalism’s beliefs and practices, the movement is truly astounding. There are an estimated 400 million Pentecostals worldwide; Impressive for a movement just a century old.
According to the story, the number of Pentecostals in New York City has risen by over 40 % since 1995 to over 850,000. Or one in every ten New Yorkers is estimated to be a Pentecostal.[i] (Also of interest, BBC recently aired a radio piece about the explosive growth of Mormonism in America’s largest city in the last decade).
The Washington Post published an insightful story into the history of the two large Virginia Episcopal churches that recently broke away from the American Episcopal Church.
The reporters noted, “As Truro and The Falls Church adopted a conservative approach, dissenting members retreated to more liberal Episcopal churches in the area, such as Christ Church Alexandria. New worshipers, many of them born-again Christians who had grown disillusioned with their denominations, streamed in.”[ii]
And then this interesting tidbit. “These days, Truro is a magnet for conservatives across the Washington area, and the percentage of "cradle" Episcopalians among its 2,000 regular worshipers has dropped steadily. In the 1980s, more than two-thirds of its members had been raised Episcopalian, according to church surveys. Today, fewer than 40 percent grew up in the church.”[iii]
Apparently two-thirds of the worshipers are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists. This doesn’t surprise me. Most of the members of St. Alban’s, the thriving evangelical Anglican Church I attended for three and a half years, did not grow up in the Anglican Church.
The story’s kicker is also revealing. A pastor recalled a conversation he had with several other priests about how to respond to a teenager who asked, “Do you really believe in the Resurrection of Jesus?” "The rest of the priests agreed that it was a sticky question, and they felt that way because they didn't believe in it, but they didn't want to say so," he (Rev. Rick Wright) said. "That's where the Episcopal Church has been for the last 20 years. It's not where we are."[iv]
[i] David Gonzalez, “A Sliver of a Storefront, a Faith on the Rise.” The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2007. Accessed 15 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/nyregion/14storefront.html?pagewanted=print
[ii] Alan Cooperman, Jacqueline L. Salmon, “Episcopal Churches' Breakaway in Va. Evolved Over 30 Years” Washington Post, 4 Jan. 2007. Accessed 17 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301952_pf.html
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Saved through Creation?
Several years ago I heard a Christian say that people living in eras and places where the gospel had yet to penetrate could still know God (and be saved) because Creation reveals the hand of a Divine power.
I did not understand this perspective and thought it to be odd (not to mention unbiblical).
Apparently the view that people can be saved by seeing God in nature is a view held by people long ago as well.
John Owen wrote in 1661, “Some have taught a general willingness on God’s part for the salvation of all mankind, and have suggested that for the works of creation and of providence provide a sufficient revelation of the divine mind to allow a response of acceptable obedience from men.”[i]
His response is unequivocal. “Leaving aside the fact that they are thus forced to ascribe to God contradictory wishes, unfinished purposes, and intentions which He cannot or will not fulfill – and no scope at all for the revealing of His attribute of mercy – their definitions are of such a nature, and their statements restricted within so narrow limits, that they must admit that such a revelation was never of the slightest use to anyone for their salvation, nor ever will it be so. To read aright the message of God in creation and providence requires a wondrous skill in distinguishing (as they themselves must admit) the testimony of this witness from those illusions with which the prince of darkness daily deceives wretched humans enslaved to him. Such discernment cannot be exercised without the light of the Word!”[ii]
[i] John Owen, Biblical Theology. The History of Theology from Adam to Christ. Morgan, Penn: Soli Deo Gloria Publications (1661), 2002, (p. 46).
[ii] Ibid.
Monday, January 15, 2007
The Fall
Paul affirms that all people are naturally under the guilt and power of sin, the reign of death and the inescapable wrath of God (Romans 1:16, 19; 3:9, 19:17,21). This is traced back to the sin of Adam, who is our common ancestor.
Mark Dever said, “Sometimes people misunderstand depravity and equate humanness and fallenness, as in the phrase, ‘Well he’s only human.’ But this is a wrong equation. To be a fallen human means to be sinful. At one time, Adam and Eve were human but not sinful. And in heaven we will be human but not sinful. Jesus was also truly human but not sinful. He was holy.”[i]
The editors of the Reformation Study Bible wrote, “God made the first man the representative for all his posterity, just as he was to make Jesus Christ the representative for all God’s elect. In each case the representative involved those whom he represented in the fruits of his personal action, whether it was for their wealth or their woe. This divinely chosen arrangement, whereby Adam determined the destiny of his descendants, has been called the ‘covenant of works’.”[ii]
God promised Adam to permanently establish him and his posterity in a state of happiness if he obeyed God’s command not to eat from a tree described as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17)
Adam, led by Eve who was herself led by the serpent (Satan in disguise, 2 Corinthians 11:3) defied God by eating the forbidden fruit. As a result the anti-God mindset expressed in Adam’s sin became part of him, and of the moral nature that he passed on to his descendants (Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:9-20).
Second, Adam and Eve were gripped by a sense of guilt that made them ashamed and fearful before God. Third, they were cursed with expectations of pain and death, and expelled from Eden. At the same time God promised that the woman’s Seed would eventually break the serpent’s head. This promise foreshadowed Christ.[iii]
[i] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006, (p 76).
[ii] Reformation Study Bible, p. 13.
[iii] Ibid.
Mark Dever said, “Sometimes people misunderstand depravity and equate humanness and fallenness, as in the phrase, ‘Well he’s only human.’ But this is a wrong equation. To be a fallen human means to be sinful. At one time, Adam and Eve were human but not sinful. And in heaven we will be human but not sinful. Jesus was also truly human but not sinful. He was holy.”[i]
The editors of the Reformation Study Bible wrote, “God made the first man the representative for all his posterity, just as he was to make Jesus Christ the representative for all God’s elect. In each case the representative involved those whom he represented in the fruits of his personal action, whether it was for their wealth or their woe. This divinely chosen arrangement, whereby Adam determined the destiny of his descendants, has been called the ‘covenant of works’.”[ii]
God promised Adam to permanently establish him and his posterity in a state of happiness if he obeyed God’s command not to eat from a tree described as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17)
Adam, led by Eve who was herself led by the serpent (Satan in disguise, 2 Corinthians 11:3) defied God by eating the forbidden fruit. As a result the anti-God mindset expressed in Adam’s sin became part of him, and of the moral nature that he passed on to his descendants (Genesis 6:5; Romans 3:9-20).
Second, Adam and Eve were gripped by a sense of guilt that made them ashamed and fearful before God. Third, they were cursed with expectations of pain and death, and expelled from Eden. At the same time God promised that the woman’s Seed would eventually break the serpent’s head. This promise foreshadowed Christ.[iii]
[i] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006, (p 76).
[ii] Reformation Study Bible, p. 13.
[iii] Ibid.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Matthew 11:2
John the Baptist was expecting the Messiah to crush evil people, overthrow oppressors and establish a new Kingdom on earth. But Jesus wasn’t doing that, and so he wondered. Was Jesus truly the Messiah? He sent messengers to Jesus to ask Him “Are you the one who is to come, or shall we look for another?” (Matthew 11:2)
The pastor made an interesting point at evening worship tonight, noting that some people expect God to make them rich or healthy or dissolve all of their problems. When that doesn’t happen, people grow disillusioned and leave the church. They question Jesus, like John the Baptist did, because their perception of Him is skewed.
It’s interesting that Jesus responded to John the Baptist by quoting the Scriptures. Clearly those who have been led astray by prosperity gospel teaching must also turn to God’s Word so that their wrong perception of Jesus may be corrected.
The pastor made an interesting point at evening worship tonight, noting that some people expect God to make them rich or healthy or dissolve all of their problems. When that doesn’t happen, people grow disillusioned and leave the church. They question Jesus, like John the Baptist did, because their perception of Him is skewed.
It’s interesting that Jesus responded to John the Baptist by quoting the Scriptures. Clearly those who have been led astray by prosperity gospel teaching must also turn to God’s Word so that their wrong perception of Jesus may be corrected.
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Horror of the Ark
When I was younger, my parents bought me a plastic Noah's Ark set, complete with animals and, of course Noah. There are plenty of children's books and Noah's Ark themed products available for purchase. My cousin and his wife recently chose Noah's Ark as the theme for their newborn babies nursery.
But upon further reflection, the Flood is a horrible, horrible story and not an event to sentimentalize.
Mark Dever, pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC, said, “The Flood represents one of the four great judgments in the Bible, along with the fall of Adam, the cross of Christ, and the final judgment. Surely, the Flood was a horrible calamity in which God wiped out almost the entire human race.”[i]
John Gill said, “There never was such a destruction of creatures before, or since, nor never will be till the general conflagration; and is a proof of the sovereignty of God, His almighty power, the purity and holiness of His nature, and the strictness and severity of His justice, and shows what a fearful thing it is to fail into his hands.”[ii]
Dever reminds us “Noah's ark was not a plaything. The waters covered the earth as the expression of God's death-dealing wrath against men whom the Lord describes with the chilling phrase 'every inclination of the heart is evil from childhood’ (Genesis 8:21).”[iii]
[i] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006, (p. 69).
[ii] John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, (1746-1763).
[iii] Dever, p. 69.
But upon further reflection, the Flood is a horrible, horrible story and not an event to sentimentalize.
Mark Dever, pastor at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC, said, “The Flood represents one of the four great judgments in the Bible, along with the fall of Adam, the cross of Christ, and the final judgment. Surely, the Flood was a horrible calamity in which God wiped out almost the entire human race.”[i]
John Gill said, “There never was such a destruction of creatures before, or since, nor never will be till the general conflagration; and is a proof of the sovereignty of God, His almighty power, the purity and holiness of His nature, and the strictness and severity of His justice, and shows what a fearful thing it is to fail into his hands.”[ii]
Dever reminds us “Noah's ark was not a plaything. The waters covered the earth as the expression of God's death-dealing wrath against men whom the Lord describes with the chilling phrase 'every inclination of the heart is evil from childhood’ (Genesis 8:21).”[iii]
[i] Mark Dever, The Message of the Old Testament, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2006, (p. 69).
[ii] John Gill, Exposition of the Bible, (1746-1763).
[iii] Dever, p. 69.
Friday, January 12, 2007
Death of Death
As I was sitting in the doctor’s office yesterday listening to pop music on the radio, it struck me how foreign such sentimentally was to the reality of the oxygen tanks, canes and crooked spines around me. Sickness, and indeed death, has been banished from this culture’s collective psyche.
‘Funerals’, a solemn church service, became less frequent and replaced by ‘memorial services’. More recently, ‘celebrations of life’ have grown in popularity. Modern-day people, Christian and secular alike, have adopted the phrase ‘passed on’. They are probably unaware that Christian Scientist founder Mary Baker Eddy coined the term.[i]
Historically such a response to death has been characteristic of several Eastern religions and of the ancient Gnostics who longed for the spirit’s escape from the ‘prison-house’ of the body. Unitarians, the Church of Scientology and Christian Science have also traditionally held ‘celebrations’.[ii]
But Judaism and Christianity have held to a sombre view of death. The Anglican Common Book of Prayer, for example, has an order for the Burial of the Dead, which is a collection of Scripture passages and responses.
The Collect from the liturgy is below:
“O Merciful God, the Father of our Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, through he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us (by his holy Apostle Saint Paul) not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in Him. We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him, as our hope in this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight, and receive that blessing, which they well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.”[iii]
Death entered the world as a curse on all living creatures through the Fall and is our enemy. “The world was not meant to be this way,” notes Michael Horton. “Something is wrong.”[iv]
I heard a pastor once say that we are constantly trying to distract ourselves from the reality of our impending death.
However, anchored in the Scriptures, Christians should have a healthy respect for the enemy. Horton writes, “Death is not an abstract concept but a personified character in the drama of redemption. It is death’s victory, not its reality, which is overcome in Christ’s resurrection”[v]
Graveyards used to surround churches. Today, we have removed death, and with it the communion of saints, and relegated it to generic secular cemeteries with euphemistic names like ‘Forest Lawn’[vi]
This shift has been instigated primarily by historical circumstances. For previous generations, death was commonplace and people were veterans of sickness, suffering and death. Not so anymore.
O that the church would recapture the horror of death, while proclaiming that the only victory over death is Jesus Christ! Horton warns; “We do not know what to do with sin, evil and death in this culture, but by suppressing the question we deprive people of the comfort that comes from the answer.”[vii]
[i] Michael Horton, Too good to be true; Finding hope in a world of hype. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006 (p. 33).
[ii] Ibid, p. 31
[iii] The Book of Common Prayer (Canada) “The Burial of the Dead,” Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1918 (pp. 378-379).
[iv] Horton, p. 31.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid, p. 32.
[vii] Ibid, p. 30.
‘Funerals’, a solemn church service, became less frequent and replaced by ‘memorial services’. More recently, ‘celebrations of life’ have grown in popularity. Modern-day people, Christian and secular alike, have adopted the phrase ‘passed on’. They are probably unaware that Christian Scientist founder Mary Baker Eddy coined the term.[i]
Historically such a response to death has been characteristic of several Eastern religions and of the ancient Gnostics who longed for the spirit’s escape from the ‘prison-house’ of the body. Unitarians, the Church of Scientology and Christian Science have also traditionally held ‘celebrations’.[ii]
But Judaism and Christianity have held to a sombre view of death. The Anglican Common Book of Prayer, for example, has an order for the Burial of the Dead, which is a collection of Scripture passages and responses.
The Collect from the liturgy is below:
“O Merciful God, the Father of our Jesus Christ, who is the resurrection and the life; in whom whosoever believeth shall live, through he die; and whosoever liveth, and believeth in him, shall not die eternally; who also hath taught us (by his holy Apostle Saint Paul) not to be sorry, as men without hope, for them that sleep in Him. We meekly beseech thee, O Father, to raise us from the death of sin unto the life of righteousness; that, when we shall depart this life, we may rest in Him, as our hope in this our brother doth; and that, at the general Resurrection in the last day, we may be found acceptable in thy sight, and receive that blessing, which they well-beloved Son shall then pronounce to all that love and fear thee, saying, Come, ye blessed children of my Father, receive the kingdom prepared for you from the beginning of the world. Grant this, we beseech thee, O merciful Father, through Jesus Christ, our Mediator and Redeemer. Amen.”[iii]
Death entered the world as a curse on all living creatures through the Fall and is our enemy. “The world was not meant to be this way,” notes Michael Horton. “Something is wrong.”[iv]
I heard a pastor once say that we are constantly trying to distract ourselves from the reality of our impending death.
However, anchored in the Scriptures, Christians should have a healthy respect for the enemy. Horton writes, “Death is not an abstract concept but a personified character in the drama of redemption. It is death’s victory, not its reality, which is overcome in Christ’s resurrection”[v]
Graveyards used to surround churches. Today, we have removed death, and with it the communion of saints, and relegated it to generic secular cemeteries with euphemistic names like ‘Forest Lawn’[vi]
This shift has been instigated primarily by historical circumstances. For previous generations, death was commonplace and people were veterans of sickness, suffering and death. Not so anymore.
O that the church would recapture the horror of death, while proclaiming that the only victory over death is Jesus Christ! Horton warns; “We do not know what to do with sin, evil and death in this culture, but by suppressing the question we deprive people of the comfort that comes from the answer.”[vii]
[i] Michael Horton, Too good to be true; Finding hope in a world of hype. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006 (p. 33).
[ii] Ibid, p. 31
[iii] The Book of Common Prayer (Canada) “The Burial of the Dead,” Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1918 (pp. 378-379).
[iv] Horton, p. 31.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid, p. 32.
[vii] Ibid, p. 30.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Hear Our Song
Hear Our Song
Jadon Lavik
In joyous surrender
With our eyes fixed on you
May our lives bring you glory
To serve you in all that we do
In joyous surrender
With our hearts full of praise
We sing of your mercy
We sing of your love and your grace
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
In joyous surrender
With our eyes fixed on you
May our lives bring you glory to serve you in all that we do
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
Father we have come
To offer our lives to the holy one
And to live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing of your glory and we sing of your love
And we live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing of your glory and we sing of your love
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
Father we have come
To offer our lives to the holy one
And we live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing for your glory and we sing of your love
Jadon Lavik
In joyous surrender
With our eyes fixed on you
May our lives bring you glory
To serve you in all that we do
In joyous surrender
With our hearts full of praise
We sing of your mercy
We sing of your love and your grace
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
In joyous surrender
With our eyes fixed on you
May our lives bring you glory to serve you in all that we do
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
Father we have come
To offer our lives to the holy one
And to live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing of your glory and we sing of your love
And we live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing of your glory and we sing of your love
Father hear our song
A song of praise to the worthy one
Father we have come
To offer our lives to the holy one
And we live for your glory and we live by your love
And we sing for your glory and we sing of your love
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Godly Ruling
After reigning for forty years David said:
“The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light, like the sun shining forth on a cloudless morning, like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth” (2 Samuel 23:3-4).
“The God of Israel has spoken; the Rock of Israel has said to me: When one rules justly over men, ruling in the fear of God, he dawns on them like the morning light, like the sun shining forth on a cloudless morning, like rain that makes grass to sprout from the earth” (2 Samuel 23:3-4).
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Prevailing Sin
In the film States of Grace two missionaries find a man living on the street and bring him into their apartment that he may recuperate from an illness. The missionaries eventually learn that before moving to Los Angeles, he was a Pentecostal preacher who was forced from his rural Kentucky church because of his ongoing sinful behaviour.
Prevailing corruption, sin or temptation, isn’t of course unique to present-day Christians. John Owen delivered a sermon on the topic in 1677.
He identified three degrees: a prevalence to outward scandal, a loss of inward peace, and the disquieting and divesting of that tranquillity of mind usually which Christ calls us unto.[i]
For a person in such a situation, Owen notes, “He should labour to affect his mind with the danger of it. It is not conceivable how subtle sin is to shift off an apprehension of the danger of it.”[ii]
Secondly. Burden the conscience with the guilt of the sin. “For the truth is, as our minds are, upon many pretences, slow to apprehend the danger of sin; so our consciences are very unwilling to take the weight of the burden of it as to its guilt.”[iii]
Thirdly. Repent.
Fourthly. “Treasure up every warning, and every word that you are convinced was pointed against your particular corruption.”[iv]
Fifthly. Exercise faith for there is a power in God, through Christ, for the subduing and conquering of it.
He concludes, “Therefore, take this rule along with you, — never hope to mortify any corruption whereby your hearts are grieved, unless you labour to mortify every corruption by which the Spirit of God is grieved; and be found in every duty, especially those under which grace thrives and flourishes.”[v]
[i] John Owen, “How to Deal with Prevailing Sin” in Several Practical Cases of Conscience Resolved. (1677). Accessed 6 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/conscience.i.xii.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
Prevailing corruption, sin or temptation, isn’t of course unique to present-day Christians. John Owen delivered a sermon on the topic in 1677.
He identified three degrees: a prevalence to outward scandal, a loss of inward peace, and the disquieting and divesting of that tranquillity of mind usually which Christ calls us unto.[i]
For a person in such a situation, Owen notes, “He should labour to affect his mind with the danger of it. It is not conceivable how subtle sin is to shift off an apprehension of the danger of it.”[ii]
Secondly. Burden the conscience with the guilt of the sin. “For the truth is, as our minds are, upon many pretences, slow to apprehend the danger of sin; so our consciences are very unwilling to take the weight of the burden of it as to its guilt.”[iii]
Thirdly. Repent.
Fourthly. “Treasure up every warning, and every word that you are convinced was pointed against your particular corruption.”[iv]
Fifthly. Exercise faith for there is a power in God, through Christ, for the subduing and conquering of it.
He concludes, “Therefore, take this rule along with you, — never hope to mortify any corruption whereby your hearts are grieved, unless you labour to mortify every corruption by which the Spirit of God is grieved; and be found in every duty, especially those under which grace thrives and flourishes.”[v]
[i] John Owen, “How to Deal with Prevailing Sin” in Several Practical Cases of Conscience Resolved. (1677). Accessed 6 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/owen/conscience.i.xii.html
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Ibid.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Subject to None
The sovereignty of God may be defined as the exercise of His supremacy. Being infinitely elevated above the highest creature, He is the Most High, Lord of heaven and earth. Subject to none, commanded by none, absolutely independent; God does as He pleases, only as He pleases, always as He pleases. So His own Word expressly declares: “My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:10). Divine sovereignty means that God is on the throne of the universe, directing all things, working all things according to the plan of Him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of His will” (Ephesians 1:11).
“The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths (Psalm 135:6). Such is the imperial Monarch revealed in Holy Scripture – unrivalled in majesty, unlimited in power, undirected by anything outside Himself.
- A.W. Pink
Source: The Best of Arthur W. Pink. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978 in Steve Halliday & William Travis eds. How Great Thou Art, Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999.
“The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths (Psalm 135:6). Such is the imperial Monarch revealed in Holy Scripture – unrivalled in majesty, unlimited in power, undirected by anything outside Himself.
- A.W. Pink
Source: The Best of Arthur W. Pink. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978 in Steve Halliday & William Travis eds. How Great Thou Art, Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1999.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Reality Check
I attended a liberal Anglican church close to campus during my first semester of university. The church was a typical Anglican church in Canada at the start of the 21st century. The sermons were short and unbiblical, the music was tepid and the pews were mostly empty. I walked by a Wesleyan church (which was the first church I attended when I moved to Ottawa) that was so well attended that the parked cars of attendees lined the street for blocks.
I’ve always thought it was such a wonderful juxtaposition of two churches just streets apart, but worlds apart in theology and vibrancy.
So much has been written about the decline of liberal Protestantism, including, a good article in The National Post last week, that the narrative is now familiar. Denominations seeking to ‘modernize’ themselves have become irrelevant in their quest to detach themselves from the traditional understanding of Christianity. I hope to address the issue further later this year.
But I was so struck by a recent editorial in The Anglican Journal that I wanted to write something right away. The newspaper asked readers to submit stories of ‘hope, or resurrection, in the church’ in November. Readers responded, but not in the way the (liberal) editor of the paper was anticipating.
“What surprised me, though, (but perhaps should not have) was the number of letters indicating no hope whatsoever for the future of the Canadian church,” wrote Leanne Larmondin.[i]
The editor is correct: the unhappy outlook shouldn’t have surprised her. The Anglican Church of Canada is a shell of its former self.
She added that while she disagrees with those who have little hope in the future of Anglicanism in Canada, she will “also try harder to listen to the other voices”.[ii]
Contemplating the views of those with (realistic) views of the church’s future is a good start, and an incredibly Anglican thing to do. But until denominational leaders and members repent, forsake their universalism which they masquerade as Christianity and turn to Christ, the future of the Anglican Church in Canada will remain bleak.
[i] Leanne Larmondin, “If you can’t say anything nice, we’ll listen anyway.” The Anglican Journal. 1 Jan. 2007. Accessed 5 Jan. 2007. Available:
[ii] Ibid.
I’ve always thought it was such a wonderful juxtaposition of two churches just streets apart, but worlds apart in theology and vibrancy.
So much has been written about the decline of liberal Protestantism, including, a good article in The National Post last week, that the narrative is now familiar. Denominations seeking to ‘modernize’ themselves have become irrelevant in their quest to detach themselves from the traditional understanding of Christianity. I hope to address the issue further later this year.
But I was so struck by a recent editorial in The Anglican Journal that I wanted to write something right away. The newspaper asked readers to submit stories of ‘hope, or resurrection, in the church’ in November. Readers responded, but not in the way the (liberal) editor of the paper was anticipating.
“What surprised me, though, (but perhaps should not have) was the number of letters indicating no hope whatsoever for the future of the Canadian church,” wrote Leanne Larmondin.[i]
The editor is correct: the unhappy outlook shouldn’t have surprised her. The Anglican Church of Canada is a shell of its former self.
She added that while she disagrees with those who have little hope in the future of Anglicanism in Canada, she will “also try harder to listen to the other voices”.[ii]
Contemplating the views of those with (realistic) views of the church’s future is a good start, and an incredibly Anglican thing to do. But until denominational leaders and members repent, forsake their universalism which they masquerade as Christianity and turn to Christ, the future of the Anglican Church in Canada will remain bleak.
[i] Leanne Larmondin, “If you can’t say anything nice, we’ll listen anyway.” The Anglican Journal. 1 Jan. 2007. Accessed 5 Jan. 2007. Available:
[ii] Ibid.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Quote of the Day
"Having Toronto as the location of the film's worldwide opening is a source of pride for Indo-Canadians and will help to correct misconceptions, said Bollywood fan Samina Talib, an accounting analyst from Mumbai.
'It's really exciting. It showcases Indian culture and what we have to offer. Contrary to what some people think, India is not all about cows walking around the roads.'"
Source: Prithi Yelaja, “Bollywood to launch blockbuster in Toronto”, The Toronto Star, 5 Jan. 2007. Accessed 5 Jan. 2007. Available: http://www.thestar.com/artsentertainment/article/168156
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Conscience
The Ontario Court of Appeal has decided to give legal parental status to both the biological mother of a five-year-old boy and her female partner, as well as his biological father.[i]
People ruling according to their conscience reached this decision. It’s a decision that would have perplexed Canadians just a generation ago. But not anymore. The Appeal Court ruled that the provincial legislation dealing with issues of custody, the Children's Law Reform Act, no longer reflects current society. "There is no doubt that the legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time," they wrote.[ii]
According to the editors of the Reformation Study Bible (ESV), conscience is the built-in power of our minds to pass moral judgments on ourselves, approving or disapproving our actions, thoughts, and plans, and telling us, if what we have done is wrong, that we deserve to suffer for it.
“Conscience” wrote Thomas Watson, “is God’s deputy or vicegerent.”[iii] He continues, “Natural conscience in the wicked accuses. When we go against its light they feel the worm of conscience.”[iv]
Conscience has two elements: an awareness of certain things as being right or wrong, and an ability to apply laws and rules to specific situations. The conscience of Samuel, for example, acquitted him of all charges that could brought against him, as did God and his people (1 Samuel 12:5). Conscience insists on judging us by the highest standard we know. This is why some people call it God’s voice in the soul. Paul says that God has written a certain knowledge of His law on every heart (Romans 2:14, 15)
“The exercise of a good conscience is a branch of internal religon, and is concerned with the worship of God,” wrote John Gill. “Hence nothing can bind the conscience but the law and the will of God.”[v]
However conscience can be misinformed, or conditioned to regard evil as good, or become dull through repeated sin (1 Timothy 4:2). Thomas Watson wrote that a peson “may wish there were no God, he may dispute against a Deity, but he cannot in his judgment believe there is no God, unless by accumulated sin his conscience be seared, and he has such a lethargy upon him, that he has sinned away his very sense and reason.”[vi]
The judgments of conscience are only to be received as God’s voice when they match God’s truth and law in the Bible. The conscience must be educated to judge scripturally (disernment).
Supersition may lead a person to count as sinful an action that is not sinful according to God’s word. But for such a ‘weak’ conscience (Romans 14:1, 2; 1 Cornithians 8:7,12) to go against itself and do what it judges to be wrong would be sin (Romans 14:23). People whose conscience is ‘weak’ should never be pressed to do what destroys their good conscience.
The New Testament ideal is a conscience free from guilt and able to guide us in a holy direction. The conscience can only be freed from guilt by the power of Christ’s blood. Once freed and protected in its freedom by the gift of justification, the conscience is able to grow through the teaching of Scripture and the means of grace in Christian life. And the effect of a good and pure conscience, especially when atonement for sin by the sacrifice of Christ is applied and received, is joy and peace (Romans 5:11).
[i] "Ontario court says boy can have dad, mom — and mom", CBC. 3 Jan 2007. Accessed 3 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/03/twomom-court.html
[ii] Court of Appeal for Ontario. A.A. v. B.B., 2007 ONCA 2, 20070102, Accessed 4 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2007/january/C39998.htm
[iii] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1692, p. 41.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] John Gill, “Of a Good Conscience” in Body of Practical Divinity, 1770. Accessed 4 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gill/practical.ii.xxiii.html
[vi] Watson, p. 39.
People ruling according to their conscience reached this decision. It’s a decision that would have perplexed Canadians just a generation ago. But not anymore. The Appeal Court ruled that the provincial legislation dealing with issues of custody, the Children's Law Reform Act, no longer reflects current society. "There is no doubt that the legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time," they wrote.[ii]
According to the editors of the Reformation Study Bible (ESV), conscience is the built-in power of our minds to pass moral judgments on ourselves, approving or disapproving our actions, thoughts, and plans, and telling us, if what we have done is wrong, that we deserve to suffer for it.
“Conscience” wrote Thomas Watson, “is God’s deputy or vicegerent.”[iii] He continues, “Natural conscience in the wicked accuses. When we go against its light they feel the worm of conscience.”[iv]
Conscience has two elements: an awareness of certain things as being right or wrong, and an ability to apply laws and rules to specific situations. The conscience of Samuel, for example, acquitted him of all charges that could brought against him, as did God and his people (1 Samuel 12:5). Conscience insists on judging us by the highest standard we know. This is why some people call it God’s voice in the soul. Paul says that God has written a certain knowledge of His law on every heart (Romans 2:14, 15)
“The exercise of a good conscience is a branch of internal religon, and is concerned with the worship of God,” wrote John Gill. “Hence nothing can bind the conscience but the law and the will of God.”[v]
However conscience can be misinformed, or conditioned to regard evil as good, or become dull through repeated sin (1 Timothy 4:2). Thomas Watson wrote that a peson “may wish there were no God, he may dispute against a Deity, but he cannot in his judgment believe there is no God, unless by accumulated sin his conscience be seared, and he has such a lethargy upon him, that he has sinned away his very sense and reason.”[vi]
The judgments of conscience are only to be received as God’s voice when they match God’s truth and law in the Bible. The conscience must be educated to judge scripturally (disernment).
Supersition may lead a person to count as sinful an action that is not sinful according to God’s word. But for such a ‘weak’ conscience (Romans 14:1, 2; 1 Cornithians 8:7,12) to go against itself and do what it judges to be wrong would be sin (Romans 14:23). People whose conscience is ‘weak’ should never be pressed to do what destroys their good conscience.
The New Testament ideal is a conscience free from guilt and able to guide us in a holy direction. The conscience can only be freed from guilt by the power of Christ’s blood. Once freed and protected in its freedom by the gift of justification, the conscience is able to grow through the teaching of Scripture and the means of grace in Christian life. And the effect of a good and pure conscience, especially when atonement for sin by the sacrifice of Christ is applied and received, is joy and peace (Romans 5:11).
[i] "Ontario court says boy can have dad, mom — and mom", CBC. 3 Jan 2007. Accessed 3 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/01/03/twomom-court.html
[ii] Court of Appeal for Ontario. A.A. v. B.B., 2007 ONCA 2, 20070102, Accessed 4 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2007/january/C39998.htm
[iii] Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1692, p. 41.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] John Gill, “Of a Good Conscience” in Body of Practical Divinity, 1770. Accessed 4 Jan. 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gill/practical.ii.xxiii.html
[vi] Watson, p. 39.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Martin Luther
On January 3, 1521 Pope Leo X excommunicated Martin Luther after he refused to retract 41 of his 95 theses.
Luther was concerned about this:
Papal indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished authority, for the building of St. Peter’s. In respect of these I do not so much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers, which I have not heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which the people conceive from them, and which are spread abroad in common talk on every side—namely, that unhappy souls believe that, if they buy letters of indulgences, they are sure of their salvation; also, that, as soon as they have thrown their contribution into the 4chest, souls forthwith fly out of purgatory; and furthermore, that so great is the grace thus conferred, that there is no sin so great—even, as they say, if, by an impossibility, any one had violated the Mother of God—but that it may be pardoned; and again, that by these indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and guilt.[i]
His stand was a turning point not only for God’s truth, but also for western civilization. His life is connected with the closing of the Middle Ages and the start of the Modern Era. His translation of the Bible furthered the development of a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation. His translation influenced the English King James version of the Bible. His marriage helped to reintroduce the practice of clerical marriage.
Martin Luther’s courage to stand up for what was right is inspiring.
[i] Martin Luther, 'Introductory Letter', 95 Thesis, Accessed 3 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/first_prin.iv.i.i.html
Luther was concerned about this:
Papal indulgences are being carried about, under your most distinguished authority, for the building of St. Peter’s. In respect of these I do not so much accuse the extravagant sayings of the preachers, which I have not heard, but I grieve at the very false ideas which the people conceive from them, and which are spread abroad in common talk on every side—namely, that unhappy souls believe that, if they buy letters of indulgences, they are sure of their salvation; also, that, as soon as they have thrown their contribution into the 4chest, souls forthwith fly out of purgatory; and furthermore, that so great is the grace thus conferred, that there is no sin so great—even, as they say, if, by an impossibility, any one had violated the Mother of God—but that it may be pardoned; and again, that by these indulgences a man is freed from all punishment and guilt.[i]
His stand was a turning point not only for God’s truth, but also for western civilization. His life is connected with the closing of the Middle Ages and the start of the Modern Era. His translation of the Bible furthered the development of a standard version of the German language and added several principles to the art of translation. His translation influenced the English King James version of the Bible. His marriage helped to reintroduce the practice of clerical marriage.
Martin Luther’s courage to stand up for what was right is inspiring.
[i] Martin Luther, 'Introductory Letter', 95 Thesis, Accessed 3 Jan 2007. Available:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/first_prin.iv.i.i.html
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Resolutions - 1700s Style
Making a resolution this time of year is common, so I thought it would be interesting to look at some of the resolutions of Jonathan Edwards. Here are seven of them.
Resolved, That I will do whatsoever I think to be most to the glory of God, and my own good, profit, and pleasure, in the whole of my duration; without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved, to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved, so to do, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.
Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.
Resolved, To live with all my might, while I do live
Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.
Resolved, Never wilfully to omit any thing, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions
Resolved, Never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession which I cannot hope God will accept.
Resolved, To inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent,—what sin I have committed,—and wherein I have denied myself;—also, at the end of every week, month, and year
Source:
Jonathan Edwards, “Resolutions” in Ola Elizabeth Winslow ed. Basic Writings, New York: The New American Library, 1966, pp. 68-75.
Resolved, That I will do whatsoever I think to be most to the glory of God, and my own good, profit, and pleasure, in the whole of my duration; without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved, to do whatever I think to be my duty, and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved, so to do, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many soever, and how great soever.
Resolved, Never to lose one moment of time, but to improve it in the most profitable way I possibly can.
Resolved, To live with all my might, while I do live
Resolved, Never to do any thing, which I should be afraid to do if it were the last hour of my life.
Resolved, Never wilfully to omit any thing, except the omission be for the glory of God; and frequently to examine my omissions
Resolved, Never to count that a prayer, nor to let that pass as a prayer, nor that as a petition of a prayer, which is so made, that I cannot hope that God will answer it; nor that as a confession which I cannot hope God will accept.
Resolved, To inquire every night, as I am going to bed, wherein I have been negligent,—what sin I have committed,—and wherein I have denied myself;—also, at the end of every week, month, and year
Source:
Jonathan Edwards, “Resolutions” in Ola Elizabeth Winslow ed. Basic Writings, New York: The New American Library, 1966, pp. 68-75.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Chosen by God
Happy New Year! What better way to celebrate than to mediate upon the lyrics of a wonderful hymn.
MY LORD, I DID NOT CHOOSE YOU
My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.
Unless Your grace had called me,
And taught my op’ning mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart knows none above You;
For Your rich grace I thirst;
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/l/mlidncyo.htm
MY LORD, I DID NOT CHOOSE YOU
My Lord, I did not choose You,
For that could never be;
My heart would still refuse You,
Had You not chosen me.
You took the sin that stained me,
You cleansed me, made me new;
Of old You have ordained me,
That I should live in You.
Unless Your grace had called me,
And taught my op’ning mind,
The world would have enthralled me,
To heav’nly glories blind.
My heart knows none above You;
For Your rich grace I thirst;
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/m/l/mlidncyo.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
