Symbol of a New Day Dawning

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Rooster Colors

From time to time I am asked why I have a rooster for a profile picture, both on my blog and on Facebook.  What’s more, the rooster is also the screensaver on my phone.  I use these images for more reason than just the bucolic tranquility they depict.  The rooster has a long history as an interesting symbol.

While Celtic and Norse cultures saw the rooster as a creature of the underworld – a messenger screeching warnings of danger, and calling for the souls of those killed in battles; most have viewed the rooster in a more positive light.

In art, the rooster has long symbolized the fanning out of brilliance – i.e. showing the world the shimmering facets of ones personality.  As one  scholar has noted, the rooster is used in art to display courage, strength, pride,  honesty, vigilance, watchfulness, as well as flamboyance.  Most of these are excellent qualities. And flamboyance is not entirely bad, though too much of it may be somewhat obnoxious.

In Christianity the rooster is associated with Peter’s denial of Christ on the night of betrayal, leading up to the crucifixion.  So the rooster is associated with Christ’s death – which while tragic, was also God’s intention, the reason for which Jesus was born.  And while not lessening the tragedy, it is important to remember that Jesus himself says of the crucifixion: “I lay down my life, no one takes it from me.”  (John 10.11-18) Jesus laid down his life that those who believe would have life. Yet the effect of his substitutionary death only reached its full effect upon his resurrection – which Jesus hinted at in John 10.17.  In that sense the rooster, which symbolizes betrayal and death, cannot be separated from the purpose of Jesus’ death, and thus cannot be separated from the resurrection.  Therefore, the rooster is an appropriate symbol of the gospel itself.

What the rooster most symbolizes, at least to me, is the dawning of a new day. This is the reason I use it so freely.   The rooster crows at the first hints of new light.  This was a primary reason the rooster was used as a symbol of the Reformation – it was a reminder that the Reformation itself signaled a new day.  Of course the resurrection of Jesus is the ultimate sign of a new day.  And God himself tells us, through his prophet Jeremiah, that “his mercies are new every morning”.  (Lamentations 3.22-23)

So to me, the rooster is a constant reminder of the gospel, and that today is a new day – every day is a new day.  This being New Years Day, the rooster seems to me to be an especially appropriate symbol.

Is This Why We Don’t Engage Our Neighbors?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

The Conversation (Brooklyn Art Project)

Here is a challenging perspective and good instruction from Leon Brown, church planter and pastor at Crown & Joy Presbyterian Church in South Richmond, Virginia:

“I fear that one of the reasons we don’t know how to engage non-Christians to talk about Jesus is because we’ve forgotten how to have regular conversations. If the conversation is not about the Bible, a child’s education, church, other forms of ministry, or the occasional sporting event, we don’t have a paradigm for much else. If this is you, here’s a remedy. Spend more time in public places and listen to the discussions that are occurring around you. You’ll begin to notice what’s important to people. Grow in your understanding of those things. Even consider how the word of God speaks to those situations. After some time, it’ll be easier to have ‘common grace’ conversations, and you’ll be prepared to share the word in a natural manner, as the scriptures speak to many, many things.”

Male & Female He Created Them

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Being part of one of the relatively few denominations that still ordains to church office only those who meet the Biblical criteria, I sometimes resonate with whoever the comedian or cartoon character was who was noted for saying: “Nobody understands me.”  While that is a bit of an overstatement, as I do not stand alone, I do often find that there is need to explain myself; to defend the basis of our practice.  This is especially true as it applies to restriction of the office of Elder to men only.

I am not a sexist.  So I understand the raised eyebrows implicitly questioning if my church and I are somehow stuck in a time warp.  I understand the perplexity when I have the audacity to declare that I believe, and our church believes, in the equality of men and women.  If we truly believe in “equality” how can we continue with our traditional practices?  I will get to that in a moment.

Compounding the misunderstanding, I am afraid, are those who share our same practice, but have an entirely different attitude behind it.  Some even within our denomination. Those to whom I refer are those who embrace a position of patriarchy. (I often refer to these folks as the “He Men Women Haters Club”.)   Often such people refer to their position as “Biblical Patriarchy”, but aside from a few anecdotal illustrations they find in the Bible (usually devoid of appropriate context) I would suggest there is little to nothing Biblical about their position.  Nevertheless, I find that, because of our practices, many people see little difference between our views and and the patriarchy proponents.

Part of the reason for this misunderstanding is that many people seem to have bought into the premise that there are only two views on the subject: Patriarchal or Egalitarian. In short, Patriarchy is the view that men are created to and commanded to rule. Egalitarianism is the view that not only are men and women equal, they are essentially the same, and therefore interchangeable.  While in no way endorsing patriarchy,  I suspect the egalitarian view has contributed to the rise of gender confusion, though that is an entirely different subject, and outside the scope of my intent for this post.  Nevertheless, if it were true that there are really only these two theoretical options, then it would be reasonable to judge someone on this issue bases upon how close to which he or she stands, or how close church practices stand, in proximity to either of these two poles.

Continue reading →

Chrysalis Factor

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Chrysalis

There are times I feel somewhat like a sea captain who took charge of a ship that had experienced unprecedented prosperity under the direction of his predecessor, and then sprung a leak a few months into his tenure.  Don’t get me wrong, I love the church where I serve, but some of the challenges came as a bit of a surprise.  Chiefly a decline in attendance and a corresponding budgetary strain.

In some ways this was inevitable. In some ways this is circumstantial. And in other ways it is personal.

It was inevitable because nothing stays the same forever. No organization, or organism, experiences perpetual increase in prosperity.  Sooner or later, changes, challenges, and a period of decline is certain.

It is circumstantial, if for no other reason, the nature of the community where our church is located is a very fluid, very transient community, Many who live here are in the military, and so they are only here for a short time. Others who live here have retired – often early – and come to enjoy the wealth of cultural, historical, and natural amenities. However, there seems to be a pattern – when one member of the marriage, husband or wife, experience injury or become ill, the couple moves away, back home, or somewhere near their children.  Understandable. While Williamsburg is a beautiful place to settle, they have no roots here, so they move on.

It is personal in the sense that whenever a church changes pastors there is almost always some turnover among the members.  No matter how capable the new minister is, his presence is a constant reminder that things have changed; that this is not exactly the church that they had joined anymore.  And as American church culture becomes increasingly more consumeristic, the less likely folks are to stick around to get used to the changes.  After all, if they have to adjust to change, why not use it as an opportunity to trade in for a new model that has some amenities that they had not been looking for a few years ago, but would provide a pleasant upgrade.  Consequently new pastors are often not treated like people, who might have feelings, but rather as a commodity to be embraced or discarded at the whim of the customer.  Or another aspect of the personal – some church members just don’t like the new pastor’s personality (or lack of it).

I suspect differing measures of all three of these played a part in our initial decline.  Fortunately we remained stable. We have a good cohesive staff; wise and godly officers who work as a team, a band of brothers; and no panic or finger pointing from the congregation.  So despite our leak our ship has remained in pretty good shape.

As we move forward it is essential to assess where we are, and to map out where we are headed.

At present we are in what Thom Rainer calls the Chrysalis Period.  According to Rainer, during the Chrysalis Period a church or organization undergoes changes beneath the surface that are necessary to become what we will inevitably become.

The chrysalis is the pupa of a butterfly encased in a cocoon. It is the former caterpillar and the future butterfly. It is the stage when the worm-like, slow-moving caterpillar becomes a beautiful, free-flying butterfly.

I like the imagery.  It seems apt.  We are a work in process.  And not all that is going on is evident to all who take a look.

4 Questions to Help Know Right From Wrong

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

fork-in-the-Road

Jerry Bridges, in his contemporary classic Pursuit of Holiness, writes: “Years ago a friend gave me what he called his ‘Formula: How to Know Right from Wrong.’ The formula asks four questions based on three verses in 1 Corinthians:

1. ‘”Everything is permissible for me” – but not everything is beneficial’ (1 Corinthians 6.12). Question 1: Is it helpful – physically, spiritually, and mentally?

2. ‘”Everything is permissible for me” – but I will not be mastered by anything’ (1 Corinthians 6.12). Question 2: Does it bring me under its power?

3. ‘Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall’ (1 Corinthians 8.13). Question 3: Does it hurt others?

4. ‘So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God’ (1 Corinthians 10.31). Question 4: Does it glorify God?”

Intolerance of Contemporary Tolerance

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

I recently finished reading D.A.Carson‘s excellent book, Intolerance of Tolerance.  It was a long time coming, with several starts and stops and re-starts along the way, but in the end it was well worthwhile.  The stops and starts were in no way reflective of the readability of the book.  It had more to do with my time, and demands requiring the reading of other things.  The book itself is a fascinating consideration of one of the most volatile foundations of our present cultural hostilities. At its essence, this book explores the radical difference of a very subtle shift in the definition and practice of the word tolerance.  As Carson points out, the tolerance has traditionally been understood to mean:

“accepting the existence of different views”

-or-

“recognizing and respecting others’ right to beliefs and practices without necessarily agreeing or sympathizing with them”

Pretty basic stuff in a free and pluralistic society, right?  It is this kind of understanding that causes a statement usually attributed to Voltaire to resonate with our sensibilities:

“I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Carson notes that the newer, active, definition presently employed by the majority of our culture, or at least by the cultural elite and the ivory towers is slightly different:

“the accepting of different views”

Given just a simple glance, this newer definition seems to be just a shortened version of the more traditional understanding.  But given adequate consideration we quickly see that there is a vast difference. Taken as is, this newer definition of tolerance assumes that all views are equal, equally valid, and should thus be equally embraced.  That is what “accepting” a view is, as opposed to accepting that people have a right to hold a view.  This “acceptance” is rooted in the postmodern notion that there is no truth; or at least that there is no true Truth; as Truth varies with individual experience.  But this idea is absurd; and those who claim to hold to it are hypocritical.

First the absurdity. Certainly our experiences effect the way we perceive the world, and even the the way we experience the verifiable truths of this world.  But the truths transcend mere experience.  Green is green, whether I am color blind or not.  Day is day; Summer is summer; 2 plus 2 is always four.  I have heard it said that What I experience is my Reality, but Truth is what IS regardless of how I relate to it.  Of course there are also complexities that effect the way we experience Truth, but Truth is … well, it just IS.  And since Truth just IS, then it is not possible for ALL ideas to be equally valid.  Sometimes we are just wrong. The fact that we have a right to be wrong in no way validates our wrongness.

Second, any attempt to embrace this new definition will inevitably lead to hypocrisy.  For example, to maintain that all views are equally valid would require one to embrace the philosophies of the KKK and the Nazi’s.  Any thinking person would obviously reject the core beliefs of these groups, as well as most of the the subsidiary views.  And rightly so.  Further, to assert that all views are in themselves equally valid would require a level of cognitive dissonance that allows the embracing of mutually exclusive views, as certainly there are many examples of conflicting beliefs.   The reality is that no one is capable of living out what this new definition of tolerance demands.  And those who claim to do so, in practice show their hypocrisy in their (right) rejection of some views (such as those of racists, etc.), and at the very least in their disdain for those who do not embrace their definition of tolerance.

Intolerance of Tolerance is a worthwhile read for anyone who wants to understand the roots of our present cultural hostilities. In the above video, Carson offers a lecture from the substance of the book.  Also of interest may be an an article excerpted from the book, Contemporary Tolerance is Intrinsically Intolerant.   intolerance

Warped Christianity

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Warped Reality

Sociologist Christian Smith introduced the phrase Moralistic Therapeutic Deism in his book Soul Searching:The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers.  Smith, and his colleagues, assert that, from their research, this would be a fitting description of the spirituality of the typical American teenager – a spirituality they gained from watching and listening to their Baby Boomer parents.

Al Mohler, in a post titled Moralistic Therapeutic Deism – the New American Religion, describes Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as consisting of beliefs like these:

  1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.”
  2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.”
  3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.”
  4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.”
  5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced.

What is perverse about these statements is that none of them is entirely wrong.  But it is the subtle errors that erode genuine faith, especially when the propositions fit together to form a worldview.  Together they create a warped perspective that, while borrowing the language of Christianity, is not actually Christianity.

Resources to Help Us Navigate Our New Cultural Reality

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Ship in Narrow Passage

The Elders of the church where I serve as pastor met, as usual. Part of our discussion, however, was anything but usual.  While it is not uncommon for this group to discuss subjects to help us more effectively minister, even setting aside occasional Saturday mornings to delve into variant viewpoints of issues that affect peoples’ lives, this is the first time our discussions involved anything that approached the edges of civil laws.  In the end, what was requested at this point was a a handful of resources for our mutual consideration, some things that might prove helpful as we seek to remain faithful – in all respects – in this new cultural “reality” concerning marriage.

It seems to me that there are two aspects we – and other churches like ours – need to navigate: first, how to defend the biblical design for marriage with wisdom and in truth; second, how to wisely, sensitively, and effectively minister to individuals struggling with same-sex-attractions, as well as to individuals and families for whom this is a real and personal issue, and not just a theoretic and/or political hot potato.

What we do not want to do:

  • We do not want to over-react to the new legal definition of marriage, which we believe to be at odds with the biblical definition that directs us.
  • We do not want to act and speak in ways that are insensitive, and/or unnecessarily offensive to those who struggle with, or who are impacted with, issues related to same-sex attraction.
  • We do not want to alienate people we are called to love – some of whom we already love, and who number among our friends.
  • At the same time we do not want to – we cannot – capitulate to the culture, forsake God’s Word as our only ultimate authority, or compromise the gospel in any way.

While it is somewhat cliche, I have long asserted that our goal should be to live and minister in such a way that the gospel be our only offense.  Of course this is not possible, since my sin, and the sin of every other person associated with our church, is real, and our sin is often offensive to those around us.  But I think the phrase nevertheless has merit, as an aspiration, perhaps especially now, as we seek to navigate these new waters.

The resources I am providing here probably help more with the first issue, how to defend and teach our position; offering less help concerning the second, how to effectively love and minister to those with same-sex attractions, and how to effectively love and encourage those who love someone struggling with same-sex attractions and who may be in a same-sex relationship.  This is new ground for pretty much everyone, so I will be exploring to find all I can find, as I expect we will see an increase of people impacted – or at least more people coming forward with both questions and concerns.

Here is an annotated list of resources I have found helpful:

Making Sense of Scriptures “Inconsistencies” by Tim Keller

This is a very good, relatively short, and easily understandable response to those who suggest that by opposing or by not supporting homosexuality Christians are picking and choosing from the Bible.  Keller offers a short primer course on the relationship between the OT & NT, and why that matters in our current climate.

40 Questions for Christians Now Waving Rainbow Flags by Kevin DeYoung

DeYoung poses some thoughtful questions for those sitting on the fence on this issue, or who while being Christians are adopting the cultural narrative over the biblical narrative.  These questions could be misused, and become tools for confrontation; or they can be used thoughtfully to encourage honest reflection in a process to renew our minds toward biblical conformity.

50 Resources for Equipping the Church on Homosexuality & Same-sex Marriage

This is a fairly extensive resource list, with links to articles related to a variety of questions many Christians are asking.

The Bible and Same Sex Relationships by Tim Keller

A thorough and practical review of two of the primary books supporting same-sex marriage. In this review Keller outlines six categories that virtually all arguments favoring same-sex relationships fall into, and then Keller addresses each argument.  While this might seem merely academic, my experience is that any dialogue with proponents of same-sex marriage will inevitably involve one or more of these argument categories. Therefore, Keller’s reflections prove to be highly practical.

What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung

This is a short book, comprehensive, yet readable.  It is essentially a Readers’ Digest version of a more technical academic book that is on the market.  DeYoung explores the issue from a number of angles, mining the Bible for its authoritative guidance.

Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill

Written by an Evangelical who struggles with SSA, this is an absolutely helpful little book for those of us who do not struggle with this particular issue.  Hill helps the reader understand the heart & mind of those who experience SSA.  He is clear about homosexuality being sin, yet he also exposes some of the hurtful, insensitive, and unhelpful things that those of us in the church have done – and are prone to do – toward those who do have this inclination.  This is a tool that can help us minister to those struggling homosexuality.

Harvest USA

Harvest USA is a ministry that works with people struggling with all forms of sexual brokenness.  On their site they have a variety of articles, many of which could be of help and interest. What Harvest USA’s resources also can do is remind us that homosexualiuty is but one issue, and that there is a wide range of sexual brokenness that the people in our pews experience.  Homosexuality and SSA is but one expression of brokenness, no worse, and no better than any other expression.  What sets it apart now is that it is the only government sanctioned and culturally acceptable expression.  We must be careful to not over-react to this, nor to under-react.

This is a lot of stuff, but it is also not enough stuff.  I hope those who are concerned about the faithfulness of the church – both to purity and to our mission – will find at least some of these helpful.  But please keep in mind that while this issue has new status in our culture, that our mission and purity have always been held in tension.  We are called and sent into a broken world, a world which has been broken and corrupt in various ways for millenia. We ourselves are no better than the broken world, but rather redeemed from it by God’s grace, through the sacrificial death of Jesus.  When we were called, we were as corrupt and broken as whoever we may be tempted to see as the worst of humanity.  But in Christ we have found mercy and hope.  (1 Corinthians 1.26-31; Romans 5.6-8; Matthew 9.13; 1 Timothy 1.15)

The Deconstructed Gospel

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Deconstructed Corner Church

What is the gospel? My first semester at seminary I showed up feeling called by God to become a pastor and I couldn’t say what the gospel was. Sure I had an idea. Isn’t the gospel that we’re “saved by faith” or that “Jesus rose again”? The word gospel comes from the Greek word that means “good news.” Mark 1:1 tells us the gospel is “the good news about Jesus the Messiah.” So what about Jesus’ life and ministry is good news for us?

Just about every Christian I know has trouble answering this question. Usually someone will bring up Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (something I like to call the three days gospel) and how through them God gives us eternal life. That is absolutely true and so beautiful. But what about the other thirty-three years of Jesus’ estimated lifespan? Do those years matter for us too? This is why I break down the gospel into three days and thirty-three years.

THE THREE DAYS GOSPEL

“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Day 1 – Friday: “Christ died for our sins”

This is a great starting point for defining what the gospel is. Jesus died for our sins. That’s a huge statement and is summed up in the fancy theological term “atonement.” The Day of Atonement described in Leviticus 16 was the day the High Priest of Israel slaughtered a goat and sprinkled its blood in the Most Holy Place of the temple before God. This sacrifice atoned for the sins of the people for another year. On Good Friday, Jesus atoned for our sins when he became the final sacrifice. He died an innocent victim in the place of guilty sinners.

Day 2 – Saturday: “He was buried”

True, Jesus was buried in the tomb on Friday, but he stayed dead on Saturday. Friday and Sunday of Easter weekend get all the credit, but Saturday played an important part too. Saturday proved Jesus was really dead. He wasn’t just passed out or dying. He was locked away in a tomb with no breath in him. Hebrews 2:9 tells us Jesus “suffered” or “tasted” death. He went through all the pain of Friday so he could be dead on Saturday. This is the same death you and I face for all eternity if Sunday’s miracle never comes.

Day 3 – Sunday: “He was raised”

Jesus rose from the grave conquering sin and death on Sunday morning. Resurrection! He returned to the living in his old yet newly glorified body. This is what we who trust in Jesus will experience at the final resurrection when Jesus returns. Christ will call us forth from our graves to spend eternity with him in a whole new creation. We who trust in Jesus die spiritually with him on Friday. One day our bodies will really be dead, like Saturday. But our hope is in what Jesus did on Sunday so we too will rise again. The resurrection is good news!

The last three days of Jesus’ life matter for you and for me. Those three days are what most people think of when they think of the gospel. We turn to them first because they’re what drive us to put our faith in Christ. Jesus offers forgiveness for our sins through his sacrifice on the cross on Friday, through our fear of death on Saturday, and through the hope we have for eternity on Sunday. We turn to them because they matter for us when we die. Even in our last days, we still have hope.

THE THIRTY-THREE YEARS GOSPEL

So what about the rest of Jesus’ life? How are they the gospel? How does how he lived matter for our lives right now? Usually when I ask this question, everyone goes quiet. It’s because we don’t usually think about the gospel from this angle. We love our hope in eternal life, but haven’t considered what Jesus may have done for our present life.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Jesus lived a perfect life: “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin,”

Jesus was born, and then he lived. But he didn’t live like you and I live. He lived a life of perfect obedience to God, his Father. He “knew no sin.” That means he never lied to his parents, stole from his employer, cheated on a test, lusted in his heart, drank too much alcohol, or got angry for the wrong reasons. He lived without sin through all life’s stages. Jesus was a toddler, but he wasn’t terrible. He was a teenager, but he wasn’t angsty. He was a man, but he wasn’t prideful. He was on his deathbed made of wood, and he died with grace.

Not only did Jesus never sin, he also lived a holy life. This means he always did the right thing. He prayed enough, fasted enough, read the Scriptures enough, and gave enough to the poor. He did all those right things and more. Luke 2:52 gives us a glimpse of Jesus’ godly character. “And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man.” Jesus was a person like us in his experience, yet unique from us in his perfection. Don’t you wish your everyday was more like Jesus’ everyday? Don’t you wish that you weren’t the sinner you are? Don’t you wish you are as holy and good as Jesus? Here’s the good news . . . you already are!

We get credit for Jesus’ perfect life: “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Jesus trades his righteousness for our sin. This is the great exchange. Through Jesus’ perfect life and substitutionary death, God has taken your sinful life and placed it on Jesus and taken his holy life and placed it on you. That’s what grace does. When God looks at you, he sees the life of his Son! God has permanently credited the righteousness of Jesus to your account. This truth is as old as Abraham trusting Yahweh in Genesis 15:6 and as fresh as Paul writing to the early church in Romans 3:21-26. The gospel is for every believer every day.

This means that when you wake up and blow it sometime this morning, afternoon, or evening—you are holy. This means that when you cuss out the driver in front of you for driving too slow and the driver behind you for driving too fast—you are holy. This means you don’t have to regret your teen years, or your college years—you are holy. This means when you forget to be polite and you don’t help your neighbor because it’s inconvenient—you are holy. This means that the hidden sin you don’t want anyone to know about are forgiven in God’s eyes,—you are holy. This means your worst offense is completely forgiven at Christ’s expense.

Not only does the gospel forgive our outward acts of sin, it cleanses our inward rebellion. Ezekiel 36:26-27 tells us the gospel has changed our very hearts. God takes your old hard heart and gives you a new soft one filled with the Holy Spirit. Where your life was empty, now your life is full. You are awash in righteousness where you once were lost in unrighteousness. When you sin today, remember that God sees you as he sees his son, forgiven and holy. One day your sin will be completely gone, and God’s righteousness will become intrinsic to who you are, but until then God has credited us with a spotless record that you may enjoy today. Thank you, Jesus.

Jesus has traded his thirty-three years of perfection for your whole life of disobedience and sin. This means you no longer have to wallow in despair, guilt, and doubt, because you are seen through the lens of Christ. One day soon our sin nature will go away, but until then we hope in Jesus and enjoy his righteousness. As one friend said when he finally understood the gospel, “That’s so unfair!” My dirty record is gone. Jesus’ fresh record is mine.

SO WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?

The gospel is the good news that Jesus lived a perfect life, died an innocent death, rose again so that we may spend eternity with him, and now credits us with his holy record so that we may enjoy a guilt-free life today. We make disciples by helping the lost believe the three days gospel and we mature those disciples by helping them live every day in appreciation for the thirty-three years gospel. We need the full gospel message to truly make, mature, and multiply disciples of Jesus.

—

This post was written by Jonathan M. Romig (M.Div., Gordon-Conwell),associate pastor at Immanuel Church in Chelmsford Massachusetts (CCCC). Jonathan blogs at PastorRomig.blogspot.com.

Seeing the Cross With Bi-Focals

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

Bi Focal 3

Is is essential to keep together these two complementary ways of looking at the cross. On the human level, Judas gave him up to the priests, who gave him up to Pilate, who gave him up to the soldiers, who crucified him. But on the divine level, the Father gave him up, and he gave himself up, to die for us. As we face the cross, then, we can say to ourselves both, “I did it, my sins sent him there,” and “He did it, his love took him there.” The apostle Peter brought the two truths together in his remarkable statement on the Day of Pentecost, both that “this man was handed over to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge” and that “you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross” Peter thus attributed Jesus’ death simultaneously to the plan of God and to the wickedness of men. For the cross which, as we have particularly considered in this chapter, is an exposure of human evil, is at the same time a revelation of the divine purpose to overcome the human evil thus exposed.

~ John Stott

Top 3 Needs of the Church Today

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
Threefold Chord

The late great John Stott was asked: “What are the top three needs of the church today?” 

Here is Stott’s prophetic three-fold response:

The church’s most basic need is to remember what kind of community it is, and in particular its double identity. For God calls his people out of the world to belong to him and sends them back into the world to serve and to witness. The first calling is to ‘holiness’ and the second to ‘worldliness,’ using the word as the opposite of ‘other worldliness,’ and meaning ‘involved in the life of the world.’ So the church is called to ‘holy worldliness’, for this is its double identity. It needs constantly to ensure that neither identity smothers the other.

The church’s second need is to be what it claims to be, and so to allow no dichotomy or conflict between its profession and its practice. Without this the church lacks authenticity and so credibility.

In response to the challenge of pluralism, the church needs to be faithful in defending and proclaiming the uniqueness and finality of Jesus Christ. If it does so, it will certainly suffer for its faithfulness. If we compromised less, we would undoubtedly suffer more.

When a Government Oversteps Its Authority

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment
Shattered Dreams

During some of the darkest days of Germany, a faithful Lutheran presciently described how governments lose their claim to legitimate authority according to Romans 13.  Considering recent events here in the United States, where the unelected and unaccountable SCOTUS has decreed law, Hermann Sasse’s 1932 treatise, What is the State?, may warrant some thoughtful consideration:

The Caesar cult in its manifold forms, the deification of the state, is one great form of the defection from the [true] idea of the state. There are also other possibilities of such defection. The government can forget and neglect its tasks. When it no longer distinguishes between right and wrong, when its courts are no longer governed by the strict desire for justice, but by special interests, when government no longer has the courage to exercise its law, fails to exercise its duties, undermines its own legal order, when it weakens through its family law parental authority and the estate of marriage, then it ceases to be governing authority.

Raising such a question can lead to heavy conflicts of conscience. But it is fundamentally conceivable, and it has time and again become reality in history, that a governing authority has ceased to be governing authority. In such a case there may indeed exist a submission to a superior power. But the duty of obedience against this power no longer exists.

Here We Stand: An Evangelical Declaration on Marriage

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment
Image processed by CodeCarvings Piczard ### FREE Community Edition ### on 2015-06-25 18:32:21Z | http://piczard.com | http://codecarvings.comÞâÚÙÝÿþÿýüþ¸ÏÀÿž¸¨ÿ”l²i¥W€0»

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on marriage yesterday, a diverse coalition of Evangelical leaders, gathered by the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, drafted and released the following statement.  Had I been asked – and if I am asked – I would gladly add my name.  ~ WDG

***

As evangelical Christians, we dissent from the court’s ruling that redefines marriage.

The state did not create the family, and should not try to recreate the family in its own image. We will not capitulate on marriage because biblical authority requires that we cannot. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage represents what seems like the result of a half-century of witnessing marriage’s decline through divorce, cohabitation, and a worldview of almost limitless sexual freedom. The Supreme Court’s actions pose incalculable risks to an already volatile social fabric by alienating those whose beliefs about marriage are motivated by deep biblical convictions and concern for the common good.

The Bible clearly teaches the enduring truth that marriage consists of one man and one woman.

From Genesis to Revelation, the authority of Scripture witnesses to the nature of biblical marriage as uniquely bound to the complementarity of man and woman. This truth is not negotiable. The Lord Jesus himself said that marriage is from the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6), so no human institution has the authority to redefine marriage any more than a human institution has the authority to redefine the gospel, which marriage mysteriously reflects (Eph. 5:32). The Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage demonstrates mistaken judgment by disregarding what history and countless civilizations have passed on to us, but it also represents an aftermath that evangelicals themselves, sadly, are not guiltless in contributing to. Too often, professing evangelicals have failed to model the ideals we so dearly cherish and believe are central to gospel proclamation.

Evangelical churches must be faithful to the biblical witness on marriage regardless of the cultural shift.

Evangelical churches in America now find themselves in a new moral landscape that calls us to minister in a context growing more hostile to a biblical sexual ethic. This is not new in the history of the church. From its earliest beginnings, whether on the margins of society or in a place of influence, the church is defined by the gospel. We insist that the gospel brings good news to all people, regardless of whether the culture considers the news good or not.

The gospel must inform our approach to public witness.

As evangelicals animated by the good news that God offers reconciliation through the life, death, and resurrection of His Son, Jesus, we commit to:

  • Respect and pray for our governing authorities even as we work through the democratic process to rebuild a culture of marriage (Romans 13.1-7);
  • teach the truth about biblical marriage in a way that brings healing to a sexually broken culture;
  • affirm the biblical mandate that all persons, including LGBT persons, are created in the image of God and deserve dignity and respect;
  • love our neighbors regardless of whatever disagreements arise as a result of conflicting beliefs about marriage;
  • live respectfully and civilly alongside those who may disagree with us for the sake of the common good;
  • cultivate a common culture of religious liberty that allows the freedom to live and believe differently to prosper.

The redefinition of marriage should not entail the erosion of religious liberty.

In the coming years, evangelical institutions could be pressed to sacrifice their sacred beliefs about marriage and sexuality in order to accommodate whatever demands the culture and law require. We do not have the option to meet those demands without violating our consciences and surrendering the gospel. We will not allow the government to coerce or infringe upon the rights of institutions to live by the sacred belief that only men and women can enter into marriage.

The gospel of Jesus Christ determines the shape and tone of our ministry.

Christian theology considers its teachings about marriage both timeless and unchanging, and therefore we must stand firm in this belief. Outrage and panic are not the responses of those confident in the promises of a reigning Christ Jesus. While we believe the Supreme Court has erred in its ruling, we pledge to stand steadfastly, faithfully witnessing to the biblical teaching that marriage is the chief cornerstone of society, designed to unite men, women, and children. We promise to proclaim and live this truth at all costs, with convictions that are communicated with kindness and love.

***

To read the original post, and to find the names of the signatories, click: Here We Stand