A video memorial for John R.W. Stott, who passed from this life today. Few if any have had as much influence on my Biblical understanding and holistic theology as did John Stott through his writings and lectures.
John R.W. Stott (April 27, 1921 – July 27, 2011)
R.I.P.
I have greatly benefited from being introduced to Tri-Perspectivalism. While it is an odd sounding word, as a concept Tri-Perpectivalism is reasonably easy to grasp. It is a multi-facted perspective, or looking at things from three distinct perspectives, rooted in the personality and offices of Christ: Prophet, Priest, and King.
John Frame was probably the first to touch upon this leadership-personality grid. Dick Kaufmann contributed significant practical insights and applications. And David Fairchild has taken the whole thing a step further.
Speaking at a conference in Fall 2010, Fairchild explained that there are different types of prophets, priest, and kings. While each individual has a primary wiring (i.e. Prophet, or Priest, or King) each also has a secondary, or modifying, perspective. Fairchild suggested:
In fact, the secondary perspective is sort of like their delivery method. In other words, you might be a priest and enjoy counseling, but your secondary is king. So you enjoy working with people that need pastoral care by applying wisdom to their particular situation like finances or work related counsel. This is effortless and easy for a kingly priest, but not so for a priestly priest.
Let’s explore some breakdowns:
I wonder what would become of the worship wars in our congregations if we recognized the truth in what worship leader/songwriter David Ruis expresses:
“The worship God is seeking relies completely on His initiative, knowing that the only true expression of worship is through the abandonment of all our agendas for His, as we trust in His sovereign power and unlimited grace. It is from this heart posture that true liturgy flows, that music and arts find their highest calling and that the light of a worshipping community shines as a beacon of hope to a suffering and searching world.”
John Calvin often gets a bad rap. But David Mathis offers us another perspective. In the Introduction to a book he co-edited with John Piper, With Calvin in the Theater of God, Mathis writes:
“Calvin so believed in the importance of the everyday activities of Christian life and mission that he had a strange but telling practice in Geneva. He was eager to see Jesus’ church gathered on Sundays, but he was not happy for his flock to retreat from everyday life and hide within the walls of the church during the week. So to prod his congregants to be fully engaged in their city of Geneva – in their families, in their jobs, with their neighbors and coworkers – he locked the church doors during the week. It must have been hard not to get the point. He knew the place of God’s people – gathered together to worship on Sunday, but during the week not hidden away behind thick walls of separation, but on mission together in God’s world, laboring to bring the gospel to metro Geneva in their words and actions, in all their roles and relationships.”
Critics who suggest Calvinism discourages evangelism and is inherently anti-mission might want to rethink their attitudes about the reformer. Calvin’s outwardly focused missional mindset ought to be applauded, and in many cases even adopted. While Mark Driscoll has popularized the term Reformissional, John Calvin was the original Reformission Rev.
NOTE: The entire book can be uploaded and read free. Click: With Calvin in the Theater of God
It seems as if it ought to be simple enough: “Love your neighbor.” But experience tells me it is not as easy as it might seem. And, if we take seriously the parables of Jesus, we learn it is not as easy as some tend to think. When we read what Jesus holds up as the standard of neighborliness we realize that to love our neighbor is not the same as the absence of hostilities or even just the presence of genuine affections. To love our neighbors we need to be involved in one anothers lives to some degree. Even one insurance company gets that: “Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there…”
But this is easier said than done in our fast pace, busy, world. And Frankly, even State Farm’s claim seems a little dubious to me. When I think about it, they’re only there for me when I pay them to be. Try dropping your policy and see if they seem like such “Good Neighbors” then. I have my doubts.
But who can blame them? Life is busy. And my neighbors are as active as I am. How are we supposed to engage them, even if we commit to carving out the time?
Josh Reeves offer us a few suggestions. Here are Josh’s Top 25:
To read the rest of Josh’s ideas click: 100Ways. Josh has a link at the bottom of his Top 25 list.
H.T. to Jonathan Dodson @ Creation Project.
Reason teaches that there is a God, and that he ought to be worshiped. Had man remained in his primeval state of integrity, social worship would have been an incumbent duty. But it is evident that continual worship, whatever may be the fact in heaven, would not have been required of him while on the earth. We know, from express revelation, that it was appointed unto him to keep the garden of Eden, and dress it; and this would have required much attention, and vigorous exertion. He was also constituted lord of the inferior animals; and the exercise of this dominion would of necessity occupy a portion of his time and attention. In order to perform the primary duty of worshiping his Creator in that manner which was becoming and proper, he must have had some portion of his time appropriated to that service.
The worship due to the great Creator requires time for the contemplation of his attributes, as revealed in his glorious works. It requires time, also, to recollect all the manifestations of his wisdom and goodness in the dispensations of his Providence, and to give vocal expression to feelings of gratitude for the benefits received, and the happiness bestowed. No doubt, devotional feelings were habitual in the hearts of our first parents. No doubt, they sent up, more formally, their morning and evening prayers; but more time is needed to draw off the thoughts from visible things, and to concentrate them on the great invisible Giver of existence. Short snatches of time are not sufficient to perform this noblest of all duties in a proper manner. A whole day, at certain periods, was needed, so that there might be time for the contemplation of divine things, and for the full and free exercises of devotion. And as man is a social being, and so constituted, that by uniting with others who have the same views and feelings, his own through sympathy are rendered more animating and pleasing, it is evident that it was intended that mankind should worship and praise God in a general and public, as well as in an individual and private capacity. What proportion of time should be consecrated to this service, the reason of man could not have determined. If it had been left free by the law of God, the obligation to set apart the due proportion of time would not have been so binding and sacred, as if the Almighty Creator should designate the day which should be employed in his service. And behold the amazing condescension of God! With some view to this very thing, He was pleased to perform the work of creation in six days, and to rest on the seventh; thus setting an example to his creature man; for He not only rested on the seventh day, but sanctified it; that is, set it apart to a holy use — to be employed, not in bodily labor or converse with the world, but in the contemplation of the works and attributes of God, and in holding delightful communion with his Maker. God could have commanded the world into existence, with all its species of living creatures, in a single moment; but for man’s sake, he created the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, the light, and the air, and vegetables, and animals, in six successive days, and then ceased to work; not that the Almighty could be weary and need rest; but for the purpose of teaching man that whilst he might lawfully spend six days in worldly employments, he must rest on the seventh day. This day, from the beginning, was a holy day.
Sometimes the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Such is the case in a recent article by Jonathan Graf for Prayer Connect. In the article titled Living Up to a Core Value Graf writes:
I was recently at a denominational gathering for a group that I know values prayer tremendously. In one of its core values it states: “Prayer is the primary work of God’s people.” I have no doubt that this group believes that. But when I look at what is emphasized in the group’s magazine, website, and materials that come out of its national office to churches, prayer is not placed in a position to make one think it was as important as other things – certainly not enough emphasis to show they believed it was the primary work of God’s people.
One of the primary reasons prayer is so weak in churches and in believers lives these days has to do with this “lip service” given to the importance of prayer. It seems enough for a church to say “we believe in prayer,” or “we want to be a praying church.” Our actions don’t seem to matter as much as simply saying that. The Apostle James (who was affectionately known as “Camel Knees” because of the callouses on his knees from kneeling in prayer) says, “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” (James 2:17). If we apply that truth to prayer, he is saying, if you say you believe in prayer, but that belief is not accompanied by activity and actions that prove that, then you don’t really believe it!
What Graf is getting at could be – and should be – applied to any Core Value of a church or organization. After all, if something is not put into practice is it really a value at all? And the same could probably be said regarding many of our supposed spiritual disciplines. But about prayer many especially seem to be prone to pontification without participation.
By the way, Prayer Connect is a new magazine and e-journal well worth reading.
Jerry Bridges opens his book, Respectable Sins, with a reaffirmation and reminder that all who are in Christ are declared Saints. While some may find this status difficult to believe, Bridges explains:
“We don’t become saints by our actions. We are made saints by the immediate supernatural action of the Holy Spirit alone who works this change deep within our inner being so that we do, in fact, become new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5.17). This change of state is described prophetically in Ezekiel 36.26: “I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone [a dead, unresponsive heart] from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh [a living responsive heart].”
Bridges goes on to write:
“It would be nice if we could end the story here, because [this] might suggest a saint is someone who no longer sins. Alas, we all know this is not true. Rather, if we are honest with ourselves, we know that nearly every waking hour, we sin in thought, word, and deed. Even our best deeds are stained with impure (mixed) motives and imperfect performance…”
As Bridges points out, most of us never think of ourselves as saints and few of us think about the responsibility to live as saints. And while we can easily identify sin in the actions and conduct of segments of our society, in most churches we fail to address how gossip, worry, etc. are also sins that tarnish and erode.
In this short video Paul Tripp powerfully confronts the Lone Ranger mentality that permeates our culture, and offers reason why transparent, authentic, relationships are essential. Tripp reminds us that genuine redemptive relationships are God’s design for our spiritual growth and vitality.
Steve Childers is Founder and President of Global Church Advancement. He is also professor of Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary-Orlando. In a former life Steve was an effective pastor and church planter. A number of years ago I had the privilege of taking a doctoral class in church planting under Steve’s tutelage. I have appreciated him ever since.
Now Steve has done us the favor of, not only sharing his great insights about ministry and church planting but, chronicling his biggest ministry mistakes. These mistakes are obviously beneficial for fellow pastors to aviod. But I think that these short, insightful confessions can also profit others in church leadership, be it those holding official office or those with unofficial influence. In fact, some of Steve’s insights translate to the values we hold that shape our lives and congregations.
In no particular order:
In his book The Present Future, Reggie McNeal reveals and contrasts different ways leaders can think about the church and its ministry. McNeal reflects upon the different paradigms that pastors can have as they lead and conduct ministry in the church.
Being missional is a shift in thinking about the nature of the church. Once a missional understanding is adopted, the way we do church begins to change.
A missional church stresses:
“How are you doing, Spiritually?” That is an important question.
The Great Physician, by both direct and indirect statements in his Word, repeatedly encourages us to examine our hearts. But while many may be aware that it ought to be our regular practice to take a Spiritual pulse, I suspect that relatively few know how to read the gauges even if they try. Consequently, if we are not certain what we are looking for, it follows that we are not always quite sure how to answer our opening question. So, it seems, the typical response we might give, even to those who may genuinely care, is an awful lot like the responses we give to the stranger on the street, or the hotel clerk we see each morning on vacation, when they ask “How are you today?” “Fine, thanks. And you?” But this is too important a question to simply perpetuate the standard reflex response.
I have benefited from regularly asking myself 10 Questions I learned from Don Whitney and his short but helpful book: 10 Questions to Diagnose Your Spiritual Health. Asking myself these questions, or considering observations people have offered about me as they relate to these questions, serves as a good spiritual check-up.
Each of the 10 Questions below is a link to an excerpt of respective chapters from Whitney’s book:
One of the fundamental principles of being missional is contextualization. In short, contextualization simply means to take into consideration the context where one lives and serves.
With all the noteriety that missional practitioners serving in clearly post-Christian areas have gained, it seems some, desiring to follow the example of these leaders, all too readily foresake the principle of contextualization.
It is understandable to want to copy the methods and messages of Tim Keller or Mark Driscoll, among others. No doubt there is much to be learned from these guys. But the temptation to copy is really a trap that will lead most of us to ineffectiveness. Those guys serve in New York and Seattle, respectively. What is needed to serve in those contexts is vastly different than what may be needed in Nashville, Birmingham, or small towns like where I live – Bristol, TN/VA. Principles should be benchmarked and translated, not copied. All effective ministry is local.
In the above video Tim Keller offers some helpful thoughts about advancing the gospel in different social contexts.
I was disappointed recently when I read an old post on the Aquila Report, You Will Hear Crickets. The author, Anthony Bradley, is a professor of Ethics at Kings College in New York City, and apparently has some aversion to the missional church movement.
Bradley opens his article:
So I’m beginning to wonder if it’s “a wrap” on this whole “missional” movement splash, especially in terms of church planting? I can definitely see the wind being taken out of the sails for some. I’ve been particularly curious about crickets I hear when bringing up a few issues among missional Christians
He then lists four issues that he seems to believe puts a nail in the coffin of this movement. He even appears to take delight in its reputed demise.
While I have come to understand concerns about some practices and practioners who wear the missional label, I have difficulty understanding why anyone is opposed to the missional movement. Granted some within this movement, including some prominent faces, may have drifted toward heterodoxy, but Missional is a BIG umbrella. If the errors of some, even many, gives reason to eschew the basic principles, maybe I should rethink being identified as Presbyterian. The recent actions of the PCUSA have no doubt caused confusion and concern about what we Presbyterians believe and stand for.
But I do not think I should stop being Presbyterian simply because some have strayed off course. I would rather stand firm and not give over the label to those who no longer stand for the principles. Likewise, I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater in attempt to clean up the Missional label. Rather, I think we should work to reform the movement, bringing all things into conformity with Scripture, all the while remembering the mantra coined by Marco Antonio de Dominis, often attributed to Augustine, and popularize by Puritan Richard Baxter:
I wonder, have I stepped into a beehive? I have yet to get any flack but I wonder if it is coming. I posted an article on my Facebook page titled: “Let’s Be Honest, A Lot of Christians Are Guilty of Homophobia“.
The article is in defense of the defense Southern Seminary president Albert Mohler gave about comments he made about homosexuality:
The Associated Press quotes Mohler as saying that homosexuality isn’t something that people can “turn on and turn off.” Mohler went on to say that “only the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ gives a homosexual person any hope of release from homosexuality.”
At the SBC Convention earlier this month Mohler was challenged to answer for his comments. His words of defense were:
“I made those statements. They are not alleged statements. I made them.”
According to reports, he then went on to outline how Southern Baptists had been homophobic and had misrepresented homosexuality. Mohler even called the Southern Baptists to repentance on the issue. However, he did all of this while maintaining that homosexuality is a sin that needs a Savior. One report… said that the convention responded with applause.
On my Facebook post I commented that what Mohler said is also true in my denomination, the PCA, and is true of many Evangelicals. Shoot, if I am honest with myself, it is probably true of me to some degree. But the suggestion that some responses to homosexuality are themselves sinful is not tantamount to condoning homosexuality or the Gay Rights Agenda.
I appreciate what the author of the article pondered:
What did Albert Mohler say that was so outrageous? Was it the part about Jesus being the only Savior from sin? Was it the claim that our sinful nature goes beyond a simple choice? Any orthodox Christian should affirm salvation from our sin through Jesus and that we can’t simply decide to turn off our sinful nature.
That’s the thing. What is wrong with what Mohler said? Is homosexuality merely a “choice”? No doubt it is a choice in many respects. One can choose to indulge the desire or choose not to indulge the desire, just as with many expressions of sin. It is this ability to choose that makes nonsense of the assertions that the Gay Agenda is somehow equivalent with the Civil Rights Movement of the Mid-Twentieth Century. Folk could not choose to be Black of not. Folks can choose sexual behavior.
However, what Mohler is pointing out is that sin is more than our behavior. However sin is expressed it is first a condition of the heart and mind. While choosing to not engage is preferable to hedonistic indulgence. it does not rid anyone of the condition or the consequential penalty. The wages of sin are death… Period. This is true even if we suppress every inclination.
What Mohler is pointing out is that homosexuality is far more complex than a “choice” to act out on its desires and physical attractions. He is reminding Christians that we need to recognize the true nature of sin – homosexuality and all types of sin. And he is challenging us to realize we need a radical remedy. Fortunatley we have one. Mohler also reminds us of the power of the Gospel.
So, will I get any flack for concurring and posting the article supporting Mohler and his views. Maybe a little. But probably only from a few. And hopefully not from anyone who actually takes the time to read the article.
GRACE & PEACE 