You are here: Home / Archives for Issues
by on 4.29.10

edinburgh 2010

A friend sent me an article critical of Edinburgh 2010. Edinburgh 2010 is a celebration of the 100th anniversary of a conference in Edinburgh 1910 which set the stage for ecumenical advance, especially in missionary work.

The celebration includes events around the world including a whole host of individuals. One of the events is Lausanne III to be held in Cape Town, South Africa.

Here is the speakers list for Lausanne III:

The expositors have been named as Ajith Fernando, Director of Sri Lanka Youth for Christ; Calisto Odede, Associate Pastor of Nairobi Pentecostal Church, Kenya; John Piper , senior pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, Minneapolis , US; Vaughan Roberts, Rector of St Ebbe’s Church, Oxford , UK; Ruth Padilla DeBorst, General Secretary of the Latin American Theological Fellowship (Costa Rica); and Ramez Atallah, Director of the Egyptian Bible Society, and his wife, Rebecca, who has a grassroots ministry among children and Sudanese refugees in the ‘garbage village’ in Cairo.

The article I first ran across had this to say about this conference:

The Cape Town Conference will be in conjunction with The Third Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization and is considered the most conservative of the main conferences.  It features six keynote speakers (each apparently preaching a message from the book of Ephesians) from six world regions, with John Piper representing North America. Boston University doctoral student and General Secretary of the Latin American Theological Fellowship Ruth Padilla DeBorst is one of two women expositors,  4000 leaders from 200 countries have been invited and special criteria have been established to “include men and women from a broad spectrum of nationalities, ethnicities, ages, occupations and denominational affiliations.”

Well, the ecumenism is not surprising.

But so much for Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, eh?

Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

John Piper & Wayne Grudem, editors

don_sig2

Filed Under: Ecumenism, Issues, Personalities, Piper
by on 4.27.10

alcohol, aging and cancer

See this article for an interesting report of a little known study.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Alcohol, Issues
by on 4.25.10

toward an understanding of worldliness – pt. 1

What is worldliness?

On that question hangs a good deal of the debate in Christian circles about which practices are acceptable and appropriate for Christians and which are not. We are surrounded by a mass of Christian relativism that creates great confusion. For some Christians, it seems to have come down to Scriptural prohibitions as the only definition of right and wrong. Almost anything goes. Who is to say what is right and wrong about any lifestyle or practice if it is not specifically prohibited in Scripture?

For example, many Christians today are quite comfortable justifying social drinking. It used to be a major taboo in Bible-believing Christian circles, but is becoming acceptable as long as you don’t get drunk. You see, drunkenness is seen as clearly prohibited by the Bible, so we can’t go that far! But something less than drunkenness is acceptable and shouldn’t be considered worldly.

Well, what is worldliness? I wrote about godliness in an earlier post. Is worldliness an opposite of godliness? What about the Biblical term, ‘ungodliness’? How are ungodliness and worldliness related and what should the Christian do about it?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Worldliness
by on 4.6.10

macarthur and separation

I guess this is old news by now, but I just got around to listening to John MacArthur’s opening message for the 2010 Shepherd’s Conference: “Separating from Unbelievers”

I’d encourage you to listen to this message. Other than a few quibbles, I think that pastor MacArthur gives us good reasons for separating from unbelievers when it comes to any kind of joint spiritual enterprise.

However, I do have one major question about this message: Was it Paul’s original intent to limit the application of this passage ONLY to joint spiritual enterprises with unbelievers? Was this kind of thing really a problem in Corinth in AD 56 or so?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Issues, MacArthur, Music, Personalities, Separation
by on 4.5.10

it’s not about separation

Tim Challies makes a concluding observation about the Piper-Warren kerfuffle that, I think, misses the point.

At yet let’s heed Piper’s warning not to fall into an error of secondary separation. There is no need for us to separate from Piper over such a decision. We have plenty of latitude to disagree with him; let’s do so with respect for him and for his long and faithful history of ministry to the church. The sky is not falling, the world will go on.

JayC over at Sharper Iron asks a question:

In a context like mine, I’m not really sure that I ~could~ “separate” from Piper. The extent of the relationship that Piper and I have is that I download his books and will occasionally download a sermon. So in what meaningful way could I “separate” from Piper?

Jay’s question is a good one. How would anyone actually do secondary separation from Piper (assuming it is warranted)? In fact, let’s go a step further: How would anyone actually do primary separation from Piper?

The only way I could do either is if I was in some kind of ministry partnership with Piper. That is, if I was also invited to speak at Desiring God, then I could refuse to attend because of the Warren invite. Or if I was on the staff of Bethlehem Baptist, or a member, I could confront Piper personally and if I failed to achieve reconciliation, I could leave. If I were part of the BGC, I could raise the issue in the AGM and, if not satisfied with the Conference response or Piper’s response, I could pull out of the BGC. If I were involved in some other joint ministry with Piper (T4G, etc.) I could tell Piper that either he dis-invites Warren or we are dis-inviting him. Or failing that, I could break my relationship with him in this ministry and simply refuse to participate any longer as long as Piper were to remain part of it.

Have I covered every possibility?

Now, I am in NONE of these relationships with Piper.

So why should I care about who he invites to Desiring God? What difference does it make to me? What, if anything, should I do about it? Should I comment to anyone, should I make any criticism to anyone, should I discuss it with anyone? Should I blog about it?

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Issues, Personalities, Piper, Separation, Warren
by on 3.25.10

it’s not that simple

Dave said (here and here):

Restore the local assembly to the center where God intended it to be. When your local assembly engages in Great Commission work outside its walls, find some folks you agree with and get busy doing it. Unity is built on agreement about the truth, not by politics. Few things are as political as trying to preserve movements once they have fragmented theologically.

Would that it were so simple. But it is not that simple. In the words of John Donne,

No man is an island entire of itself…

And certainly the pastor and church in question is no island, entire unto themselves. If we were talking about a small church in a small community it might be that simple, but … probably not.

Everyone influences someone else. That’s why our private decisions are important. They have influence on someone.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Doran, Fundamentalism, Issues, Leadership, Philosophy
by on 3.19.10

peddling the word

In a message Wednesday night, the preacher referred to this passage:

NAU  2 Corinthians 2:17 For we are not like many, peddling the word of God, but as from sincerity, but as from God, we speak in Christ in the sight of God.

“Peddling the word” – the KJV puts it ‘corrupt the word’, but the idea is more that of dishonest peddlers who try to swindle their customers.

The NET Bible notes explain the word this way:

The participle … refers to those engaged in retail business, but with the negative connotations of deceptiveness and greed – "to peddle for profit," "to huckster"

We’ve all met with fellows like this before, haven’t we? (If you haven’t yet, you will.)

Our preacher last night illustrated this kind of peddler this way: He’s like a man selling apples. He has some good ones, some so-so ones, and some ‘past due’. How does he display his wares? Does he put the best ones on the bottom of his basket, the so-so ones next and the ‘past due’ ones on the top?

No! Of course not. The best are put on top and the ‘past due’ ones are hidden on the inside.

Then came this application, not quoted exactly verbatim, but close:

“The worst thing about attracting people to church with rock music and then preaching Christ is the place it puts Christ in the basket.”

Think about it.

don_sig2

HT: Jeff Musgrave, our preacher of the evening.

Filed Under: Issues, Music, Preaching, Worship
by on 3.16.10

is SG music an entry level drug?

Now, please, first a joke disclaimer. My headline is an attention getting device. It is meant in jest. Mostly. And it points to a serious question.

Scott Aniol has been writing a good deal about this. I especially like his post, “The Sovereign Grace/Getty Music Question”

I like Scott’s conclusions:

  1. I have more than enough hymn texts to choose from (both ancient and modern) that are better than Sovereign Grace lyrics and do not carry any of the potential baggage.
  2. I have more than enough hymn tunes to choose from (both ancient and modern) that are better than Sovereign Grace tunes and do not carry any of the potential baggage.
  3. While associations are not a primary factor in my decision, I am at least aware of the potential of causing a weaker brother to stumble into what I consider error (either by being attracted to the Sovereign Grace pop/rock styles or a charismatic theology of worship) if I were to use these songs.
  4. I do not sing any similar songs, so I am consistent with my decisions.

Read Scott’s whole post and you will get the whole argument and see why he makes the conclusions he does.

[Read more…]

Filed Under: Issues, Music, Worldliness
by on 3.11.10

Jay Adams on maturing movements

Jay Adams has a post today, How movements ‘mature’.

He is describing a general phenomenon, and he might be describing what is going on in Fundamentalism, but regardless of that, his description certainly applies.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Evangelicalism, Fundamentalism, Issues
by on 2.26.10

the meaning of godliness

I recently preached a message on the subject of ‘Godliness and Dignity’ based on the two terms found in 1 Tim 2.2. The more I consider the subject, the more important I think it is. The concept seems to be disappearing in the collective mind of the modern church.

What is godliness?

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

The word translated ‘godliness’ in the New Testament is eusebeia. According to Kittel, the root ‘seb-’ has the idea of ‘shrinking back’ or ‘falling back from’. With the prefix ‘eu-’ we could call it the ‘good shrinking back’. It is good because the term eusebeia speaks often of a proper attitude to the gods – piety – which is reflected in one’s conduct to men. Perjury, for example, is not godly. Caring for a dying father is godly. This conduct reflects an attitude of reverence towards deity and respect towards men.

In the New Testament, the term is occurs mostly in the pastoral epistles where its meaning is very parallel to Greek usage. It refers to conduct in relation to God, conduct that is no ascetic constraint but is positive expression of faith in the new life that now is and the life that is yet to come (1 Tim 4.7-8). This conduct is displayed by care of widowed mothers because such conduct pleases God (1 Tim 5.4). It is a life that is motivated by the Lord’s return, a life lived with ‘eternity in view’, since the things of this life are to be destroyed (2 Pt 3.10-11).

Godliness isn’t just private piety – it is visible piety. The gospel of grace teaches us that we are to live it out in this present world, before witnesses (Titus 2.11-12). It is to mark out the man of God, who, in contrast to the deceivers who trouble the church, is to pursue godliness rather than riches, content with his reward in heaven rather than profit on earth (1 Tim 6.1-12). It is that life to which God has provided the things pertaining to its essence and its conduct through the full knowledge of who called us by his own glory and excellence (2 Pt 1.3). God is excellent, the believer is called to excellence in this life.

In 1 Tim 2.2, the term is connected with the term ‘dignity’ (translated ‘honour’ in the KJV). Godliness speaks to the conduct of one’s life before God; dignity speaks to the quality of that life by virtue of a transformed inner man.

Godliness is given lip service today. For many people, if considered at all, it seems to simply mean, “having the right theology.” In the ancient world, some thought godliness merely meant keeping the rituals of religion, whether it be the Law of the Jews or the cultic practices of the Greeks. I am afraid many Christians today are quite satisfied with that kind of godliness today. “Get the form right, and I am all right.”

What we are after is a heart religion that reverences God and accordingly respects men. A heart religion that is no friend of the world, but a friend of God. Can it be that Christians who embrace the world and its ways are also friends of God? Are they godly?

It may be that godly Christians will come to differing applications on some specific matters of conduct, but the life of every godly Christian will be headed in the same direction: with fear toward God and respect towards men that outside observers can see – and will not confuse with worldliness.

Godliness is a manner of life dominated by reverence for God that is displayed in a respect for other men that is visible to outside observers.

don_sig2

Filed Under: Christian Living, Spiritual Life, Worldliness
« Previous Page
Next Page »