Sea of Truth

Dinner is Served

2009-12-20T19:08:00.003-05:00

Just so everyone knows not to worry...this was part of dinner tonight:

Angey has been gone for several days, but I never starve when she's gone. I usually find myself cooking even more since I'm bored (or wasting time).

So, friends and family with maternal instincts, have no fear. I miss my wife very much - but not because I eat Ramen and Bojangles when she's gone. All I can say is, "Angey, I wish you were here...'cause this was GOOD."

Oh Yeah

2009-12-17T20:00:00.003-05:00

Sometimes, you actually win things on these crazy online giveaways:

Meet...

...

My new iPod, compliments of BHPhotoVideo.com.
Check them out if you're interested in cameras, electronics, underwater video surveillance...or just about anything else.

So My Mom Can Hear

2009-10-18T19:00:00.001-04:00

Sunday's Sermon

Love you mom and dad!

-wp

Jesus, The Chosen One

2009-07-01T22:50:00.010-04:00

A friend recently asked for the lyrics to this song, and I figured - especially for my Open Door family that enjoy this song - that it wouldn't hurt to give some explanation of how it came about:

Rise up sons of splendor
and bow before His throne.
Rise up sons of splendor
and praise the Chosen One.

He is the Seed of Israel,
The Promised One of God.
He is our Priest and Sacrifice,
Our Covenant of Blood.
He is the Resurrected Son,
The Victor over death.
He is the Interceding One;
Let everything with breath
Praise the Lord!
Praise the Lord!

About seven years ago I was reading the book of Hebrews. It was a time that I had little direction, little focus and was daily asking myself what I was going to do "with the rest of my life." As I read, I began to write down a few strands of thought that grabbed my attention as biblical themes. These themes brought such a renewed sense of assurance in God's character and Christ's goodness, so I started looking harder at the "big picture" of the book of Hebrews.

Suddenly, I was arrested by a thought: Jesus, is my great high priest; Jesus is my sacrificial lamb. He is my priest and sacrifice. Only an amazing man - only an amazing God could accomplish this mysterious and wonderful double-reality. A wave of joy filled my heart and I dug through the text to find more connections, more themes, more joy and comfort. The inevitable happened. I found the blessed truth that the more I focused on God's amazing grace, nature, and salvation, the less I was concerned with me. I became less focused on what "I was going to do" and more amazed at what Jesus, my priest, my sacrifice, had done.

As the lyrics fell together (a simple set of statements - barely 100 words and nothing to impress by way of composition), I found how to begin the song. I had to begin with where I had been led - to utter surrender and utter allegiance to the King of Kings, the only Messiah, the only wise God. Chapter 2 rung in my ears: "10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." To be bought with such a price, the suffering of my captain, my king! This thought resulted in an unexpected reality: I am a son of the Glorious One - a son of splendor. The privilege and honor of such grace took shape in the first few lines. What should I do, then, in response to such privilege? Bow and rejoice.

Upon these simple lines of poetry rests my view of election. Jesus is the Chosen One. He is the one toward whom all history, all of God's gracious acts, all of the scripture was bending. He is the One in whom God the Father is "well pleased." He is the One to whom all honor is due. He is the one that deserves all focus and attention. Election is not about me. It is about Jesus. However it is that I share in this blessing; by whatever secret or obvious truth that I am brought into Him, by whatever process I become a child of the King, a son of splendor; I have only one response: bow and rejoice.

You will notice an intentional lack of the first person pronoun in this song. It is the lesson that I learned, the lesson that I hope encourages you today: focus on Jesus. He is the reason. He is the hinge pin of the entire created order - the point of it all. Avoid sowing the seeds of 'I' and 'me' today and, instead, reap the blessings of 'He' and 'Him'. Just think of who He Is.

Baptist Evangelical Convention

2009-06-22T11:15:00.007-04:00

There are suggestions afloat that the Southern Baptist Convention should change its name. Honestly, I don't think it's a bad idea - seeing that the convention was born out of "less than ideal" circumstances (i.e. obstinate, bigoted rejection of the abolition of slavery and the formation of the Confederacy).

So, in order to put in my two cents, I offer the following suggestion:

The Baptist Evangelical Convention

I think that it communicates a sense of cooperation (Evangelical), which is in keeping with a true "together for the gospel" mentality (not to be confused with the conference, which is organized for other reasons). Yet it retains the only distinctive that we would like to uphold - historic, Baptist identity.

Some may laugh, others scowl, but I like the name. I'm not really "jazzed" about the word convention, but there it is - a word that means "assembly" but without the associations of being in any way the church. Because the convention is not the church. Its agencies are not the church. They could all disappear and - though ministry would be more difficult and cooperation more taxing - the church would not miss a beat.

But I digress.

Let me know what you think about the name. It won't go anywhere. No one will really even care, but I thought I'd throw it out there for good measure.

Oh and, by the way, I know that the logo is completely and utterly lame. I just threw it together so that I would have an image of some kind on the page.

Great Commission Resurgence

2009-06-19T10:40:00.008-04:00

I signed the resolution and so should you.

Though I really appreciate Dr. Danny Akin's passion, resolve, and explanation of the GCR movement, I am particularly grateful for the contributions of two pastors: Johnny Hunt and Dwayne Milioni.

Pastor Dwayne was interviewed recently and sheds a great deal of light on particular issues that the GCR is hopeful to address; and Johnny Hunt gets to the heart of the matter in the first 40 seconds of his address: stewardship of resources.

For me this is a matter of applying the Kingdom of God to our convention by asking the question, "If God were in charge of the SBC, how would he run things?" I think that the GCR movement has already begun making suggestions that answer that very question.

This, combined with the fact that the intentions of the GCR movement seem sincere and amicable, has convinced me - so that I can see no reason why any Southern Baptist should not sign this resolution.

Abandoned Blog

2009-05-28T17:51:00.002-04:00

There's just a lot going on right now, so I'm going to temporarily abandon blogging. I'll pick it back up in a few weeks. Thanks all who actually read this thing!

Pirates Be Ye Warned - part 1

2009-04-11T19:38:00.017-04:00

I do not usually comment on current affairs, but it is interesting that, next week, there will be a discussion panel at Southeastern Seminary on war and violence. It comes in the aftermath of yesterday's news headline about Captain Philips, and I wonder if the discussion will address this topic specifically. So, I thought I would try to mediate what I think the bible says about war and violence (since I can't attend the discussion) and provide my commentary on the situation of piracy.

I guess we have to begin in Genesis 4, since that is where we find the first act of violence:

8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. 9 Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" 10 The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." 13 Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Gen 4:8-16)

This is interesting. The first act of murder does not end in the first case of capital punishment. It ends in the first case of criminal pardon. (This mirrors the first case of grace and pardon you see in Genesis 3). Cain takes a life and is shown mercy. He ends up, in verse 16, living. In a way, his sentence is also reduced. The original sentence against him is alienation from the land - that produce would not grow for him anymore. But that sentence is changed. He is merely marked as a man who will have his sentence commuted to another day.

But this is not all there is to know. Look at Genesis 9:

5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. 6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.

In this passage, God is affirming that His desire is to replenish the planet with Noah's family. He wants a fresh start and no one is to interfere with His blessing of Noah. So this regulation is universalized: men are authorized to use capital punishment. I think it's important to point out both sides of the coin at this point in time. God's first "impulse" if you will (please excuse the word if you don't like it) - His first inclination is Genesis 4: mercy and grace. He provides, however, an overarching regulation that protects His favorite creatures from one another: "by man shall his blood be shed" - interestingly, not by God.

Armed with this knowledge, we can proceed to Exodus 20:

1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments. [...] 13 "You shall not murder.

So, first, we see that God establishes Himself as a God of Love and a God of Justice. He also establishes a clear relationship between Himself and His creation: friend or foe. Those who make enemies with Him, however, can expect relatively short-lived consequences - short compared to the consequences of loving Him. The "Ten Commandments" are actually part of an introductory speech. THE LORD is meeting Israel for the first time in person and is introducing Himself. Part of His introduction is this list of appropriate responses to Him - The Ten Commandments. The one that comes into focus here is in verse 13: "you shall not murder." In other words, God is saying, "Because of who I am, a God who loves and shows compassion and grace, I will not tolerate it when you murder." This is in keeping with what we've seen in Genesis 4 and 9. Murder is not tolerable. So, what is murder? I don't think we have to define it specifically, but I think it will help to define it in context.

Murder is a God-Defying act of violence toward a person that - ultimately - takes away the victim's life. It is an inappropriate response to who God is, and it is a response that places the offender in the position of "hating God" - of becoming His enemy. It invokes the universal principle of human-dispensed, capital punishment.

Thus far it seems that there is biblical merit in extending clemency to pirates by waiting until they have committed capital crimes before committing them to be executed. Even then, there also seems to be a God-Shaped heart in extending further mercy to an offender by reducing the sentence of death to a life-long sentence of punishment. But, I intend to explore the matter a little further in part 2 of this post and see whether there is any merit in preemptive measures and any real clemency in life-long punishment. Also, I already anticipate a part 3 which will deal specifically with what a government should do about such things in my view.

Where Is the Rock-and-Roll in Christian Music?

2009-04-07T09:34:00.018-04:00

In February of 1964, the air of America was stirred by the music of The Beatles as they appeared in the flesh on American soil. American pop-culture was never the same. The most influential band in Anglo-American culture, these ambassadors of rock and roll continue to hold records for producing chart-topping music*. In many ways the Beatles defined the 1960's, particularly the trajectory for the American popular music industry.

However, 45 years after the Beatles toured America for the first time, what has become of rock and roll? It has been turned into the envelope that delivers commercialism, the battlefield of ideologies, and the forgotten echo of a bygone era. Pseudo-Electronica threatens to undo it. Pop wheedles its way in to replace it. The organic, passionate cry of the singer/songwriter is lost in the whirling advance of industry.

And all of this seeps into our churches through the music that is a vehicle for worship.

I have often heard that, musically speaking, the church is behind. Usually, people say this to mean that the musical trends of the church are several years behind the trends heard in commercial music. They are generally correct. The Christian music industry has a tendency to ape the mainstream movements of its parent companies (most Christian labels are subsidiaries of major production companies).

I'm proposing an alternative position, however. Worship leaders, singer/songwriters, even pastors, are caught in the tidal pool of industry and are further behind than "a couple of years." Musically and culturally speaking, most of us are about 45 years behind. We never embraced rock and roll. We never joined the Beatles or any other rock group from the 60's in the defiant departure from popular mainstream music. We never joined the revolution.

Now, I know that you're probably thinking, "But the Beatles became mainstream." Sure, now they are, but not when they were being denounced from pulpits across America as the ambassadors of evil. Their music had as many opponents as adoring fans. Their counter-cultural message was not appreciated - particularly as it related to the music industry.

And that message - that counter-cultural, defiant criticism of the music industry is what I want to advocate and encourage. There are some wonderful exceptions to the rule but, in the main, we are filling our churches, iPods, and heads with mechanistic, industrial glop. The scandalous, beautiful, difficult, powerful message of the gospel of Jesus the Messiah is lost in the profit margins, contracts, endorsements, radio ads, and irresponsible, churchless noise that is amplified by radio towers and empowered by the iTunes store.

It's time to stop. It's time to think. And here's what I'd like us to think about:

Is this music good? I mean REALLY good - not tolerable, GOOD. Is it complicated enough or simple enough to be consistent with the message it presents? Is it innovative? Does it have soul? Does it accomplish its created purpose?
Who is providing this music? The question is NOT, "who is singing the music?" The question is, "who is providing the music?" Who wrote it? Why did he write it? What is this person's character? What is his theology? What is this person's motivation? How is it being produced and promoted?
To whom is the musician responsible? (In other words, "What church supports this musician?") There is an anti-church, anti-establishmentarian, underground, sub-culture that flourishes in the Christian music industry. These artists and producers spread an anti-church message of "free worship" and "free Christianity." They are the unaccountable and should not be supported.

How will we answer these questions? Responsible journalism. I would love to see more churches interviewing bands and free-lance worship leaders, discerning their motivations, and publishing these findings for other churches. Christian magazines tend to ask promotional questions, endorsing new talent, new products, and more consumption. They tend to shy away from the difficult questions. (This is not a typical interview: "So, Lance, how is your relationship with your pastor(s)? Oh, gee, Sally, I don't really have a pastor. Lance, do you mean to tell me that you aren't in a covenant relationship with a local church? Well, Sally, if you put it that way...no.")

Where are the interviewers who will ask these questions and the bands who, like Casting Crowns (to name one), can answer these questions with responses like this: "We love our pastor and love our church. We find a greatest measure of joy in bringing new music to the church, finding constructive criticism there, and taking that creative fellowship into the recording studio." Where is the producer who finds joy in being held accountable - not by his recording label but by his church? Where are the artists and managers who are that counter-cultural, who defy the system?

Where is the Christian, rock and roll?

Ministering a Person

2009-03-10T22:45:00.017-04:00

I've been thinking a lot this week about the current topic of our internship program: "ministering the word." We've been talking about serving the congregation at our church with the truth of the scriptures in a public venue (preaching) and in private (counseling). But I have been pondering something, and it was articulated by a wonderful pastor who spoke at a table-talk forum Monday night. He was talking about the fact that we, as ministers of the gospel, are ministering a person to other people. To say it in another way, we are administering Jesus to people through the scriptures.

This really got me thinking about Communion as another ministry of the Word. What I'm a bit concerned about in my denomination is that we've done such a good job at emphasizing the primacy of scripture that we've neglected a fundamental aspect of "administering Jesus" via the Eucharist (or Communion or the Lord's Supper/Table or what-have-you).

Here, in the breaking of bread and pouring out of wine, we have the clearest God-Given, Jesus-Authorized, communal, multimedia presentation of the gospel. (Yes, baptism has its wonderful place, but let's be honest...it is not as multi-sensory and especially not communal in the same way as sharing food and drink together.) This is ministry of the Word himself - an administration of Jesus that has special significance. But what are we, as Baptists especially, doing with it?

We tend to sequester it to a quarterly function, or deprive it by giving very little teaching on it, or economize it by using boxes of "bread" and pre-fab packets of juice. I wonder, "Where is the robust flavor of grain? Where is the "spare no expense" attitude that comes with purchasing wine?" Are we "cheapening" Communion in more ways than one?

The questions of frugality and frequency don't trouble me quite as much as a related issue, however (and here's where I'm really concerned). The "hard-tack," the grape juice, and the infrequency are typically combined with an element of solemnity (which is not inappropriate in and of itself), but it's almost as if these are all flowing together so that no one will enjoy any part of the wonderful act of Communion. What's not to enjoy?

I wonder if we're forgetting what Jesus is showing us in the breaking of the bread and the pouring out of wine - a celebratory meal in the context of Passover, of freedom. I wonder if we're forgetting what Luke is pointing to at the close of his Gospel narrative (Lk 24.31-32) and the beginning of his narrative in Acts (2.42-43) - that Jesus is known in the breaking of bread and his followers are known by it. In the Eucharist we are administering a person to people. I'm not talking about Transubstantiation. I'm talking about a demonstration of a multimedia, multi-sensory act that administers Jesus - who he is, what he does, what he is really like - in some ways - more than words are able. It's a special, solemn, exciting, celebratory, heart-wrenching expression of who God is. What is God like? He breaks himself, pours himself out, and says "put this into yourselves," and offers a new life and a new way of living.

Isn't this a crucial means of ministering the Word - of administering Jesus - to people? And doesn't this act stand in the gap between private and public ministry of the Word - being both individual and corporate?

Now, I've likely written more things than I should. So, I'm going to wrap this up. If you've read this, then I'd like to know your thoughts. Does what I'm saying make sense? Could it be time for a change of focus, a change of practice, and a change in perspective that says "Communion is important, so let's highlight it, celebrate it, and spare no expense in it to enjoy this wonderful gift." Should we be administering Jesus in a different way?

Bishop Tom & Colbert?

2009-03-05T11:03:00.000-05:00

I saw this recently and, though it was a year ago, I really wanted to post it here. I love the fact that 1) theology can be fun, 2) scholarship challenges our ideas about the Bible, and 3) Bishop Tom looks oddly like my dad. Enjoy!

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Bishop N.T. Wright

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
Joke of the Day

Gimmie 3 Steps

2008-12-12T06:00:00.000-05:00

A Christmas "Re-Post": Things I Need to Remember - Especially while Shopping

I Need to Be:
1. Grateful
2. Cross Focused
3. Scripture Stained

I. Grateful

Circumstances affect our lives and attitudes. We should not deny that this is true. But our lives do not have to be shaped by circumstances; our hearts do not have to be controlled by these things. Beginning each day with gratitude is difficult but necessary. It involves adjusting our perspective so that God’s goodness is in view – as opposed to our circumstances. (1 Tim. 6:6-8)

Some days our hearts may be heavy and only able to admit that God has given us life, but this is a place to begin. If we do not even acknowledge God’s life-sustaining power, then this lack of gratitude can lead to a totally self-focused day or (if left unchecked) way of living. If we begin with the basic truth that God has given another moment of breath and life, this act of gratitude can lead to the perspective shift that will enable us to continue throughout the day with a grateful heart, which should lead us to gratitude in other areas: family, friends, even employment and financial provision. (Is. 42:5; Ps. 150)

II. Cross-Focused

Connected to the need for a grateful perspective is the need to contemplate the cross. Dwelling on the significance of the cross – even if just for a moment – should lead us to a genuine sense of gratitude and humility. If our day is shaped by the thought that Christ the Lord, though the rightful king and God over all of humanity, humbled himself and served us best by his self-sacrifice, then we will be marked by this thought the whole day through. (Phil 2:1-11)

Looking at Jesus is like looking at a map before you leave on a trip. You really only know where you’re going once you’ve taken a good, hard look at the lay of the land. And you really only know what kind of person you are supposed to be by taking a good, hard look at the only person who was ever perfect at doing God’s business – the only person in whom God, the Father, was “well pleased.” (Mark 1:11)

III. Scripture-Stained

We see the cross of Jesus best through the scriptures. In the Old Testament, we see it anticipated. In the Gospels we see it carried out and glimpse the heart of Jesus. In the Epistles, we see its implications for life and application to the church. We should spend time reading the scriptures and bear the marks of our contact with these wonderful writings of God.

If we read and walk away without thinking any further about what we’ve read, then we have missed the point. We need to be stained by our contact with the bible like our fingers get stained from coming in contact with blueberries or engine grease. There should be evidence of what has touched us. We should be scripture-stained.

This means that we must ask for the Holy Spirit to remind us of what we’ve read throughout the day and help us to bring the truth of scripture to bear upon our lives, which will continue what we have begun in adjusting our perspective and by contemplating the cross. This will help us to be grateful and challenge us to live in “the way.” (Acts 24:14-16)

-wp

Christmas Banquet '08

2008-12-11T14:42:00.006-05:00

Here are a few pics from the Triangle Brass concert at last night's Christmas Banquet:

Click HERE for more.

If you missed it, then you missed a great night!

The First Christmas Musical

2008-12-08T08:00:00.000-05:00

Another Look at Luke 2:14

I hope this image doesn't resonate with you at all. I mean, you may like it, but I hope that it doesn't strike a chord in your understanding of what happened on the night Jesus of Nazareth was born. Look at Luke 2:14 again, including a couple of extra verses:

8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"

So, first off, angels are scary. One angel shows up in front of these shepherds, and they're terrified. Then, after the angel speaks to these men, a "multitude of the heavenly host" appears. So, before we imagine little girls with wings an halos singing a lullaby, let's stop to think about what it would mean to see "the host of heaven" and perhaps feel some of the dread excitement of these poor shepherds.

The word "host" has some difficulties, so let's use a better word, "brigade." That's right. Suddenly a regiment of heaven's brigade appeared. A section of God's army showed up and said something (once again, potential bladder issues here). Now, why are these angels usually depicted as singing? It could be that there's a decent reason. The text of Luke 2:14 reads like poetry. It has nice parallels and rhythm in the original language. So, it's possible it was sung (more likely chanted). But what kind of song is this? Please don't imagine that it was anything like children singing.

These are soldiers in God's army singing. And what kind of song does an army sing? A song of war. A battle cry. And THAT is the beautiful irony of this moment. This is the real crux of this passage.

Glory to God
in the highest,
And on earth
peace,
goodwill
toward men.

It's a song of war that talks of peace, that proposes something utterly bold - almost preposterous. God will get the glory of battle in his domain (the heavens) by bringing peace, from his own goodwill, to the domain of men (the earth).

How is this possible? How does it even make sense?

Go find the child in the manger.

Gloria

2008-12-06T12:01:00.000-05:00

Goodwill Hunting

If you read more than one version of the bible, then you'll notice that - from time to time - there are more than just a few words that differ from one another. In Luke 2:14, we see that this is just what has happened. Two translations will show what I'm pondering here: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." KJV "Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." NASB

That's a lot of extra words, so where are they coming from?

Well, there are quite a few technical issues surrounding the passage, but I would like to boil it down to this: the translations represent two traditions of thought. One tradition asserts that God's offer of peace through Jesus' birth is an offer of goodwill toward all people. The other tradition replies that God's offer of peace through the birth of Jesus only applies to some. In other words, Jesus only means peace to those upon whom God's favor rests.

That's - in many ways - an oversimplification of the issues, but it leads me to ask a couple of questions. Doesn't the birth of Jesus (God in the flesh, born into a world filled with undeserving people) represent an extension of goodwill - no matter how you cut it? Then, doesn't that extension of goodwill have an impact on everyone? In other words, if Jesus means peace at all, and if that peace has been extended to any person at all, doesn't that offer of goodwill have an impact on everybody?

I think so.

But I am willing to go one further. Jesus of Nazareth is God's goodwill offering to the whole world. His birth is God's initiative of hope, goodwill, good news, and peace for anyone who would accept it. Jesus, the Christ-Child in Bethlehem, is the extension of God's glory to undeserving humanity, and this action from a loving God demands a response: trust or refusal, worship or rebellion. We can find ourselves in the story if we wish - with Herod or with wise men, with shepherds or with tyrants. But the gracious offer of peace remains.

New Direction

2008-12-04T08:31:00.001-05:00

I'm just going to start blogging random things. It seems that this is what I do best. So, for today:

VOCATION

I've been thinking a lot about vocation. That internal question and inkling of answer: "Where am I going in life? How will I get there? What am I 'supposed' to do?"

This question is especially interesting when it is posed in terms of the life of Jesus of Nazareth. When did Jesus understand his vocation? Was that understanding always fully present? From birth? From adolescence? When? How?

Again, we have questions and inklings of answers. He was in the synagogue as a youth asking astounding questions. He was acutely aware of John the Baptist's mission and went to him. There, Jesus was absolutely convinced of his own mission at his baptism, in the desert for 40 days, on the mount of Transfiguration, in Gethsemane.

Though all of these events point to confirmation, none point too far afield of our own experience in life. We certainly won't have the audible words of delight from God the Father, but we should surely expect moments of clarity, moments of assurance - but likely never a "writing in the sky" sort of epiphany where everything is abundantly clear from the cradle to the grave.

Vocation is a slippery thing. I wonder if the word 'vocation' or 'calling' is appropriate because it indicates a clear directive? Or is it appropriate because it indicates something less tangible: a voice from down the hall or from around the corner - always just audible, never quite perfectly clear? I wonder if God chooses this way for us because it means we must listen more intently and pray with ever increasing fervency.

I actually think the voice behind the vocation is intentionally soft.

Exodus 24 Outline

2008-11-04T07:34:00.000-05:00

Lesson 8: Covenant Affirmation (Exodus 24)

A. Lesson Plan agenda
VII. Israel rejects a gracious invitation. (Ex 20:7-23)
VIII. Israel affirms the Covenant (Ex 24)
IX. God Instructs Moses on Worship (Ex 25-30)

B. Lesson outline:
Theme: God’s calls Israel into a Covenant relationship with Him.

1) Israel’s Representatives are Invited to Worship (24:1-8)
_a. (verses 1-2) Note the small party – compared to 19.13 (everyone!)
__i. Moses, alone, is to “draw near”
__ii. This is the result of Ex. 20 – the people withdrew…
__iii. But MOSES “drew near”

_b. (vv 3-8) Note the words of the people and the ritual of cleansing
__i. It’s similar to Exodus 19 (Affirm an intention, then prepare(
__ii. But it’s different. It’s a pledge of allegiance
__iii. Then they are cleansed in blood – not water.

2) Israel Affirms the Covenant (24:9-14)
_a. The Universal invitation has now become thoroughly representative
_b. The Priests, Elders, and Moses go up …
_c. And they see the God of Israel
_d. And they have a meal

3) Moses Goes Up Alone (24:15-18)
_a. This is sad. Only a small group of people approach God…
_b. Only Moses “draws near” to the presence of God…
_c. When it seems that God’s desire was for all of Israel to be near Him.
_d. It is sad…But look at this Grace. God gives a second chance a second invite.
_e. Look at the language of hope and renewal in these verses:
__i. V.16 – the cloud covered it six days…on the seventh…
__ii. V.18 – Moses was with God 40 days and 40 nights.
__iii. It’s a clean slate for Israel. Praise God he gives us a clean slate each day!

D. Notice in the Text:
1. Compare and Contrast Exodus 19: invitation, preparation, ascension.
2. The people respond in Exodus 24 with the same affirmation, “All that the Lord has said…”
3. The “All” in this instance is not the simple preparation of Ex 19, it refers to Exodus 21-23, the stipulations of right behavior.

E. Discussion starters:
1. Does Israel’s “second chance” for relationship and covenant give you hope in life?
2. The sacrifices that are offered are “young bulls,” a costly choice. Do you think of worship as costing you something? How much is worship worth to you?
3. Moses “goes it alone” at the end of this passage into a cloud of smoke and a “consuming fire.” Are these images typical of how you think of God’s presence? (See Hebrews 12:14-29)

Memory Verse: Hebrews 12:28-29

EV Sideline - Faith

2008-09-08T11:11:00.000-04:00

Define "faith."

You think, "Oh, that's easy," but then you'll notice that you probably begin to stumble and stutter a bit as you try to spit it out. What is it? How can we define it?

These are important questions since we have met up with Abraham in the biblical narrative. If God's plan to deal with sin and evil is going to be channeled through Abraham, then it will pay great dividends to ponder the nature of faith for a moment. Why?

Genesis 15

1 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, "Do not be afraid, Abram. I am your shield, your exceedingly great reward."2 But Abram said, "Lord God, what will You give me, seeing I go childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 Then Abram said, "Look, You have given me no offspring; indeed one born in my house is my heir!" 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir." 5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be." 6 And he believed in the Lord, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Abraham's faith (or belief) here elicits a response from God: approval, righteousness. Why? How? And what does this have to do with the issue of sin and evil?

Let's look at what is going on in the text...

God has already appeared to Abraham in Genesis 12, as we saw in the previous post, and assured him that He would bless him and use him as a key component in blessing the whole world. Abraham left his homeland and began to follow God on the basis of God's promise. Now, when he is faced with a challenge to God's promise, Abraham asks God a question: how can it be that I'm going to bless the whole world with my family when I don't have any children? God answers - assuring Abraham that he will uphold his promise. Abraham then "takes Him at His word," and God is pleased.

That's the basis of faith - taking God at His word, accepting His character and trusting His reputation. Abraham had already established a relationship with God; he was already getting to know Him. Based on the fact that God was someone that Abraham could trust, he accepted his message of reassurance and placed confidence in God's word. This was not a case of blind faith.

So, what does that mean for looking to the OT to understand a Biblical Theology of Evangelism? Well, thus far it means that sharing the gospel with someone must contain an encouragement for that person to get to know who God really is. Of course, the only way to do this is to encourage them to read the scriptures and begin to understand what God is like. It will be much easier for that person to take God at His word if that person is getting to know Him for who He is.

Back to Evangelism 3

2008-09-04T09:50:00.000-04:00

Genesis 5-12 (A Fly By)

Genesis 5 continues the saga of human folly by giving a genealogy, but it also shows us that it is still possible to "walk with God" - to relate to Him and know Him (v. 24).

Genesis 6 shows God's sorrow for sub-human behavior (v. 6) and His intolerance of it, but it also demonstrates His desire to perpetuate His special creature and include Him in a very important plan.

Genesis 7 details the flood narrative.

Genesis 8 continues the narrative and clues us in on an important piece of information - that God would not curse the earth anymore. This implies that God's desire is to return things to their proper, original state.

Genesis 9 begins to unfold God's plan to deal with evil - there will always be "a reckoning" for sub-human behavior (v. 6). Also, God will perpetuate His creation for all time (v. 12).

Genesis 10 begins a new human history.

Genesis 11 gives us an insight on the nature of human communication and man's continual desire to acquire immortality and self-aggrandizement.

Genesis 12 begins a narrative that will become the "meta-narrative" for the rest of the Bible. It gives us insight into how God will deal with the issue of both evil and sub-human behavior.

Gen 12. 1-3
1 Now the Lord had said to Abram: "Get out of your country, From your family And from your father's house, To a land that I will show you. 2 I will make you a great nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you shall be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed."

Can you see the plan?

Back to Evangelism 2

2008-05-15T10:56:00.000-04:00

Genesis 3 and 4 give us the tragic results of what happened when man exercised his freedom of moral decision and chose to do what was right in his own eyes instead of choosing to be lovingly obedient to God.

First, we see that the humans are "enlightened" - their eyes are opened to a new reality. Next, we see that the humans have a different relationship with God. They are afraid of him. Then, we see the results of the decision. God explains the significance of the decision and pronounces judgment on the creature that tempted the humans to be disobedient in the first place. (This judgment speech in Genesis 3:14-15 is important - because it shows that this was not according to God's
design.)

If this were all the information that we had, it would be sad, but chapter 4 is very important in seeing the repercussions for human disobedience. We see in Genesis 4 the horrible result - the real curse that comes from disobedience: sub-human behavior. Cain, in premeditated, jealous rage, kills his brother. Now we see the problem. Humans were created to behave like God but, by choosing disobedience, they have introduced sub-godly and sub-human behavior: sin, murder. Instead of filling the earth with people who are lovingly obedient to God, the earth begins to be filled with rebellious, sinful people - the kind of people who will murder their own brothers. This becomes the legacy of man. But there is a plan in place...

Back to Evangelism 1

2008-05-01T22:26:00.001-04:00

So, let's do something with all of this! (You may have already thought this a number of times along the way now, but here we finally are.) Also, I'm going to make these shorter.

THE DATA, (part 1)
Let's start with the big picture, shall we?

GENESIS 1-2
God creates the universe and is pleased with the outcome. He is especially pleased to have made a creature as his representative and to have given that creature responsibilities. God has given these creatures the following responsibilities:
1) Care for the planet (dominion, if you will)
2) Care for the garden (to keep and to tend)
3) Care for God's Desire and Design.
This last point is the most intricate. First, God gives humans the task of filling the earth with their children. These children would be like them - in a perfect state of communion with God. Second, God gives the man especially the job of keeping and tending in the garden. (It is interesting to note that the terms for keeping and tending in the garden become later used in a religious sense in ancient Hebrew religion. One was to keep and tend to the Torah.) Third, God gives humans the opportunity to obey. He places an option before them - do what I say is right, or do what is right in your own eyes. In fine, the humans were to obey God lovingly and to fill the earth with those who were also lovingly obedient to him.

Imagine that, if you will - an earth covered with people who care for the planet and care for one another because they lovingly obey the Creator of all things. This was God's design for the world. But what went wrong?

BT/E #6

2008-03-25T07:46:00.000-04:00

So, we're back to where we started but with a new perspective - an inkling or a theory. Here's where it all comes together, and here's where we really have to focus on being a bit technical. When you're making a hypothesis (or coming up with a theory), you have to aim for a couple of things.

1) The theory must be based on the data. This sounds obvious, but it is commonplace to see (or hear, rather) theories that are based on nothing more than speculation. This is called guessing or even, in some cases, make-believe.

2) The theory must be as simple as possible. This does not mean that the theory should be simplistic or reductionist in any way. In other words, it shouldn't just generalize about the issue. It should, however, be as simple as possible.

3) The theory must account for all of the data. Here's where it gets tricky. When we establish theories about data, we tend to fudge on this or the previous area. We either make theories very complicated or we leave out data so that we can keep the theory simple. Either one of these is a misstep.

Time for examples:

I've been working through a couple of passages having to do with being "born again." Let's sort through the data and determine a theory. Typically, I like to sort data according to date - oldest to newest.

Ezekiel 36:23-30
23 And I will sanctify My great name, which has been profaned among the nations, which you have profaned in their midst; and the nations shall know that I am the Lord," says the Lord God, "when I am hallowed in you before their eyes. 24 For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land.

25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. 28 Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God. 29 I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. I will call for the grain and multiply it, and bring no famine upon you. 30 And I will multiply the fruit of your trees and the increase of your fields, so that you need never again bear the reproach of famine among the nations.

There are key elements in this OT passage that will be "pulled together" in the end. For now, it is important to note the language of Exodus 19 in verse 28: "You shall be my people, and I will be your God." This is the language that was used at Israel's "adoption ceremony" on Mt. Sinai - where the official father/son relationship was established.

1 Peter 1:13-24
As we saw before, this passage involves the idea of being "born again." The main focus of the passage is the way that brothers and sisters in Christ should treat one another - how they should honor and respect one another out of a deep sense of gratitude. The phrases used in the passage are full of familial language and, at the height of the passage, the following appears: "Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever."

Loving one another (as brothers and sisters) from a pure heart naturally follows from having had your entire heritage changed. You weren't born from a corruptible parentage but an incorruptible one. If your parentage is incorruptible, it only follows that your behavior should flow from that lineage. The purity of your behavior, then, should be intrinsic due to your change in parentage and family.

As far as the typical understanding of "regeneration" goes (in this passage), how is it that you have been "regenerated" yet you have "purified your own souls"? This could be a problem to work out theologically - unless, of course, there has been a category mistake. "Born again" does not mean "regenerated" in the theological sense. "Born again" implies something different - a change of parentage. How the change has occurred is not clearly spelled out. All we know for sure is that God's enduring, powerful message has brought it to pass.

Titus 3:1-8
A different word is used in Titus 3:5 for "born again," but there is a kinship of metaphor and similarity of language here that could constitute this passage as data to be included. When you look closely at the entire context, you can see interesting similarities to the passage in 1 Peter.

1. There is an emphasis on behavior in verses 1 and 8, particularly v. 8: "those who have believed in God should be careful to maintain good works." The motivation for this behavior - in both places - is God's grace.
2. There is the presence of familial language in verse 7: "having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Heirs are those people who have a direct paternal relationship to someone else.
3. There is an emphasis on purity here.

Again, this passage seems to be more about the familial relationship that has been obtained through Jesus than about a mysterious work of "regeneration" that catalyzes faith and belief. As I have said elsewhere, this does not mean that I am negating the possibility for this concept, I am just not certain that it can be justified from this passage. The emphasis on proper parentage seems to be the overriding concern here. Also, a matter that cannot be dealt with at this moment, there is the evidence of allusion to baptism and resurrection in the passage.

Matthew 19:28
This passage proves an important fact. Just because the same word is used in two places, there is no assurance that the word will be used in precisely the same way with precisely the same emphasis. This passage should not be included in the data, because it seems that Jesus is referring to the future resurrection and renewal of all things in his coming kingdom not to being "born again" in the sense that we are investigating.

John 3:1-21
Now, this passage is the last one that contains a clear reference to the concept of being "born again." It shares the same metaphor, though it does not share the same wording as the passage in 1 Peter or the passage in Titus. It clearly contains all the same key components of the passages above:

1. Verse 21 highlights good works that should be done by those who belong to God.
2. Familial language persists in the passage.
3. There is an emphasis on purity: water, spirit, light.

When you relate John 3 to the other passages and to Ezekiel 36, it seems to come into relatively clear focus. There was a need for Israel to be restored. As long as they were in exile, they had not been cleansed, restored, and "re-adopted." The evidence of this restoration was going to be the cleansing and renewing presence of God at work in the children of God. But this renewing presence was not an end in and of itself. The end-goal was to legitimize God's children by purifying their behavior - thereby bringing praise to God instead of shame (Ez 36:30).

Being born again is about being a true child of God - not by genetic birth or physical lineage but by the restoring grace of God at work in the life of a human being. This spiritual activity evidences the fact that they belong to God and bring honor to his name. The mechanics of how the renewing work of the Spirit is applied to an individual - or when it is applied - is nowhere explained. The fact of God's Spirit at work is the focus not the process of God's Spirit at work. The end result is that these passages and the subsequent theory of being born again are less complicated than one might expect.

1. Being born again is about having God as your true father.
2. Being born again is about living in a way that validates your legitimacy as his child and the goodness of his character.
3. Being born again is about a grateful heart, a humble life, and a love for ones family in Christ.

BT/E #5

2008-02-08T21:22:00.000-05:00

It's been a while...But it's time to resume.

The last post discussed the data analysis part of the process. The next step is data collection, but data collection is not an end goal. Data collection is a necessary part of the process because it furthers the work of the collective process. What do I mean?

Look at the diagram again. It "recycles" its steps. Data collection serves the important purpose of providing a corrective to the primary ideas. You had an inkling that they were correct or incorrect in the beginning. By the time you finish analyzing the data from one text, you're ready to tweak your perspective as you look at other texts and analyze more data, especially if that data is related to the information in the previous passage. Ready for an example?

I should probably continue with the previous example, so I will. We were looking at John 3 and the concept of being born again. We saw that the primary notion that the text is pointing to involves a change of parentage, which could have implications for theological development (e.g. the doctrine of regeneration) but is primarily about one's family status
with God.

Alone, this data would just be an interesting case but with our ideas attuned to this new understanding, we are prepared to encounter another similar concept in 1 Peter. In this letter, the author uses the phrase, "born again" to describe his intended recipients. He does not use the same words as Jesus in John's Gospel, but look at the verse that contains this phrase, "having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever." (1 Pet 1.23)

Isn't it interesting that the phrase would be used in this way - born again into a different type of lineage - not a corruptible lineage but an incorruptible one. Again, this could have implications for the doctrine of regeneration, but the main idea of the text is that it seems to have something to do with a family relationship. It affirms a new relationship primarily. (The previous verses also speak of family connection having love for one's brothers, etc.)

These two passages, then, are collected together to clarify the ideas of these two passages. They help to bring one another into sharper focus. Make sense yet?

BT/E #4

2007-11-22T22:38:00.000-05:00

Collecting Data

If we read a text and ask questions of it, we will likely find answers to these questions in the text or itself. These textual answers are the most important data to collect. Some answers will be found in secondary literature. These answers are important but not as important as the textual ones. Let's look at John 3 again to understand what I mean...

I noted before that it would be problematic to read John 3.3 and simply make an association based on a theological concept, partly because this is not a cautious (or even humble) approach to the text - to assume that we understand it without engaging in "conversation" with it. The other issue here is that an association that comes from a theological concept is an answer to a question that comes from a secondary source. (e.g. What is "being born again" all about? It's about the theological concept known as regeneration.) But this can short-circuit the process of collecting and analyzing the textual data. Instead, the "conversation" might go...

John 3.3 “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

So, what does being born again mean? The answer is in the text. Notice that Nicodemus doesn't question why it is necessary. He questions how it could happen. The answer that Jesus gives about the way in which being born again is to occur is not an answer to the question, "what is being born again?" Nicodemus seems to understand what this would imply - a change in origin of birth (the spirit not the parents) would imply a different parentage, a different lineage. This is what seems to amaze Nicodemus at the end of the conversation - that Jesus is seriously asserting that a change or parentage needs to occur by a work of the Spirit of God. But to suggest that a spiritual change of paternity would need to take place would be to accuse someone of being other than a child of God (a Jew would have found this implication outrageous).

This is some of the textual data. This data does not disprove any notions of the theological concept of regeneration. This data has merely been allowed to speak for itself. The collection of this data and other data like it can provide a bigger picture of Biblical Theology, and that will be the topic of the next discussion.

BT/E #3

2007-11-16T09:08:00.000-05:00

Questioning the Text:

Reading is not automatic. You can scan your eyes across a page 100 times or more and never really read. Even for someone with a photographic memory, there must be an engagement with the text. In other words, reading is more like conversation than we think. When we engage in conversation - responding, anticipating, reacting - we are more certain that we are understanding the person with whom we are speaking. And the same is true for reading. When we engage with the text, we are more like a good conversation partner - one who really wants to get at the heart of what the other person is saying.

How many times have you been frustrated by someone who thought they knew what you were saying or meaning but didn't really understand you at all? The more you tried to explain the more confusing the conversation became, because they thought that they already knew what you meant - or even what you were going to say! This is how reading can get if we let it. We can be the bad conversation partner who refuses to listen carefully because we are convinced that we already know what is being said - unless we engage with questions!

Asking questions of the text conveys a certain attitude that says, "I'm not sure I quite understand, but I would really like to. Could you please help me," which - by the way - is a very good prayer to keep going in the background as we read. Displaying this type of attitude leads to a better reading (a better conversation). Now, enough about disposition. What are some questions of the text?

1.) Where is this taking place, and what do I know about the place?
2.) Who is in the text at this point, and what do I know about them?
3.) What details are in the text (names of people, places, things), and why would they be here?
4.) Why is the text arranged in this way? Is there anything before or after this part of the text that sheds light here?
5.) When is this taking place? Is there a special occasion or time of day that is mentioned?
6.) What could have been said that wasn't?

Question 6 is the least important on most occasions, but it can be important at times. Otherwise, these questions are very basic, but they must be asked. Essentially, they all relate to the disposition I talked about above and, basically, they all ask this basic question: "Do I really understand __________?" Fill in the blank: a place, a term, a story, a concept. Ultimately, this question gets to the heart of it all and leads us to the most humbling and exciting question that we could ever use to fill the blank: "Do I really understand Jesus?"

BT/E #2

2007-11-15T23:25:00.001-05:00

I suppose that it would help if I began to explain my approach to Biblical Theology along the "hashing out" of a biblical-theological approach to Evangelism. So, here's a simple definition: Biblical Theology is an organic process that develops from an organic reading of the text.
More on that later ... here's a schematic to help the process along. It shows that there should be questions of ideas, questions of the text, and the analysis of data. These will, in turn, inform original ideas (which will give a better reading of the text, which will give clearer data...and so on.

We all begin with preconceived ideas. These ideas may be inadvertent - shaped by upbringing and education, as well as culture; or these ideas may be intentional - shaped by a conscious desire to believe and maintain a certain set of ideals. Preconceived ideas are not necessarily bad, but they can be troublesome when reading the Bible, because they can often interfere with the most natural and organic reading of the text.

As you can see in the schematic, Ideas are less meddlesome to the process if they are subjected to questions before and during the reading of the text. Asking yourself questions like, "why do I hold this belief?" and "where did this notion originate", can identify ideas that have not necessarily come directly from the text but are affecting the way that a text is being read.

For instance, if we read in John 3.3, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then, we assume that we understand it because we have been taught that being "born again" is about the theological concept known as "regeneration," which is defined as a spiritual process with such and such results and such and such effects. If we then go on without further thought, then we could be missing out on what is actually going on in the text. Being "born again," in this passage may have much more to do with what is being said in the time and place where Jesus said it than in the 16th century - when it was developed as a theological notion by certain scholars and pastors. (This is not to say that theological development is unwanted and unnecessary. These issues just need to be handled one at a time.)

At any rate, ideas need to be subjected to questions, as does the text, which will be covered next time.

BT/E #1

2007-11-14T23:57:00.000-05:00

By no means extensive, here is a preliminary sketch of the major events of the story of redemption. This is a VERY big picture, perhaps too big. But the goal is to organize a plan of explanation that will be cohesive and easy to follow or to tell.

Event	Passage	Significance
Creation	Gen 1&2	God created a world w/ a particular order
Fall	Gen 3	Man colludes with evil for the 1^st time and corrupts his relationships; brings death, sin.
Curse	Gen 3:16	A solution to the problem is introduced
Covenant w/ Abraham	Gen 12-15	God will bless the earth through Abraham
Invitation to Israel	Ex 19	Israel is invited to become their own intercessors and be given the task of reaching the nations
Covenant w/ Israel	Ex 20	Israel rejects the invitation and is given a representative priesthood
Covenant w/ David	II Samuel 7	God will bring about his kingdom through David
Fall & Exile of Israel	Lt. Prophets	Israel rejects being God’s vehicle of Grace; God punishes them with exile
New Covenant	Gospels	Jesus brings God’s New Covenant to bear upon Israel and brings a new vehicle of God’s grace
Death of Christ	Gospels	Jesus bears the curse so there is no threat to the New Covenant
Resurrection of Christ	Gospels	Jesus is vindicated and demonstrated to be the true king of Israel and the world; solution to the problem of evil is realized.

More to follow...

Biblical Theology and Evangelism

2007-11-14T11:01:00.000-05:00

Among random thoughts that I might post here, I want to begin a project that I've been "chewing on" for quite some time. Biblical Theology is a discipline of Biblical Studies that is near and dear to my heart. Its approach to the scriptures and to Christian Theology is beneficial in a number of ways, and it has been applied to all sorts of areas in Christian Life, except Evangelism. Now, it's not entirely true that nothing has been done in this area, but the work is not very extensive. So, I'm going to try to begin "hashing it out," so to speak, here on my blog.'' I hope eventually to develop a sort of "presentation," even, that will enable anyone who is interested in using a "biblical-theological" approach to the work of Evangelism. Mainly, this exercise is for my own benefit - to finally do something with these thoughts and to develop an approach. But I hope it helps whoever is reading.

Stay tuned for more...