books…check’em out….

" but you don't have to take *my* word for it..."

You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture.
Just get people to stop reading them.
~ Ray Bradbury ~

one of my greatest desires as a pastor is that the people under my care would read more good books. in this context (a pastor to his congregation) i define a good book as one that enriches the mind and soul and stokes a hunger for biblical truth as well as love and obedience to christ.

objections that often come are “i’ m not a good reader”/ “i don’t like to read”. while i certainly understand the sentiment, i also understand that life is full of our doing things we don’t necessarily “love” doing. but i have also found that those who begin to read with purpose (stated above) discover that it becomes less and less a chore over time.

another objection is “i don’t understand all of those big words/concepts” or “i am not up to that level of reading”. while there are certainly books written specifically for the academy or for specialists in a given area, there are just as many books written for the “person in the pew”.

consider the following quotes:

If religious books are not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth is not diffused – error will be. If God and His Word are not known and received – the devil and his works will gain the ascendancy. If the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet – the pages of a corrupt and licentious literature will. If the power of the Gospel is not felt throughout the length and breadth of the land – anarchy and misrule, degradation and misery, corruption and darkness, will reign without mitigation or end. – Daniel Webster, 1823

Why does today’s Christian find the reading of great books always beyond him? Certainly intellectual powers do not wane from one generation to another. We are as smart as our fathers, and any thought they could entertain we can entertain if we are sufficiently interested to make the effort. The major cause of the decline in the quality of current Christian literature is not intellectual but spiritual. To enjoy a great religious book requires a degree of consecration to God and detachment from the world that few modern Christians have. The early Christian Fathers, the Mystics, the Puritans, are not hard to understand, but they inhabit the highlands where the air is crisp and rarefied, and none but the God-enamored can come. - A.W. Tozer , 1897-1963

both of these quotes ring with such prophetic reverberation that it is nearly chill inducing.

one of my new year “resolutions” is to read at least 3 books a month that are not a part of my sermon or teaching preparation. while these three books will be “theological”, they will vary in category. some will be biography. some will help me grow in the areas of counseling, preaching, doctrine, devotional life, etc.- but the point will be for my spiritual growth.

this is not at all to say that reading “non-christian” books is inherently wrong or bad. the point is that i take intentional steps to grow in my understanding of the lord and his word- to expose myself to those things that will increase my affections for christ. (see Matthew 28:20; Acts 20:18-21; Romans 12:2; 1 Corinthians 14:20; Ephesians 4:11-15; Colossians 1:28-29; 1 Thessalonians 2:9-121 Peter 2:2; Hebrews 5:12).

at the beginning of each month i will post what i read the month before as well as a small blurb &/or recommendation for each title.

you don’t have to read three books a month. you may be able to read 6. but what steps are you taking to follow the many biblical commands to grow in wisdom and knowledge of the lord and his word? even if it is one book a month, you will better off than when it was none.

two more things:

1.) i am also reading through the whole bible – so no hate mail telling me reading books by men is not as good as reading god’s word. i know this. and i agree.

2.) being discerning in what we read is a good thing. i have seen books on the “recommended” shelf at christian bookstores that i would never recommend anyone to read. one of the tabs at the top of this website is titled “resources”. that would be a good place to start if you are not sure where to begin/what to read. these are my opinions, of course, but they are titles that i believe cover the basics.

 

“i kissed hating the church good-bye”

pastor and author  joshua harris recently wrote a wonderful post on the local church and our feelings toward it.

i will reproduce it here in full, and i encourage you not to  just casually read it and agree with the cleverness of it. think what would happen in our churches if we all adopted this attitude!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Do you love the church? Romans 12:10 tells Christians to “Love one another with brotherly affection.”

The affection and love we’re to have for fellow-Christians is to be based on the work of Jesus Christ for us. It’s not about elitism, it’s not because Christians are better than anyone else, it certainly isn’t because Christians are necessarily more lovable. We love the church because we love the Savior who redeemed the church.

Acts 20:28 tells us that Jesus obtained the church with his own blood. Is this what your love for the church is based on? If it’s anything less, it won’t last long.

• Don’t love the church because of what it does for you. Because sooner or later it won’t do enough.
• Don’t love the church because of a leader. Because human leaders are fallible and will let you down.
• Don’t love the church because of a program or a building or activities because all those things get old.
• Don’t love the church because of a certain group of friends because friendships change and people move.

Love the church because of who shed his blood to obtain the church. Love the church because of who the church belongs to. Love the church because of who the church worships. Love the church because you love Jesus Christ and his glory. Love the church because Jesus is worthy and faithful and true. Love the church because Jesus loves the church.

[Excerpted from the sermon "We Are Here to Love the Church."]

 

on the anniversary of roe v. wade

30 seconds before this picture was taken, killing this baby would have been legal

some observations from gregory koukl:

Whenever you hear someone say, “I am personally against abortion, but I don’t think you should pass any laws against it,” one question should immediately be on your lips: “Tell me, why are you personally against abortion?” What you’ll almost always hear is, “I’m personally against abortion because I think it kills an innocent human being, but that’s my personal belief. I don’t think I should force this belief on others.”
Follow up with this comment: “Let me see if I understand you correctly. You actually believe that abortion takes the life of an innocent human child, but mothers should still be allowed to do that to their own children.” Then pause and let the logic of his comment sink in.
When I asked this question of one person he quickly responded, “Well, when you put it that way…”
I said, “Put it what way? That’s your view, unless I’ve misunderstood you. Please correct me if I have. As I understand it, that’s precisely what you believe.
This isn’t a trick. It’s not clever ‘spin.’ I merely repeated what he’d just told me. That was his view. It just didn’t sound so good coming back at him.

The bumper sticker says, “If You Can’t Trust Me With A Choice, How Can You Trust Me with a Child?“
There are some choices no one should be “trusted” with in the sense that the decision is up to them. One of them is the choice to kill innocent human beings. Further, no one is “trusting” the mother with a child. She doesn’t need permission to get pregnant. Because of the nature of motherhood, this is properly out of the state’s control. If it were in the control of the state, many would be denied that trust.

If we allowed an abortion [in the case of rape] it would send a terrible message, that when someone reminds you of something extremely painful you can eliminate them. But you can’t kill another human being just because their existence makes your life physically or emotionally burdensome.
If I had a law on my desk that restricted abortion except in the cases of rape or incest I would sign it, even though I don’t think rape and incest ought to be exceptions. I’d just rather save 98% of the children whose lives are taken through abortion rather than none.

If a woman even a teenager, even a minor, even without her parents’ consent has an inalienable right to have an abortion, then how does one argue she can’t do something less violent to her body than such a medical procedure, and less violent to the body of another human being–the unborn child–than smoking? How does one argue this is no longer an acceptable choice?
If the government is willing to say that something as extreme as abortion is a private, personal choice (so much so that even the real father of the girl seeking the abortion can’t interfere), then how do they justify their own paternalism by taking a cigarette out of the hand of a teenager because she just isn’t old enough to decide for herself?

Some observers denounce the use of the word “murder” to describe the destruction of a fetus. Yet this “rhetoric” is completely consistent with California law.
Under the category “Crimes against the Person,” or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” [emphasis mine] After the definition, we find among the exceptions: “This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act which results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply: The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act….The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”
The only difference between legal abortion and punishable homicide in the state of California is the consent of the mother. How does the mere consent of the mother change the innate value of the unborn human inside her?
However one answers this question, the fact is that abortion is legal in California. But this can’t hide a second fact: Apart from the stipulated exceptions, killing the unborn is still homicide. It’s murder. Those who do so are prosecuted.
On the fundamental issue, then–the innate value of unborn human beings–pro-lifers are not extreme, but in concert with the law’s general assessment of the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers are not inconsistent; the law is.

Abortion involves killing and discarding something that’s alive. Whether it’s right or not to take the life of any living being depends entirely upon the answer to one question: What kind of being is it? The answer one gives is pivotal, the deciding element that trumps all other considerations.
Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate.

 

southern baptists and relief efforts

as mentioned in a previous post here and in the comments of the last post, southern baptists make up a large portion of major disaster and relief efforts in our country, and are the 3rd largest disaster relief organization in the world.

one group of southern baptists, in cooperation with the international mission board, that is currently working in haiti is BGR (baptist global response)

one thing i appreciate about them is this, that they not only seek to bring aid to physical needs, but aim to address the spiritual needs of affected areas as well. from their website:

Our Vision

To see people experiencing a full and meaningful life with hope and peace that inspires them to raise their families in confidence, build their communities with dignity and share this life with others.

Who We Respond To

We respond to people with critical needs in the areas of food security, health crises and threats to their quality of life. These needs may arise from acute (disasters) and/or chronic (hunger, poverty, etc.) threats.

Our Objectives

• We will mobilize the influence, prayer, human, and financial resources of Southern Baptists for relief and development worldwide.
• We will equip and connect Southern Baptists with viable relief and development fields worldwide. This will include the equipping of field personnel, stateside partners, national partners and GCC partners. We also will provide a practical means of linking state disaster networks, conventions, associations, churches and individuals with acute and chronic needs.
• We will enhance Southern Baptist relief and development worldwide in a way that complements field workers and strategies. This will be done in a way to increase field ownership of relief and development efforts, assist field strategies with increased and sustainable access, and provide an avenue for better evaluation of relief and development efforts insuring effective stewardship of God’s resources.
• We will lead Southern Baptists in celebration of their relief and development efforts in a way that glorifies God.

We will help people physically and spiritually

you can learn more about BGR and how to contribute here.

 

haiti; how we can help

if you were wondering what, if anything, you can do to help those in haiti, and wanted some reliable ways to do so, pastor thabiti anyabwile has some suggestions:

The aftermath of a 7.0 earthquake in that impoverished nation is nothing short of devastating.  The cries most certainly reach the heavens.  And I praise God for every Christian, every church, every person made in God’s image who responds with heart-rending compassion and mercy, who gives generously to the relief efforts there.  The generosity shown to those suffering will certainly redound in praise to God and commendation of the gospel (2 Cor. 9:12-15).

Below are a few places where you can give:

1. Compassion International
2. Feed My Starving Children
3. Food for the Hungry
4. World Vision
5. World Relief
6. Samaritan’s Purse
7. Love a Child
8. Northwest Haiti Christian Mission
9. Compassion Weavers
10. Mennonite Central Committee

Water Missions International

 

more on the brit hume controversy…

christians need not express their opinions, even when asked

when i posted the prior post and video, i had no idea that hume’s comments had elicited a firestorm. i just thought i had found an obscure clip on someone else’s blog. however, in the days since, i have read, seen, & heard an alarming number of angry remarks about what hume said.

here are some thoughts from around the blogosphere on why people saying what he said was wrong or unprofessional might want to take a moment to consider the outcome of their stances…

from trevin wax, posted by the gospel coalition:

The furor surrounding Brit Hume’s encouragement to Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity shows us that the prevailing sentiment of our culture is adamantly opposed to the idea of evangelism.

As Christians, we must recognize that before we can make a robust defense for the Christian faith, we may have to clear the air by making a case for evangelism in general. After having listened to some of the remarks made about Brit Hume, I have compiled a list of common objections to “proselytism” and why each of them are unpersuasive.

Objection #1: “Brit Hume’s remarks indicate that he thinks Christianity is superior to Buddhism.”

Response: Of course, he thinks Christianity is superior. Otherwise why would he remain an adherent to the Christian faith?

In the same way, I would expect a Buddhist man to think that his religion to be superior to Christianity. If the Buddhist doesn’t consider Buddhism to be superior, then why not convert to whatever religion he thinks is superior?

It is not arrogant to believe that your religion is superior to others. We should assume that religious people believe their faith to be superior.

Furthermore, if you believe no religion is superior to another, you are putting forth a viewpoint that you believe to be superior than the “religious superiority argument” you condemn. Thus, you fail to live up to your own demand.

Objection #2: “Christianity looks bad when Christians talk this way. Christians should not publicly and actively proselytize people of other faiths.”

Response: If Jesus calls us to make disciples of all nations and to preach the gospel, then Jesus is calling us to evangelism/proselytism. The issue is not about the way Christianity looks before the world. The question is whether or not someone can be a faithful follower of Jesus Christ and not evangelize.

To the person who says, “It’s arrogant to proselytize”, I say, “I consider it more arrogant that you think I should follow you in this area rather than Jesus Christ, who I claim as Savior and Lord.” It is the height of arrogance (and prejudice) to tell a Christian, “You should not follow Jesus Christ in this area.”

Objection #3: “Brit Hume implied that Buddhism is deficient in some way.”

Response: The assumption behind this objection is that all religions are equally valid. But that assumption is not so easily proven.

Do we really want to argue that no religion has any deficiency? That every religion is equally good (albeit in its own way)? Such a view is very disrespectful to the adherents of other religions. Buddhists know that they are not Christians. Christians know that they are not Muslims. By assuming that every religion is equally valid and good, you are downplaying the significant differences between these faiths.

Don’t patronize people and act like their differing views don’t matter. They do. They know they do. We know they do. Let’s agree on the fact that there are substantial disagreements and leave aside this nonsense that we all believe the same thing.

Objection #4: It is arrogant for Brit Hume to assume he believes in the only true religion and to try to lead people to the Christian faith.

Response: Is it? Most people in the world today do not believe that all religions are equally valid. In fact, most people believe that their religion is the correct one.

So by saying that it’s arrogant to insist your religion is right… well, that’s an arrogant statement too. You’re telling me that the majority of the world is wrong and you are right. Sounds oppressive. It’s also ethnocentric and prejudiced to believe that we in the enlightened West have figured out that all religions are the same and the poor, mindless Christians, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Buddhists across the world are still in the dark, thinking they have the only light.

Objection #5: Brit Hume’s attempt to evangelize Tiger Woods shows how exclusive and narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians are.

Response: Actually, no. True evangelism takes place because the call of salvation is radically inclusive. We are to call all people everywhere to repentance and faith: people from every tongue, tribe, and nation; people of every color, ethnicity, and background; yes, even people who claim other religious identities.

The truly narrow-minded, prejudiced Christian looks at a Buddhist like Tiger Woods and stays quiet about Jesus. Their silence says this: Jesus isn’t for you.

On the other hand, the evangelistic Christian recognizes the radically inclusive call to salvation. It is because of the exclusive nature of Christianity that the offer of the gospel is so radically inclusive. Christ calls all people everywhere to repentance. Forgiveness in Jesus Christ is available for all… even Buddhists like Tiger Woods.

peter wehner, writing at national review online

“When Christopher Hitchens, whom I like and whose company I enjoy, appeared on television shows promoting his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he was far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism. Yet I don’t recall the Left saying that those criticisms were inappropriate for public debate. In fact, they weren’t — and neither are Hume’s words. Furthermore, those who are unnerved by Hume’s ’sectarianism’ were untroubled by the aggressive atheism of Hitchens.”…

and from michael gerson in the washington post

True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully — through persuasion — not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.

In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy — his son’s death in 1998 — found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume’s beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.

The other model has come from critics such as Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to “Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler.” Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own — for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.

Who in this picture is more intolerant?

as christians, we must back down to the bully-pulpit of the media, politics, and others who demand that tolerance means everyone has an equal voice and opinion- unless it is christian. the logic of the arguments fail every time, demanding that christians not be allowed what they are doing in condemning christians and their message.

(ht’s to: gospel coalition, denny burk, and justin taylor)

UPDATE: here is a christianity today interview w/ hume posted yesterday

 

“secular” evangelism

"hey- you should use my 'christian auto-body shop'- the official auto-body shop of the vatican!"

in our often silly world of cultural christianity, we talk about “christian movies” or Christian music”. when we tell others about a great book we are reading and its captivating plot, one of the first questions asked is “is it a christian book?”

much less often do we hear of people going to a “christian mechanic”  or a “christian grocery store”. i have never been asked “is that christian bologna you are eating??”

for some reason we have relegated “christianity” to professions as if the person’s faith makes them more or less qualified to do their job well. i suggest that we have the formula backwards, if not fundamentally wrong. because we are christians, we should be the best bank teller, grocery store owner, school teacher, musician, etc. we can be- not to drum up more business, but because we should do everything for the glory of god an as if we are doing it for him alone. (1 cor. 10:31; Col. 3:17, 23-24) we should be defined primarily by our faith, not using it as an adjective to describe what kind of job we have.

i don’t care if you are also a christian preacher, wrote left behind vol. 13, or your church is filming “facing your lions: the story of a zookeeper who finds christ on christian family day”! if you are a terrible heart surgeon i will go to someone who is better qualified with a proven track record of success (even an unbeliever!)before i let you cut me open and dig around inside me!

that being said, we should always be about the business of “being a christian”, even if we are not in a “christian business”. we are full time christians who are also employees, owners, managers, etc.

consider this example (ht: z) of an anchorman on a news channel that is not on a “christian station”, nor he is the newscaster on a “christian news show”. yet when asked his opinion on a recent headline, he did not hide his faith- nor did he interject it recklessly. he simply gave his opinion, which was grounded in the gospel. we can all learn from this example. we don’t have to be a minister, a deacon, a sunday school, or even a “christian book store owner” to take advantage of an opportunity to speak the truth of the gospel into ordinary, daily situations. you can even do it if you’re a “secular newsman”.

 

“de-sanitizing christmas…”

my sermon yesterday was from luke 2:1-20, and was titled “de-sanitizing christmas”.

from the introduction:

i doubt that there are few people, if anyone, here this morning who are antagonistic to the account of the coming of jesus- but i wonder, have we become so familiar with it that we have lost our affection for the real story- the unedited, de-sanitized true story of god wrapping himself in flesh and coming to this world as the savior? have we lost our sense of awe, wonder, and joy regarding the coming of jesus into the world? this morning i suggest that we will only arrive at and appreciate the true meaning of christmas when we de- sanitize the method, message, and meaning of the coming of jesus christ into the world

the method of his coming was not neat and pretty, the message of his coming was not trite and easily reduced to holiday slogans, and the meaning of his birth goes far beyond the baby in the manger. this morning let’s peel back the layers of tradition, political correctness and familiarity so that we may see this miracle for the gritty and breathtaking act of god that it is…

you can listen to the whole sermon here

 

don’t be a christian grinch this “Xmas”…

ebenezer who?

ahhh.. its that time of year again – decorations, trees, shopping, christmas carols, and the mass emails decrying the use of “Xmas” rather than “christmas” and others calling for boycotts of retailers who say “happy holidays” rather than “merry christmas”.

i’m with zach nielsen who, in responding to an email that rates how “christmas friendly” (“friendly, negligent, and offensive”) certain retailers are, has this to say:

Why are we expecting non-believers to ascribe to something that means nothing to them? Does this help us promote the true meaning of Christmas? Why would we expect any different? I don’t get it.

Whether unbelievers use the words Happy Holidays or Christmas is of little consequence as to their understanding of the Gospel. In my view, this kind of stuff only hurts our mission to communicate the truth of the Gospel. If you think people using the word Christmas somehow makes our materialistic holiday extravaganza more pure you are probably not paying attention very well. Boycotting secular businesses that do not exhibit the kind of behavior that we think they should is the last thing that an unbelieving world needs to see.

The main question this website asks is, “How Christmas Friendly Are Retailers?” What does retail have to do with the essence of Christmas anyway? Obviously, the true meaning of Christmas is very important to us and we want to teach our kids the meaning of Christmas, but that is not going to be found in any retail store, no matter how “Christmas friendly” they are.

Let’s say that the CEO of Best Buy somehow stumbles upon this website and he happens to be a hard-core Christian skeptic. Do you think that this kind of a website is a helpful Christian witness for him? I doubt it. It serves the opposite goal. If we want people to cherish Christmas the path to seeing that accomplished is not paved with boycotts and angry comment sections on a public website.

Do we expect our unbelieving Muslim friends to acknowledge Christmas? Do we expect our unbelieving Hindu friends to acknowledge Christmas? Do we have unbelieving friends? Isn’t this just a subtle (or not so subtle ) form of legalism?

so before you pass on that email that gives toys ‘r’ us a 60% offensive rating for saying “season’s greetings” (*gasp* even the pagans say “happy holidays!”), maybe we can just delete it and be a customer who doesn’t act like an idiot whose time is more valuable than everyone else’s, while we wait in line to buy things for people that they don’t even need.

oh, and as for “X”mas…

“X mas” didnt find its origins with nativity hating retailers. it was  simply used as “shorthand” as far back as the 16th century. the greek word for christ, “christos”, begins with “chi”which looks like “X” in the english alphabet. also used by early christians was a symbol that placed the first two greek letters of “christos” on top of each other. this symbol is referred to as the “chi rho”.

so, there you have it- maybe those who use “Xmas”  are simply paying homage to early christians who suffered persecution and used  “X” instead of “christ” just to survive!

(ok, they probably just mean “im in a hurry” -but in most cases, they probably do not mean “i hate baby jesus”)

 

behold the lamb of god

i have written about this amazing album here and here. my wife and i cracked it open last week to begin the christmas season and it simply gets better with age. the way andrew peterson marries lyric to music is unmatched by anyone i know of and his grasp of the linear path of redemptive history makes this the best “christmas” album i have ever heard…lightyears ahead of anything else.

my wife and i , along with some friends are going to the ryman in nashville again to see it this month. they also tour the show, and you can check here to see if they are coming near you. (or you could go to the ryman in nashville , dec. 17, if they arent sold out already)

listen to the entire album for yourself. for free, here.

you can purchase the 10th anniversary edition here.

check this post for video of some of the songs.