Archives for October 2007

on traveling sermon summaries

In Victoria, we had bro. Bob Fricks, from the staff of Galilee Baptist Church in Kent, WA, filling our pulpit. One of my deacon’s reports “the preaching was a blessing for all. We had 38 attend and 3 more came after coffee. As usual there was more food than people and way to much desert…”

In Greenville, we heard a message from Dr. Bruce McAllister, a long time friend of mine. He gave an excellent message on Acts 20.24 and Paul’s commitment to the ministry. The challenge of the message was for young people to make the same commitment. The service was a great blessing, but I missed singing the “Amens” after the hymns. Things aren’t as formal here as they used to be. They still say the creed, though, and I still remember it without looking.

This evening we went to Cornerstone Baptist Church, pastored by Dr. Gary Reimers, another seminary friend. He preached a fine message on Psalm 32 on the subject of guilt and how to handle it. He gave an excellent exposition of the passage, bringing the poetry to life, real practical life in pointing the Christian to the source of real joy, which is a life lived openly before God, with nothing between my soul and the Saviour.

The day was a great blessing to me, bringing to mind the reality of the person of Jesus Christ. I wonder how many professing Christians really believe that there IS a living person who IS God and who IS personally interested in every detail of their life. When we are born again, we are born again by repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Ac 20.21). But faith means that we bow our knees and our hearts to a real person, living NOW. Faith isn’t just believing in a Jesus who was, but a Jesus who is.

I hope your day in Christ was equally profitable.

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on sunday oct 21

I will have light posting over the next week and a half – not that I am posting heavily these days. I am visiting with my ailing mother-in-law (and my wife who has been helping care for her these last three or four weeks). It is a great blessing to see my dear mother-in-law, though she is obviously uncomfortable and in failing health. And it is joy unspeakable to witness the grace of God in my wife as she lovingly cares for her mother. What a privilege to be married to such a woman!

I wanted to be sure to update you on last Sunday’s services in our church. We had a blessed day, including a couple visiting from a Baptist church in Capetown, South Africa.

Our first message continued the Romans series, Concerning His Son. The message focused on the person of the gospel. Romans 1.1-7 is one sentence in Greek, offering Paul’s salutation to the Romans. He establishes his credentials in verse one, closing with the matter of being a separated (‘marked out’) by the gospel of God. He tells us two things about that gospel in the next few verses – it is that which was promised before through the prophets (see here for summary) and it is that good news ‘concerning His Son’.

The word ‘Son’ stands at the beginning of verse 3 in the Greek, followed by two ‘who’ clauses, and is then renamed by the phrase ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ at the end of v. 4. The KJV puts the word ‘son’ and the phrase ‘Jesus Christ our Lord’ together at the beginning of verse 3, while modern versions tend to put the words in the same order as the original Greek. Either way means the same thing, perhaps the modern versions have a slight advantage in preserving the original word order. To my mind, the impact of renaming the Son is heightened by holding to the original word order.

There is rich doctrinal content in the two ‘who’ clauses in vv. 3 and 4, but there is an eternity of value in the four words which name our Lord, so I took this message to spend some time thinking on each word. William Newell said: “The gospel is all about Christ. Apart from Him, there is no news from heaven but that of coming woe!” [Newell, p. 16] Here is our proposition: “The names of the Son express the essence of eternal life, communicated to man by faith.” First, as the Son of the Father, we see our Lord as a glorious person, the Eternal Son of an Almighty and Eternal Father, one in essence with Him, distinct in personality, sent by the Father on a rescue mission to a dying world. Second we see our Lord as the man Jesus – a jarring thought in contrast to the glory of his eternal being, a man with human limitations, dependent on the Father, the man whose name means ‘Yah is Salvation’. The two clauses of v. 3 and 4 speak to the transition between the eternity of the Son to the limitations of Jesus the man – made of the seed of David, declared to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection. These two events reveal the stupendous character of this man, Son of God, son of Man, our Saviour. Third, he is the promised Christ. The Messiah, the anointed one, the one set aside to the place of The Prophet, The Priest, The King, the one promised from Gen 3.15 on to be the answer to the sin problem of mankind. And last we see our Lord as our Lord! Lord means master, owner, one who has the right to dispose of his property as he will. But the term includes what I called ‘the precious pronoun’: our. He is our Lord. We hold him to be our Master by faith in his name, in his work on the cross in our behalf. I pointed out Phil 2.5-11. Someday every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that he is Lord, but for most, it will be too late. And here is my simple conclusion:

Our Lord …
Is he your Lord?

~~~

Our afternoon message concludes our series on the metaphors of the Church. I repeated this metaphor with a new sermon and additional content on the idea It’s a building. I wanted to focus on the need for organization and administration that the building metaphor implies. A literal building is an organized structure if it is intended to last at all. I described the simple homes of Palestine during Bible times, most of which did not survive all these years, even as ruins, since they were made of mud bricks. Even simple structures like these required organization and working building systems to provide shelter for people at all. A local church, as a building requires organization as well. Some of that is mandated in the Scriptures: Pastors/Elders and Deacons. Some is exemplified: the committee for the care of ‘widows indeed’ in 1 Tim 4. All of this involves structure and organization. I used Spurgeon’s Metropolitan Tabernacle as an example of a large church with multiple different kinds of ministries during Spurgeon’s day. Over 66 different ministries were in existence at the time of Spurgeon’s 25th anniversary as a pastor. In addition, the Tabernacle had 40 mission churches under its sponsorship and many Sunday schools and Ragged Schools as well. All of this effort requires organization and administration. This is an aspect of church life that I believe is a failing in our minsitry, or at least a weakness. This is primarily because I personally HATE administration. But it is something that we must get better at in order to improve our gospel impact in our community.

~~~

In our Sunday School hour we are going through the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. This is a worthy document and has provoked much valuable discussion in our assembly.

~~~

Well, all of that catches me up. I hope to find time to post a few things later. Traveling just doesn’t seem conducive to much blogging!

Regards
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on more politics

Just another thought about Dr. Bob’s endorsement of Romney.

I have said to some that I personally wouldn’t be prepared to endorse Romney at this stage, but I don’t live in South Carolina. As this blog at Real Clear Politics points out, the SC primary is less than 100 days away. This makes it important for SC residents to make up their minds concerning their primary vote.

Some criticise Dr. Bob for not supporting someone like Huckabee. While Huckabee is an attractive candidate ideologically, it seems highly unlikely that he is going to lead the ticket, although there is some talk of him as VEEP. If Dr. Bob endorsed Huckabee (or someone like him), the endorsement would have a negligible effect on the outcome. It would also contribute to another possible effect, which I think is part of the political calculus that is behind the endorsement.

The other effect is the danger of a Third Party or Independent candidate. While none of the front runners for the GOP are completely satisfactory to me or to many other Christians, I like each of them well enough that I can support them in the general election. But some Christians (influenced, perhaps, by James Dobson) are considering getting behind an independent or third-party candidate if Romney or Giuliani are the nominee, especially if it is Giuliani. A reasonably strong third-party candidate on the right would almost ensure another Clinton White House.

For someone perceived to be as right wing as Dr. Bob, his endorsement of Romney may not have a huge effect on the primary or the nomination, but it might mitigate the attractiveness of a third-party option for the Christian Right. A sort of, “if he can swallow Romney’s negatives, I guess I don’t need to split the vote on the right” mentality.

So the endorsement makes sense from a couple of standpoints: the proximity of the SC primary and the general dissatisfaction of Christians with the front-runners in the GOP.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on yankee politics

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Dr. Bob Taylor of BJU regarding his endorsement of Mitt Romney yesterday. You can find a transcript of the interview here.

Some find Christian involvement in political debate unseemly, I do not [see discussion here]. One does have to be careful about when and how to be involved, however. As a pastor of a church, my mission is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, not to be a political activist. As such, I don’t tend to express political views too much, although I think our people have an idea of where I stand.

Individuals like Dr. Jones and Dr. Taylor are not pastors and are in somewhat different roles. They have to make their own judgements regarding what they say and do politically. Personally, I am not at the point where I could support a Romney and I am not as averse to a Giulianni as they appear to be. It does seem to me that the GOP side of the race has no entirely satisfying candidate this time around, but there are several who have sufficient acceptability that I could support them if nominated.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Church Matters: 9Marks Blog

Church Matters: 9Marks Blog: “Shepherding a church’s culture”

I regularly read the 9Marks Blog, while disagreeing with the rampant Calvinism, I find a good deal of wisdom in posts addressing church function. The string of posts that begin with this one involve the subject of those people who show up in church with a strong “conviction” about how church should be practiced – one that is at variance in one way or another with the practice of the local church.

  • For example, we are talking about someone showing up who insists that all Christian parents must homeschool their children, and looks down on those who do not.
  • Or someone insists that their children will sit with them in every service, regardless of the graded Sunday School (or similar programs) that may be going on at the same time.

What to do with such?

Well, the various writers on the 9Marks blog offer some good suggestions.

The only thing that I would add is that the pastor must be jealous of the unity of the local church while allowing individuals to hold their own views on some issues. If folks join the church and exhibit an agenda, the agenda needs to be confronted and ended. If folks join in and quietly practice their convictions while allowing others liberty in these matters, then give them the right hand of fellowship and pray that the Lord might keep them from becoming a problem.

I do think that those who exhibit strong convictions in unclear areas are susceptible to pride and to the cultic influences of some teachers. [Bill Gothard, Vision Forum, et al notably come to mind.]

For convenience, here is a list of the posts at 9Marks so far:

The first one …
the second one
the third, fourth, fifth, and last (to date)

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the 10.14.07 sermons

Our morning message saw us take a significant leap forward in the exposition of Romans. In message number 4, we rushed into the second verse of the 1st chapter! It was a daring gambit, but seemed to be succesful!

Seriously, Lloyd-Jones outdoes me. He had five messages on the first verse, I only had three. If you have the opportunity, I would recommend reading his fifth message on “The Gospel of God”. The message is worth the price of the book by itself. I was sorely tempted to make the same phrase my text this morning, but I determined to soldier on.

Our message today was entitled The Promised Gospel. The interesting thing about our verse is that Paul seems to pause before giving us the content of the gospel (the person and work of Christ, vv. 3-4ff.) to instead make a comment about the ancient character of the gospel. We might think the words about the promise coming through the prophets in holy writings is something of a throw-away, a ‘by the way’ type of statement. After all, the gospel is the central thing, and Christ and his work are the heart and soul of the gospel. But the reference to the prophets and the promise is a characteristic of apostolic preaching, especially Paul’s preaching. He mentions it at least three times in Romans itself, in the second verse, in 3.21, and in the second last verse (16.26). His comment is no incidental comment. He is establishing a notion that the gospel is the heart and soul of the ancient plan of God, even, I think, pointing back to that earliest hint of a promise found in Gen 3.15. It is important to realize that God’s promises are ancient, plentiful, and now fulfilled – note past tense of ‘promised’. It is important to realize that the Lord used the prophets to propagate the promise of the gospel. It is important especially to realize that God ‘put it in writing’, moving his prophets to record things they didn’t fully understand, carrying them along by the Spirit as a disabled ship is carried about by the wind. And it is important to realize that this good news is more than simply a word, but it is a real thing that can belong to us. “Gospel” is no academic exercise, it is the long-standing promise of God, fulfilled in Christ, and made available to any who would believe.

Our afternoon message continued the series on the Church with It’s a Temple. Some of my ideas for this message came from a post by an on-line friend, Ryan Martin. My focus was different from his, as Ryan was talking about what the church does and I am focusing on what the church is. Nevertheless, his post stimulated my thinking in this regard. Our understanding of the temple metaphor for the church must be informed by the OT temple and its meaning. As I understand the passages (and the OT), I think the primary meaning of the temple is holiness, and this holiness is meant to be reflected in the NT metaphor of a local church as a temple of the living God, a place that must be kept holy by those living stones who inhabit it. [I do see this metaphor very directly referring to the local church, not the universal church. It is not that it is impossible to refer the metaphor to the universal, but that is not what the NT does.] Under this proposition: “You are the temple of God; you are called to holiness.” I developed these points:

I. The holy temple is under God’s protection (1 Cor 3.16-17)
II. The holy temple is called to identify exclusively with God’s holiness and cleanse its premises (2 Cor 6.16)
III. The holy temple is the ground of holy living (Eph 2.19-22)
IV. The holy temple is intended to offer up spiritual sacrifices (1 Pt 2.5, 9-15)

~~~

All in all, it was a good day, although our crowd was definitely down after our big high last week on Thanksgiving Sunday. Still, the gospel was preached and we saw some young disciples show up who haven’t been to church in a while. It was good to minister to them. Faithfulness and consistency take time to develop.

By the way, I thought of something in connection with the metaphor of the church as a temple in light of a discussion about mundane things like announcements and potlucks being part of worship services or not. The discussion occurred over at Chris Anderson’s place, I hope I am not simply an agitator over there.

Here is the thought: the OT worship in the temple included many different kinds of sacrifices. I am impressed with the fact that one of the most common sacrifices was the peace offering, at which the worshipper sat at table before the Lord, in fellowship with him at a ‘holy barbecue’, if you will permit the expression. I suggest that our fellowship meals as a gathered church are as holy to the Lord as the songs, prayers, offerings, and preaching that occupy the bulk of our services. And I further submit that to announce the occasion of such acts of the lively stones in the worship services of the living God are no matter to be dismissed.

But yes, we can make our announcements and our fellowships an extremely trivial and earthly thing. Let us labour to not make it so.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the possiblity of being overly Christo-centric

From Lloyd-Jones:

“Salvation is the work of the three Persons in the blessed Holy Trinity. It is primarily that of the Father — the gospel of God concerning His Son. The Father first! It is the Father’s plan; it is the Father’s purpose; it is the Father who initiates it; it is the Father who gave the first promise concerning it to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, and, oh! we must be clear about this. We must not go on to consider what the Son has done, what the Holy Spirit has done and still does, until we are absolutely clear about the primacy of the Father, and the origin of it all in the Father Himself. …

“I could go on quoting Paul at great length, but there is always this emphasis on God the Father. And yet this is forgotten by so many; they are Christo-centric, if I may say so, and they forget the Father Himself from whom it all comes. You will find in their prayers; they always pray to the Lord Jesus, not to the Father. They are entirely centred on the Son. But this, my friends, is wrong if you make Him [Jesus] the centre, because He is not the centre. The centre is the Father. You remember how the Apostle Peter puts that; he says, ‘Christ suffered for our sins’. For what reason? Well, ‘to bring us to God, to the Father’ [1 Pt 3.18]. The whole purpose of the work of the son is to bring us to God the Father. Take His definition of eternal life: ‘This is eternal life, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent’. Always that order; He never varies it. He had come to glorify the Father. He knew that everything starts with the Father and comes from the Father, so that the author of salvation is God the eternal Father.” [D. M. Lloyd-Jones, Romans: The Gospel of God, p. 62-64.]

Is that a little jarring? It is a bold statement, but it seems to me that L-J is right.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on gorebal warming

A leading meteorologist tells it like it is:

Gore gets a cold shoulder – Environment – smh.com.au: “‘It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong,’ he said. ‘But they also know that they’d never get any grants if they spoke out. I don’t care about grants.'”

Politics, cash, and ideology = global warming hysteria (but mostly ca$h).

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the decline of religion in the True North

From an article on the funeral home business in Montreal comes this notice:

The Chronicle West End Edition > Regional news > The business of dying: “You have to understand that people are going to the church less and less. People are using funeral complexes for receptions and a number of other services to pay respect to the deceased, instead of going to the church”

The challenge remains. In our community, Christ, his gospel, and his church are largely ignored. One imagines that pure hatred would be better than bored indifference.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

on the chasm between evangelicalism and fundamentalism

In their own words…

UN Leader Woos Evangelicals | Liveblog | Christianity Today: “In a sense, last night’s banquet and today’s issue-oriented discussions are really less about evangelicals fighting disease and poverty and more about evangelicals working in partnerships–partnerships between Western evangelicals and those in the developing world and partnerships with non-evangelicals,

We cautiously engaged those of other shades of Christian faith and even other religions in the mid-90s when we threw tremendous weight behind the effort to pass the International Religious Freedom Act and the creation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We then enlarged the circle of cooperation to work on legislation to fight sex trafficking and, later, human-rights abuses in North Korea. The circle has expanded yet again as many evangelical leaders are partnering on issues of climate change.

Partnerships give evangelicals a sense of participation and empowerment. It gives us the chance to take on really big issues. That’s a strange feeling for a movement whose consciousness is rooted in old-style fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was about being the few and the proud–I mean, the pure. The evangelicalism that emerged in the 1940s hoped for a new engagement with society while maintaining doctrinal and ethical integrity. Its leaders, like first CT editor Carl F. H. Henry and first CT board chair Harold John Ockenga preached a strong social justice message. But the old fundamentalist consciousness still lurks, and these partnerships stretch the evangelical sense of identity.”

This attitude is not all that dissimilar to that promoted by at least some of the so-called ‘conservative evangelicals. I recall Ben Wright posting a telling comment by Al Mohler about fundamentalism where he said something like “Fundamentalism is marginalized and has no influence.” [I am paraphrasing, it was from Mohler’s radio show and it was some time ago.] For many conservative evangelicals, I believe the reason they cannot admit the fundamental error of evangelicalism is that they cannot give up their addiction to “influence”. Whether they actually have any influence or not is another question.

Zechariah 4:6 Then he said to me, “This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel saying, ‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.

Regards,
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3