Month: May 2008

I Want to Walk Free, But I Still Hear the Chains Rattling

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

As a pastor I frequently encourage people to embrace the Gospel. It is not just to unbelievers that I present that challenge, but to believers as well – even to some who have been Christians for decades. 

We all need to grow in grace, and live by grace day by day. But as easy as it sounds, I sometimes have to stop and realize that it may be far easier to say than it is to live out. Many people – many good people – struggle with how to let go of our propensity toward legalism and embrace the freedom found in Christ.

For that reason I find the following article by Richard Pratt, of Reformed Theological Seminary & Third Millenium Ministries, to be particularly pertinent. And it is as entertaining as it is insightful – at least, I think so.

The story behind it, as I understand, is that Pratt had been encouraged by fellow RTS prof, Steve Brown (Old While Guy), to write a book about the experience of freedom found in the Christian life.  “I Want to Walk Free, But Still hear the Chains Rattling” is Pratt’s response to Brown’s prodding.

Continue reading →

“Shack”-ed

/ Dennis Griffith / 6 Comments

I don’t know where I’ve been, but I’ve missed it.  Apparently there is a self published book out there called The Shack that has become one of the most widely read works in country. It is in the process of becomming a major motion picture.  And it is a book about theology! Well, it is a fictional story aimed at communicating theology, akin to Bunyan’s classic Pilgrim’s Progress. 

The story behind the book’s publishing is… well, quite a story itself. Written by a man to give as a Christmas present to his children, it was never intended to be published beyond a couple copies at Kinko’s.  It has risen to reach the Top 10 List at Amazon, USA Today, and Barnes & Noble. 

But the book is also apparently polarizing.  Some say the theology is questionable. People I appreciate have expressed varying opinions.

As I already stated, I had never even heard of the book, or at the least I never took notice.  I do regularly check out the Best Seller Lists to see if there is anything that might catch my interest, but the Shack apparently slipped by.  But now, in just the past two or three days I’ve heard Steve Brown do an interview with the author and read a review of the book by Tim Challies.  (Click for .pdf the-shack-review)   

I’m not sure what I’m likely to think about it once I read it, but I guess I’ve found at least one book for my Summer Reading List.

Scarlett Letter Today

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

Inspired by an analysis of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlett Letter, on NPR’s All Things Considered, my friend Nathan Lewis probes beyond the literary and sociologic interests offered from the program.  Nathan asks two striking questions:

  • “Have we learned from Hawthorne’s scathing presentation of hypocrissy?”
  • “Would Hester [Prynne] be welcome in our community of faith?”

I want to think through both of these questions.

Continue reading →

Pastors Near Pastures

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

The following words, along with Francis Schaeffer’s No Little People, were helpful to me when last year we accpted the opportunity to return to East Tennessee rather than pursue opportunities with churches in larger cities:

“Few men have the courage to seek obscurity for the sake of its advantages, but there can be no doubt of the intellectual advantages of a quiet country charge. When I hear men complain of the lack of stimulus in a rural parish, or find them longing to preach to audiences more cultivated and worthy of their talents, I feel disposed to think that the poor quality of their intellectual fabrics is due not so much to lack of proper appliances, but rather to a dearth of raw material. Many a man will tell you that he owes all that he afterward became, to the circumstance that, under God, he enjoyed the quiet rural solitude, and had opportunity of uninterupted thought and reading.”

– Francis Patton, in his biography of A.A. Hodge

Emergent & Reformed Coming Together?

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Sometimes listening in to others’ conversation is unavoidable – like when you are standing between two aquaintances at the Kroger’s check out line.  But sometimes eavesdropping is highly informative – especially when a conversation is in print.

Such an informative, though seemingly improbable, dialogue has been taking place at Christianity Today.  Tony Jones, of Emergent Village, and Collin Hansen, of Christianity Today, have been engaging one another about each other’s books, and about the movements they represent: Emergent vs. Young Reformed.

I am familar with Hansen from his work with Christianity Today.  A few years ago I read with great interest his piece, Young, Restless & Reformed.  I was excited to have confirmed what I had been seeing with my eyes – that many, many young adults are hungering to know God, and have found, as I have, the best expressions of theology flow from the hearts and pens of both old and contemporary Calvinistic authors.  Hansen’s article has now blossomed into a book (that I have yet to read).

I am also somewhat familiar with Jones.  He is one of the leading voices of the Emergent movement that is seeming to polarize Evangelicalism.  But while I was familiar with Jones, quite honestly I’ve read only a little of his writing. I have read much more of other Emergent leaders.  But I had recently listened to an interview Jones did on Steve Brown, etc., and came away impressed with his heart and conviction – though still not with all his theological premises. 

So it was with that familiarity that I read the 5-Day discussion: Emergent’s New Christians & Young, Restless, Reformed.

I found the discussion refreshing.  It is not just that both articulate varient positons well.  Having read at least some works by both I expected that. It is more the tone. They are both open, honest, and seeking to understand as much as to be understood.  It is the mutually expressed desire for agreement – even though they both know they differ from one another, in some respects even significantly.  I think this is a great example to many of us. It is a good expression of what Francis Schaeffer writes about in The Mark of the Chirstian.  But sadly it is not common enough.

I have been interested in the Emergent movement for several years. Like many others I have some significant concerns with some of the things associated with this movement.  Unlike many of my Reformed friends, however, I have been far less critical.  For one reason, it seems to me that it is very difficult to lump all things Emergent under one umbrella.  Emergents appear almost as diverse as the broad category of Protestant. (Scot McKnight seems to concur. See: Five Streams of the Emerging Church.) A second reason is that some, maybe even many, associated with the Emergents have offered some profoundly important insights that the rest of us would do well to consider.  And finally I have tried to be patient because this movement is still in it’s infancy. As the movement matures I assume so will some of their positions.  Frankly, I would not want to be judged today on the basis of things I said when I was seven years old; or twelve; or eighteen; or even thirty five!  I have to take the immaturity of the movement into consideration whenever I hear or read things that appear off base.

Still, I do have my concerns. The analysis of D.A. Carson, or Mark Dever, or McKnight have real merit. 

But I wonder if something might be happening. In fact, I suspect it is. And this discussion fuels my specualtion.  I wonder if some of the Emergents, in their hunger for authentic experience of Christianity, might begin to see and embrace the truths of historic theology, perhaps particularly those expressed by the Puritans.  While they gets bad PR, Puritan theology was & is radical, profoundly deep, and highly experiential. Those seem to be among the traits that the most sincere of the Emergents are seeking.

The various streams within the Emergent movement will no doubt take some proponents in differing directions as the movement develops.  We won’t know where until the Emergent movement grows up. But I hope Jones’ and Hansen’s discussion may be a beginning of something BIG.  I for one am hoping we may be seeing the beginnings of a river of neo-Puritanism.

The Mark of the Christian (part 6)

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Francis Schaeffer

Love In Practice

Let me give two beautiful examples of such observable love. One happened among the Brethren groups in Germany immediately after the last war.

In order to control the church, Hitler commanded the union of all religious groups in Germany, drawing them together by law. The Brethren divided over this issue. Half accepted Hitler’s dictum and half refused. The ones who submitted, of course, had a much easier time, but gradually in this organizational oneness with the liberal groups their own doctrinal sharpness and spiritual life withered. On the other hand, the group that stayed out remained spiritually virile, but there was hardly a family in which someone did not die in a German concentration camp.

Now can you imagine the emotional tension? The war is over, and these Christian brothers face each other again. They had the same doctrine and they had worked together for more than a generation. Now what is going to happen? One man remembers that his father died in a concentration camp and knows that these people over here remained safe. But people on the other side have deep personal feelings as well.

Then gradually these brothers came to know that this situation just would not do. A time was appointed when the elders of the two groups could meet together in a certain quiet place. I asked the man who told me this, “What did you do?” And he said, “Well, I’ll tell you what we did. We came together, and we set aside several days in which each man would search his own heart.” Here was a real difference; the emotions were deeply, deeply stirred. “My father has gone to the concentration camp; my mother was dragged away.” These things are not just little pebbles on the beach; they reach into the deep well-springs of human emotions. But these people understood the command of Christ at this place, and for several days every man did nothing except search his own heart concerning his own failures and the commands of Christ. Then they met together.

I asked the man, “What happened then?”

And he said, “We just were one.”

To my mind, this is exactly what Jesus speaks about. The Father has sent the Son!

Divided But One

The principle we are talking about is universal, applicable in all times and places. Let me, then, give you a second illustration — a different practice of the same principle.

I have been waiting for years for a time when two groups of born-again Christians, who for good reasons find it impossible to work together, separate without saying bitter things against each other. I have long longed for two groups who would continue to show a love to the watching world when they came to the place where organizational unity seemed no longer possible between them.

Theoretically, of course, every local church ought to be able to minister to the whole spectrum of society. But in practice we must acknowledge that in certain places it becomes very difficult. The needs of different segments of society are different.

Recently a problem of this nature arose in a church in a large city in the Midwest in the United States. A number of people attuned to the modern age were going to a certain church, but the pastor gradually concluded that he was not able to preach and minister to the two groups. Some men can, but he personally did not find it possible to minister to the whole spectrum of his congregation — the long-haired ones and the far-out people they brought, and, at the same time, the people of the surrounding neighborhood.

The example of observable love I am going to present now must not be taken as an “of course” situation in our day. In our generation the lack of love can easily cut both ways: A middle-class people can all too easily be snobbish and unloving against the long-haired Christians, and the long-haired Christians can be equally snobbish and unloving against the short-haired Christians.

After trying for a long time to work together, the elders met and decided that they would make two churches. They made it very plain that they were not dividing because their doctrine was different; they were dividing as a matter of practicability. One member of the old session went to the new group. They worked under the whole session to make an orderly transition. Now they have two churches and they are consciously practicing love toward each other.

Here is a lack of organizational unity that is a true love and unity which the world may observe. The Father has sent the Son!

I want to say with all my heart that as we struggle with the proper preaching of the gospel in the midst of the 20th century, the importance of observable love must come into our message. We must not forget the final apologetic. The world has a right to look upon us as we, as true Christians, come to practical differences and it should be able to observe that we do love each other. Our love must have a form that the world may observe; it must be seeable.

The One True Mark

Let us look again at the biblical texts which so clearly indicate the mark of the Christian:

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34-35)

That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:21)

What then shall we conclude but that as the Samaritan loved the wounded man, we as Christians are called upon to love all men as neighbors, loving them as ourselves. Second, that we are to love all true Christian brothers in a way that the world may observe. This means showing love to our brother in the midst of our differences — great or small — loving our brothers when it costs us something, loving them even under times of tremendous emotional tension, loving them in a way the world can see. In short, we are to practice and exhibit the holiness of God and the love of God, for without this we grieve the Holy Spirit.

Love — and the unity it attests to — is the mark Christ gave Christians to wear before the world. Only with this mark may the world know that Christians are indeed Christians and that Jesus was sent by the Father.

Solitude

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

 My friend, Seaton Garrett, has developed a great series called Spiritual Formation, Spiritual Disciplines.  Here is an excerpt from part 6 on Solitude:

Try an experiment sometime today, get alone for ten minutes and try to be still and quiet. Note how your body responds, where your mind wonders off to, what emotions or feelings you experience. See if it’s not true.

Most of the time I get three responses from people when we do this.

  1. Restlessness and a desire to get out of there asap. 75% (not addicted, huh?)
  2. They fall asleep. 5% (maybe a sign we’re out of balance?)
  3. Relief that they can stop running at warp speed. 20%

In solitude you are likely to encounter God, and yourself. Both can be pretty scary.

To read the whole post click: Solitude

Great series, Seaton.

 

Building a House of Prayer

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

As the officers of our church and I work through our vision and philosophy of ministry process, there are two simple and fundamental truths that serve as a foundation and shape my thinking.

First, Jesus says: “I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18) And the psalmist says: “Unless the Lord builds the house the laborers labor in vain.”  (Psalm 127:1)  In other words, unless a church (or a home) is built upon the way the Lord wants it, and by the power of God himself, no matter how grand, no matter how great it appears, all our efforts are in vain.  Unless God builds our church, God will not be pleased with anything we develop.

Second, one of the characteristics the Lord specifically says will mark his church – his “house” – is prayer.  “My house will be called a house of prayer for all Nations.” (see Isaiah 56:7; Matthew 21:13) 

Cheryl Sacks, in her book The Prayer Saturated Church, points out that there are some important differences between a church that prays and a house of prayer. (Click: God’s Standard)

I guess, if you think about it, that passage adds two other dimensions to the house God builds. 

First we see Global Missions. The passage indicates the Lord is concerned about the Nations – ALL Nations.  One aspect of a house of prayer for all Nations is that our prayers should include passionate intercession for the advancement of the Gospel among all People Groups (ethnos) throughout the world. 

But another aspect this verse seems to indicate is Unity in Diversity.  Our churches should be open to, even cultivate, a cultural diversity within our doors.  Our churches ought to be places where peoples from any Nation (literally all ethnos, or ethnicities) should be welcome to come to join for prayer. While not every community has a diverse international community, perhaps our churches ought to at least reflect some of the diversity of our neighborhoods.

As I think about that, Matthew 21:13 provides both a foundation (prayer) and scope or goal of ministry (Nations).  That’s a big job.  I’m glad God is the builder.

The Mark of the Christian (part 5)

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

by Francis Schaeffer

When Christians Disagree

What happens, then, when we must differ with other brothers in Christ because of the need also to show forth God’s holiness either in doctrine or in life? In the matter of life, Paul clearly shows us the balance in I and II Corinthians. The same thing applies in doctrine as well.

First, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 he scolds the Corinthian church for allowing a man in the midst of fornication to stay in the church without discipline. Because of the holiness of God, because of the need to exhibit this holiness to a watching world, and because such judgment on the basis of God’s revealed law is right in God’s sight, Paul scolds the church for not disciplining the man.

After they have disciplined him, Paul writes again to them in 2 Corinthians 2:6-8 and scolds them because they are not showing love toward him. These two things must stand together.

I am thankful that Paul writes this way in his first letter and his second, for here you see a passage of time. The Corinthians have taken his advice, they have disciplined the Christian, and now Paul writes to them, “You’re disciplining him, but why don’t you show your love toward him?” He could have gone on and quoted Jesus in saying, “Don’t you realize that the surrounding pagans of Corinth have a right to say that Jesus was not sent by the Father because you are not showing love to this man that you properly disciplined?”

A very important question arises at this point: How can we exhibit the oneness Christ commands without sharing in the other man’s mistakes? I would suggest a few ways by which we can practice and show this oneness even across the lines where we must differ.

Regret

First, we should never come to such difference with true Christians without regret and without tears. Sounds simple, doesn’t it? Believe me, evangelicals often have not shown it. We rush in, being very, very pleased, it would seem at times, to find other men’s mistakes. We build ourselves up by tearing other men down. This can never show a real oneness among Christians.

There is only one kind of man who can fight the Lord’s battles in anywhere near the proper way, and that is the man who by nature is unbelligerent. A belligerent man tends to do it because he is belligerent; at least it looks that way. The world must observe that, when we must differ with each other as true Christians, we do it not because we love the smell of blood, the smell of the arena, the smell of the bullfight, but because we must for God’s sake. If there are tears when we must speak, then something beautiful can be observed.

Second, in proportion to the gravity of what is wrong between true Christians, it is important consciously to exhibit a seeable love to the world. Not all differences among Christians are equal. There are some that are very minor. Others are overwhelmingly important.

The more serious the wrongness is, the more important it is to exhibit the holiness of God, to speak out concerning what is wrong. At the same time, the more serious the differences become, the more important it becomes that we look to the Holy Spirit to enable us to show love to the true Christians with whom we must differ. If it is only a minor difference, showing love does not take much conscious consideration. But where the difference becomes really important, it becomes proportionately more important to speak for God’s holiness. And it becomes increasingly important in that place to show the world that we still love each other.

Humanly we function in exactly the opposite direction: In the less important differences we show more love toward true Christians, but as the difference gets into more important areas, we tend to show less love. The reverse must be the case: As the differences among true Christians get greater, we must consciously love and show a love which has some manifestation the world may see.

So let us consider this: Is my difference with my brother in Christ really crucially important? If so, it is doubly important that I spend time upon my knees asking the Holy Spirit, asking Christ, to do his work through me and my group, that I and we might show love even in this larger difference that we have come to with a brother in Christ or with another group of true Christians.

Costly Love

Third, we must show a practical demonstration of love in the midst of the dilemma even when it is costly. The word love should not be just a banner. In other words, we must do whatever must be done, at whatever cost, to show this love. We must not say, “I love you,” and then — bang, bang, bang!

So often people think that Christianity is only something soft, only a kind of gooey love that loves evil equally with good. This is not the biblical position. The holiness of God is to be exhibited simultaneously with love. We must be careful therefore, not to say that what is wrong is right, whether it is in the area of doctrine or of life, in our own group or another. Anywhere what is wrong is wrong, and we have a responsibility in that situation to say that what is wrong is wrong. But the observable love must be there regardless of the cost.

The Bible does not make these things escapable. 1 Corinthians 6:1-7 reads,

If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! I say this to shame you. Is it possible that there is nobody among you wise enough to judge a dispute between believers? But instead, one brother goes to law against another — and this in front of unbelievers! The very fact that you have lawsuits among you means you have been completely defeated already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated?

What does this mean? The church is not to let pass what is wrong; but the Christian should suffer practical, monetary loss to show the oneness true Christians should have rather than to go to court against other true Christians, for this would destroy such an observable oneness before the watching world. This is costly love, but it is just such practicing love that can be seen.

Paul is talking about something which is observable, something that is very real: The Christian is to show such love in the midst of a necessary difference with his brother that he is willing to suffer loss — not just monetary loss (though most Christians seem to forget all love and oneness when money gets involved) but whatever loss is involved.

Whatever the specifics are, there is to be a practical demonstration of love appropriate to a particular place. The Bible is a strong and down-to-earth book.

A fourth way we can show and exhibit love without sharing in our brother’s mistake is to approach the problem with a desire to solve it, rather than with a desire to win. We all love to win. In fact, there is nobody who loves to win more than the theologian. The history of theology is all too often a long exhibition of a desire to win.

But we should understand that what we are working for in the midst of our difference is a solution — a solution that will give God the glory, that will be true to the Bible, but will exhibit the love of God simultaneously with his holiness. What is our attitude as we sit down to talk to our brother or as group meets with group to discuss differences? A desire to come out on top? To play one-up-manship? If there is any desire for love whatsoever, every time we discuss a difference, we will desire a solution and not just that we can be proven right.

The Difference of Differences

A fifth way in which we can show a practicing, observable love to the world without sharing in our brother’s mistake is to realize, to keep consciously before us and to help each other be aware, that it is easy to compromise and to call what is wrong right, but that it is equally easy to forget to exhibit our oneness in Christ. This attitude must be constantly and consciously developed — talked about and written about in and among our groups and among ourselves as individuals.

In fact, this must be talked about and written about before differences arise between true Christians. We have conferences about everything else. Who has ever heard of a conference to consider how true Christians can exhibit in practice a fidelity to the holiness of God and yet simultaneously exhibit in practice a fidelity to the love of God before a watching world? Whoever heard of sermons or writings which carefully present the practice of two principles which at first seem to work against each other: (1) the principle of the practice of the purity of the visible church in regard to doctrine and life and (2) the principle of the practice of an observable love and oneness among all true Christians?

If there is no careful preaching and writing about these things, are we so foolish as to think that there will be anything beautiful in practice when differences between true Christians must honestly be faced?

Before a watching world an observable love in the midst of difference will show a difference between Christians’ differences and other men’s differences. The world may not understand what the Christians are disagreeing about, but they will very quickly understand the difference of our differences from the world’s differences if they see us having our differences in an open and observable love on a practical level.

That is different. Can you see why Jesus said this was the thing that would arrest the attention of the world? You cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, especially in our day when the existence of true truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts.

We cannot expect the world to understand that on the basis of the holiness of God we are having a different kind of difference because we are dealing with God’s absolutes. But when they see differences among true Christians who also show an observable unity, this will open the way for them to consider the truth of Christianity and Christ’s claim that the Father did send the Son.

As a matter of fact, we have a greater possibility of showing what Jesus is speaking about here in the midst of our differences, than we do if we are not differing. Obviously we ought not to go out looking for differences among Christians: There are enough without looking for more. But even so it is in the midst of a difference that we have our golden opportunity. When everything is going well and we are all standing around in a nice little circle, there is not much to be seen by the world. But when we come to the place where there is a real difference and we exhibit uncompromised principles but at the same time observable love, then there is something that the world can see, something they can use to judge that these really are Christians, and that Jesus has indeed been sent by the Father.