Movie Clips for Illustration in Worship

I've been reflecting on the use of clips from popular films in worship as part of the sermon. Some of you have probably seen them and seen them used effectively during worship. Perhaps a pastor is speaking about how love in Christ overcomes differences in race and socio-economic background, and they then play a powerful scene from The Blindside to illustrate their point. Is this a wise and Biblical practice?

God has certainly not forbidden the use of screens and/or movies in church. God has given us much freedom in the forms we may use in worship, so I don't see this as a simple "movies in church are forbidden" issue. However, I personally don't think that the use of popular movies in worship is wise. I'll give two reasons--one my own and one from John Piper.

First, for a great many Christians movies are a stumbling stone. It is very difficult to sit through 115 minutes of attractively presented worldliness without having your heart drawn toward the materialism, sensuality, amorality, cynicism and God-absent world view that are prevalent in most popular movies. By playing clips from those movies during our central act of corporate worship are we not implicitly encouraging already struggling folks to go back to those "broken cisterns" which are causing such destruction in so many lives?

Second, from John Piper: "I believe profoundly in the power and the till-Jesus-comes-validity of preaching. And by that I mean the spirit-anointed exposition of the Scripture through clear explanations and applications of what's there. There's something God-appointed about that.

I think the use of video and drama largely is a token of unbelief in the power of preaching. And I think that, to the degree that pastors begin to supplement their preaching with this entertaining spice to help people stay with them and be moved and get helped, it's going to backfire. It's going to backfire.

It's going to communicate that preaching is weak, preaching doesn't save, preaching doesn't hold, but entertainment does. And we'll just go further and further. So we don't do video clips during the sermon. We don't do skits.

Of course, it would probably help if we all could preach like Piper.

Bottom line: Are the gains from playing movie clips--strong emotional impact and cultural relevancy--worth the potential losses? My fear is that many in the name of pragmatism are not even asking the question.

What is Love?

What is love? We speak of it all the time in church--God's love for us; our love for God and one another. But what is it? Jonathan Edwards gives, what I believe, to be a great and biblical definition of the word love, but it's not what you might expect from a rather prolix and exacting theologian. This definition comes from his sermon series Charity and Its Fruits:

Love is an affection of the heart whereby one is dear to another.

A simple and wonderful definition of love. Therefore when we say that God loves you, it means that you are dear to the heart of God;

you are precious to Him; God delights in you.

What is the Scriptural foundation for this definition? Edwards does not say. I wonder, though, if it comes from Paul's words to the church at Thessalonika when he writes, "So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us” (I Thess. 2:8).

This is part of the amazing news of the Gospel. Because of what Jesus has done those who look to Him in faith are dear to the heart of Jesus and to our Heavenly Father. You are loved!

Resisting Temptation

"No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it" (1Co 10:13).

Many have struggled with wondering whether this verse is true--myself included. Temptation comes: watch this TV show which I know I shouldn't; get angry and not love someone who has hurt me; be impatient with my spouse or children, etc. Then we cry out to God, "Lord, help me! You have promised that You will not let me be tempted beyond my ability. Show me the way of escape!" Nothing seems to happen, and we fall back into the muck of sin.

What has happened? Is God's Word true? What is wrong with me? These may be some of the questions that we begin to ask. Let me highlight two thoughts from this verse that may help those who have found themselves in this agonizing plight.

1) "With the temptation he will also provide the way of escape."-- This says to me that the temptation and the way of escape come together. Temptation does not strike and then some time later God provides a way of escape. Right with the temptation there is a way out. It is there.

Why can't I see it? There does not seem to be a way of escape, or at least I don't have the ability to use it. This leads to the second point . . .

2) The way of escape is often to call out to another brother or sister for help and prayer-- Remember Paul says that whatever temptation has seized you is "common to man." So often Satan wants us to think that our sin is unique and especially shameful. We don't want others to know about it. A personal and private sin needs to be handled personally and privately. This is a lie. To believe it closes off a primary way that God has provided for us to resist temptation. The way out is to trust Christ in the body of Christ.

So there we are crying out, "God, help me! Save me! Give me the ability to resist!" And God says, "I have given you the way. I have given you brothers and sisters who love you and care for you, but you will not pick up the phone and avail yourself of the obvious way of escape that I have provided. You'd rather sin than humble yourself in asking for help from my flesh and blood body on the earth."

We respond, "Could you perhaps provide another way?"

A Life Worthy of the Gospel

Someone once said, "Live your life in such a way that when you die you will be missed." Paul Belardino is greatly missed. I know that God's work for Paul here was finished . . . but there is a void left when a beloved saint goes home. A real friend, a real Christian brother, one who faithfully loves and prays for you is a rare and precious thing in this fallen world. Some of you reading this know what I mean.

The following are some of my comments from the funeral of our brother, Paul Belardino:

I first met Paul four years ago when my family and I moved to this area to pastor SHPC in Destin. Paul was a member of Safe Harbor and had served faithfully as a ruling elder since 2002. Paul was a good friend and not just to myself, He was a Father in the faith.

The last time I spoke with Paul 3 Sundays ago I asked him what Scripture had been speaking to his heart during this time. He told me Isaiah 40. I want to share some of this Scripture with you this morning.

Isaiah 40:28-31 (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Is.+40:28-31)

I wish I could read it with Paul’s same booming voice. As I read this Scripture it reminds of two things about Paul:

Paul was a man of prayer. If you asked me to say one thing about Paul it would be this, he was a man of prayer. Paul stood so tall for Jesus because he spent so much time on his knees. He knew what it meant to be tired and weary and he sought strength for Himself and others from the living God in prayer. Many of you here have probably enjoyed prayer with Paul at some time. Paul led our prayer in worship each Sunday. I loved to hear him pray because his prayers seemed to usher me into the presence of a holy and loving God. Paul prayed . . . and He prayed to a Big God

And that is the second thing I want to say--Paul had a huge vision of the greatness of God like Isaiah. “Have you not kno

wn? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God. The creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary and His wisdom—no can fathom.” God made everything. He is everlasting without end. He is all-powerful. His wisdom is infinite and He is and exhaustable fountain of love and goodness to the needy. Paul had a God-given, God-centered, God intoxicated, God-entranced vision of all things. To Paul God didn’t just touch each area of life—God was central to every area of life. He loved and enjoyed God so much because He saw the glory and grandeur of God so clearly—especially in His Word. And now He sees Him face to face.

Many of you know that Paul’s view of God’s glory was strongly influenced by the great American preacher Jonathan Edwards. Several years ago Paul memorized much of Edwards famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” and had the opportunity to repreach this great and sobering sermon. I was mentioning this to my wife Susan the other day and she said, “Paul is probably talking with Edwards right now.” And he is. Talking with Edwards and worshipping with Edwards. Having their breath taken away by the glory of God!

I want to share a quote from Edwards that I am sure Paul knew on the joy of heaven that Paul is enjoying right now:

"The enjoyment of [God] is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, fully to enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here. Fathers and mothers, husbands, wives, or children, or the company of earthly friends, are but shadows; but God is the substance. These are but scattered beams, but God is the sun. These are but streams. But God is the ocean."

Paul is with His heavenly Father and He is with his Savior Jesus Christ. I think Paul would not be happy with me if I did not end by pointing each of us to Jesus. Paul was who he was, a man of love and prayer, a man with huge vision of God because Jesus rescued him. Paul was one of those sinners who needed to be saved from the anger of God by the Son of God. Paul loved Jesus and He is now with Him. To end one more word from another giant of the faith whom Paul loved--Charles Spurgeon.

“There will be little else we shall want of heaven besides Jesus Christ. He will be our bread, our food, our beauty, and our glorious dress. The atmosphere of heaven will be Christ; everything in heaven will be Christ-like: yes, Christ is the heaven of His people.”

Segregated Worship--a Gospel Issue?

I continue my Quixotic quest against dividing a church into a contemporary and traditional worship service. I just can't help but believe this is a GOSPEL issue and not just one of preference. This time I turn to David Wells and his book Above All Earthly Powers:

"The church is not only to declare the gospel, but to model its truth, and if it does not model the truth it will undermine what it declares as truth. . . . The gospel declares that there is no natural merit, no human standing, which advances a person toward God and his salvation, or makes one person more acceptable to God than another. All of the ways in life in which people seek importance and seek preeminence over one another are irrelevant to their standing before God. This is true of ethnicity, wealth, class, power, privileged birth, connections, profession, generation and religion. If this is the truth upon which the gospel rests, then it is the truth which the Church is obliged to model. So it is that Paul declares that there 'is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus' (Gal. 3:28). And by extension, should we not also say that because we are all one in Jesus Christ, there is neither Builder nor Boomer, neither Xer nor child of the Millennium, city dweller or suburbanite, Westerner or Third Worlder? Exploiting generational distinctions in the pursuit of success, which is what is at the heart of the seeker church movement, should be as offensive as exploiting racial differences for personal advantage . . . .

The gospel calls for the Church to exhibit in itself the fact that what typically divides people has been overcome in Christ; marketing frequently leads the Church to capitalize on what divides people in order to exploit the niches of class and generation.

What is at stake here, as Paul argued, is nothing less than the gospel. What is at stake is also nothing less than the work of the Trinity. To the Ephesians, Paul argued that there "is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of us all who is above all and through all and in all' (Eph. 4:4-6).

Paul's argument is compelling for its simplicity. There is only one body because there is only one Spirit; there is only one faith because there is only one Lord; there is only one family because there is only one Father. The unity of the people of God is as secure as the unity of the trinity. The Church's responsibility, therefore, is not to create unity, as the ecumenical movement proposed, but to preserve the unity that God himself has already created in Christ..." (pg. 294-295).

TV Church or Real Church?

Came across this article at Desiring God. All I can say is a big "Amen." We need the living fellowship that comes from being a part of the body of Christ.

Is Watching a Very Good Sermon the Same as Church?

When you read that question, your reaction may well be, “Are you kidding? What a ridiculous thought!” Perhaps the earliest (even before the days of personal computers) and most caustic response I recall hearing about people who rationalize doing “TV church” was an in-your-face, “See if your TV gives you a hug when you’re sick, lonely, or need advice.”

More recently, Johnathon Bowers, our South Site Coordinator, commented on this topic at a staff meeting, remarking about an article’s description of the age we live in.

For the first time in church history, our generation is able to watch and hear quality Christian preaching and music seven days a week, morning, noon, and night. And indulging in this wealth breeds in some a “consumer mentality,” such that they can simply change channels or turn off completely whatever they don’t like. In this, many people fall into a similar pattern with their actual church participation, i.e., to routinely “surf the Web of congregations” instead of hanging in there with all the other imperfect people in their church.

They, therefore, ignore the plain biblical instruction for their good—that God ordains struggles, conflicts, and outright orneriness within a church body so that he will get the glory of saved sinners like them growing in their faith, practicing his “one another” commands, and showing a clueless, alienating world his alternative community of reconciliation and grace. --David Livingston, DesiringGod.org

Segregated Worship

This past Sunday my sermon included some comments on churches having "contemporary" and "traditional" worship services. My argument in the sermon was that though churches who do this usually do so with the best of intentions (to reach more people with the Gospel), is it possible that segregating the generations during worship actually undermines the Gospel that we are trying to proclaim? In other words, is it possible that this is actually more than a matter of preference but a Gospel matter? The passage that we were looking was Galatians 2 where Peter has withdrawn from eating with the Gentiles believers. Paul confronts Peter and tells him that he is not "living in step with the truth of the Gospel." But why does Paul say this? Peter is just affiliating with those whose culture he is most comfortable with. Peter certainly knows that the Gentile believers are clean in God's sight. Yet in withdrawing himself from them he is implying that in some way they are not as acceptable in his sight as the Jewish believers. Paul is convinced that Peter is implying that cultural differences are more important than Gospel unity.

What are we communicating when our central act of corporate worship each week is no longer corporate but divided? I've scanned the net for anyone approaching this question from a Gospel-centric view point. The only relevant comment I have found comes from Tullian Tchividjian, Billy Graham's grandson, who was recently called as pastor at Coral Ridge Presbyterian. Following is an excerpt from his blog:

"Many churches offer a “traditional service” for the tribe who prefers old music and a “contemporary service” for the tribe who prefers new music. I understand the good intentions behind some of these efforts but something as seemingly harmless as this evidences a fundamental failure to comprehend the heart of the Gospel. When we offer, for instance, a contemporary worship service for the younger people and a traditional worship service for the older people, we are not only feeding tribalism (which is a toxic form of racism) but we are saying that the Gospel can’t successfully bring these two different groups together. It is a declaration of doubt in the reconciling power of God’s Gospel. Generational appeal in worship is an unintentional admission that the Gospel is powerless to “join together” what man has separated. Plainly stated, building the church on age appeal (whether old or young) or stylistic preferences is as contrary to the reconciling effect of the Gospel as building it on class, race, or gender distinctions. Negatively, when the church segregates people according to generation, race, style, or socio-economic status, we exhibit our disbelief in the reconciling power of the Gospel. Positively, one of the prime evidences of God’s power to our segregated world is a congregation which transcends cultural barriers, including age."

If God Kills You

Recently our Gospel Transformation study was reading in the book of I Samuel where we came across an incident that raised some serious concerns about God and His goodness.  In I Samuel 15 God commands Saul, King of Israel, to utterly destroy the Amalekites because of their treatment of the people of Israel on their way into the promised land.  The Lord says to Saul, “Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (I Samuel 15:3). 

Several years ago my daughter, Hannah, and I also struggled with this command.  Can you guess what upset Hannah in this verse?  Our conversation that followed went something like this:  She said to me, “But I thought that Jesus loved little children.  Why would God command that children and babies be killed?”

How do you answer?  You can only say, “Go and ask your mother” so many times.  “You should ask the pastor” wasn’t going to work for me either.  So I thought for a moment, and I prayed that Jesus might give me words to help Hannah to understand.  Then I said, “Just because God kills you, does not mean that He doesn’t love you.”**  Hannah looked more than a little confused by this statement, so I asked, “Who has God loved with an infinite love from all eternity?”  She knew the answer to this question; “Jesus,” she said.

“That’s right,” I replied, “God has always loved and delighted in His one and only Son with a love that can never be measured.  But let me ask you this, what did God do to His one and only Son whom He loves with an infinite love?”

She wrinkled her brow and pondered for a moment and then it came to her, “God killed His Son.”

She was right.  God killed His Son.  Isaiah 53:10 says, “Yet it was the will of God to crush him;  he has put him to grief.”  On the day of Pentecost the apostle Peter proclaimed that “Jesus [was] delivered up [to be killed] according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23).  The Father who loves the Son willed to crush Him, to deliver Him over for crucifixion.  Just because God kills you, does not mean that He doesn’t love you.  Jesus above all others shows us this.

It is a hope-giving truth for 7 year-olds and 37 year-olds and 87 year-olds.  One day we know that we will die, that God will take our lives.  It may be by cancer or car accident;  it may be a heart attack or a bomb in Iraq.  Unless Jesus returns first, we will all die.  But the fact that God will kill us one day does not mean that He doesn’t love us.

No, what it means is that there is something that is infinitely worse than death and something that is infinitely better than earthly life.  We often think of death as the worst thing that could happen to someone, but we know it is not.  Hell is the worst thing.  To spend eternity away from the presence of the Lord and all that is good, is horror beyond imagining.  To spend eternity in the presence of God, seeing Jesus face to face, knowing Him as we have been known, is joy unspeakable.  Life in God’s presence will make this life (and our death) seem almost as nothing, compared to what is in store for those who know and love Jesus.

Let us join with the apostle Paul and say, “For to me to live is Christ and to die is gain” (Philippians 1:21).  Let us add our voices to Job’s and proclaim, “Though He slay me, I will hope in Him” (Job 13:15).  Let us remember that God loves us, and therefore “precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints” (Psalm 116:15).  Amen.  Just because God kills you does not mean that He doesn’t love you.

____________________

**But did God love these infants and children of the Amalekites?  As I stated, just because God kills you does not mean that He doesn’t love you; but the fact that God kills you does not mean that He does love you.  Did God love these pagan children?  For some the answer would be that all children who die before the age of accountability (whatever that age may be) are elect children and will go to heaven.  Thus God did love these children.  Rather than have them grow up as pagans and be lost eternally, He brought them to Himself.  This may be.  

One might also consider that even if these children were not saved, it may have been more loving of God to take their lives at an early age than to allow them to grow up.  Why?  Because as they grew older, walking in rebellion to God, their sin and guilt before God would have been compounded, and thus their degree of eternal punishment would have been much worse (see Luke 12:47-48;  20:47;  Matthew 11:22). 

 

 

The Best Book Makes Itself Unnecessary

Came across this quote from A. W. Tozer about books:

"It takes a determined effort of the mind to break free from the error of making books an end in themselves. The worst thing a book can do for a Christian is to leave him with the impression that he has received from it anything really good; the best it can do is to point the way to the Good he is seeking. The function of a good book is to stand like a signpost directing the reader toward the Truth and the Life. That book serves best which early makes itself unnecessary, just as a signpost serves best after it is forgotten, after the traveler has arrived safely at his desired haven. The work of a good book is to incite the reader to moral action, to turn his eves toward God and urge him forward. Beyond that it cannot go."

A good prayer when we take up a new book--"Lord, in these pages may I see more of You, and may You increase my desire to follow You more closely with greater confidence in who You are."

Election Thoughts

A couple of things on my mind and heart as we contemplate Barack Obama's victory.

1) Our calling is clear as Christians and citizens. We are to pray for President Obama. “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Notice Paul even says we should pray, intercede and give thanks for President Obama.

2) Please. Please. Please. Be very careful about any rhetoric that says Barack Obama's election is God's judgement on our country. I would even say repudiate it. Think about our black brothers and sisters who are rejoicing this day in seeing an African-American raised to the highest position of leadership in our country. And they should rejoice. In 40 or so years we have moved from entrenched, Jim Crow discrimination to an African-American President. Do we call this judgement when so many of our black brothers and sisters call it a blessing? Such talk will come across as racist and hateful.

In addition reading or interpreting providence apart from God's special revelation is just plain dangerous. Most of us know that prosperity is not necessarily a sign of God's blessing. We also know that affliction is not necessarily a sign of God's displeasure (see the Book of Job). So what does the election of Barack Obama mean? How do we interpret it? Is this God's blessing of America or his judgement? My answer: I have no idea and neither does anyone else.

Why Did God Allow the Fall of Man?

In our Gospel Tranformation study two weeks ago this difficult question arose: why did a good and sovereign God allow the Fall of man? I will answer this with an explanation from Jonathan Edwards. But then I would like to explore a follow up question that was asked: can this be explained to unbelievers?

First, why did a good and sovereign God allow the Fall of Man? Edwards writes,

It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all.

If it were not right that God should decree and permit and punish sin, there could be no manifestation of God's holiness in hatred of sin, or in showing any preference, in his providence, of godliness before it. There would be no manifestation of God's grace or true goodness, if there was no sin to be pardoned, no misery to be saved from. How much happiness soever he bestowed, his goodness would not be so much prized and admired (from Concerning the Divine Decrees).

Edwards' stunning answer is that by allowing the Fall more of the glory God will be seen and known than if God had not allowed the Fall to take place. We will see more clearly God's hatred for sin, His justice and holiness. But we will also know in a greater way His mercy, His patience, His compassion which will shine that much brighter as we see how much God hates sin.

I know it is a lot to take in. However, it is well worth pondering and praying over. 

What of the second question? Is this something that can be explained to unbelievers? Here is what I would say: if they ask we should be ready to respond as best as we are able. The problem with giving this answer to those who do not yet know God is that it sounds as if God is absolutely full of Himself. In the skeptic's ear it sounds as if God allowed all the suffering in history that sin has brought about so that He will look good. We get sin and suffering. He looks more glorious. It sounds atrocious! We suffer so that God looks good.

But it is not, if we can understand that seeing more of God's glory is what brings mankind true and lasting happiness. Edwards completes the above passage by saying:

So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which he made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of his love. And if the knowledge of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect.

If Edwards is correct that man's highest happiness consists in the knowledge of God then we must bow before God's throne in wonder. God allowed the Fall that His glory might be seen and the joy of His people be made full.

Again, can a skeptic understand this? I think so. But a work of God's Spirit is needed to make this truth beautiful and compelling to the one who hears it.

How to Understand the Secrets of the Kingdom

Was reading this week in Mark 4. Here Jesus has been teaching the crowds in parables. And then we are told in verse 10: “And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables.” Jesus says that His disciples have what they need to understand the parables but others do not. But then notice the next verse. Jesus says to them, “Do you not understand this parable?” (they did not!). And then to vv. 33-34. “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”

Here is what I wondered: Jesus says that His disciples have the key to really understanding the parables. Yet, in the next verse the disciples don't understand the parable, and Jesus must explain it. I thought, "If the disciples have the key to unlock the parables then why must Jesus explain it to them?" Then I wondered if the question didn't carry the answer. They had Jesus. Jesus was the key. Jesus is the one who is able to open His Word to us that we might understand it and see the wonders of God in it and begin to change or own dull and dreary hearts.

We need the same thing if we are to really understand God's Word and God's kingdom. We need Jesus or perhaps more accurately for us--we need the Spirit of Christ. Jesus, himself, said, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things" (John 14:26).

Even as I write this, though, I see a pitfall. It is easy to misuse this doctrine and to say, "Studying and thinking are not important. We just need to ask the Holy Spirit to give us understanding." In 2 Timothy 2:7 Paul commands Timothy, "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything." Notice: Who will give understanding? Understanding is a gift of God--God gives it-- just like we said above. What is the means that God uses to give us understanding? Thinking over what we read! Study and hard thinking have a place as we seek more understanding. We study, and we think, and we ask Jesus to give us understanding!

I'll end with a quote from John Piper, "So by all means pray and ask God to give you the light you need. But don't replace thinking with praying. Think and pray. Pray and think. This is the way God has set it up. A historical Christ. A book of preservation and revelation. All of that says: read and study and ransack and think. But all is in vain without prayer. Both-and, not either-or."

Faith is Weakness

A controversial title--I know. But I did steal it from C.H. Spurgeon, so I think I'm on pretty safe ground. I put it out there because so many times I think of faith as something that is strong and a man or woman of faith as someone who is so mighty and sufficient and able. This is not so. True men and women of faith are those who are weak and sinful and know they are weak and sinful, and in their weakness they cling to Jesus. Here is Spurgeons full definition of faith: "faith is weakness clinging to strength, and becoming strong through so doing."

I see this same description of faith in Ephesians 2:8, "It is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves--it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one may boast." What do we learn about faith? Faith is turning from ourselves and our own speculations and looking to God alone for salvation and strength. Faith is not strong nor an exhibition of strength, it is clinging to the strength of another. Faith is not a work we must do or accomplish. It is looking to the work another has done. Faith leaves no room for boasting. It is a gift. Faith means turning from anything I can boast in and boasting in Christ alone.

A Fool Takes no Pleasure in Understanding But Only in Expressing His Opinion

That fool might just be me.  Let me explain.  Yesterday in Sunday School we were talking about how God uses our weakness much more than our "strength" to advance His kingdom.  Fresh on my mind was a quote from J.R. Miller who says, "God is the God of those who fail. Not that He loves those who stumble and fall, better than those who walk erect without stumbling; but He helps them more. The weak believers get more of His grace--than those who are strong believers. There is a special divine promise, which says, ‘My divine power is made perfect in weakness.’ When we are conscious of our own insufficiency, then we are ready to receive of the divine sufficiency. Thus our very weakness is an element of strength. Our weakness is an empty cup--which God fills with His own strength.” 

I believe this to be wonderfully true.  There are many Scriptures that teach us the same thing:  "God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (James 4:6);  "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:6);   "But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong" (1 Corinthians 1:27).

Here, though, is where I--the proverbial fool--got carried away with expressing my opinion.  I said something to this affect, "God never commands us in His Word to become strong, but in our weakness to continually look to the Strong One."  I even challenged folks to find any place where God commands us to be strong.  No one answered (perhaps out of kindness)--but guess what?  Even a cursory search of the Scriptures will turn up this very command.  "Be strong and courageous, " God commands Joshua and the people of Israel, no less than four times in the first chapter of Joshua.  There are other such instances in the OT and even in the New:  "Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong" (1 Corinthians 16:13).

Obviously God does command us to be strong.  I think my idea was correct, but the way I expressed it was . . . lacking.   Here may be a better way:  "God never wants us to grow strong by looking to ourselves and our own resources.  God wants us to grow strong as we look to His strength.  We will always in ourselves be weak.  We are only strong as we rest in the strength of Jesus."  Is this not what Paul is saying in Ephesians 6:10, "Be strong in the Lord and in His mighty power."  The Psalmist sings the same tune, "The LORD is my strength and my shield; in him my heart trusts, and I am helped" (Psalm 28:7).  Our weakness is an empty cup which God fills with His strength, but God does not fill the cup so that it never needs to be filled again.  As soon as it is filled it is poured out for God's work, so the need and weakness continue, and the cup is filled and filled again.

The Place of Anger in the Life of a Christian

I've been thinking about anger this week--specifically about its good purpose. It even seems strange to speak of a good and gracious purpose for being angry. Yet I think there is no other way to describe Jesus's emotion when he drove the money changers from the temple. Most dictionaries define anger as "an intense feeling of displeasure." This appears to me an apt description of what Jesus was feeling when he cleared the court of the Gentiles.

The question for me has been what is the good purpose of anger that we see in Jesus? It appears to me that the answer is somewhere along these lines: the good purpose of anger in the Christian life is to awaken those we love to a dangerous attitude or action in their lives. The danger may be to their spiritual or physical well-being. If I see my daughter wandering out into a busy street, it is not appropriate to call out, "Honey, come on back now, OK?" It is right to scream, "GET OUT OF THE ROAD!" Is this anger? I think it is. It certainly is an intense feeling of displeasure manifested in what I say and how I say it. But notice this anger carries no ill-will with it--just the opposite. It expresses a a desire for my child's safety and good. I hope that my anger will awaken her to her danger.

You might think about like Tabasco sauce. On the right food, in the right amount, at the right time it enhances your meal. But if you put Tabasco on everything, all the time, to excess, it ends up ruining everything. No one can stomach all that fire constantly. So should our anger be as Christians. There is right place and time and proportion for our anger, but it should not permeate everything or it will ruin much.

Yet I also keep in mind James 1:20, "The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God." My anger may awaken someone to their danger, but it is ineffective in drawing people to righteousness in Jesus. It is similar to preaching about Hell. Jonathan Edwards once said, "Some talk of it as an unreasonable thing to fright persons to heaven, but I think it is a reasonable thing to endeavour to fright persons away from hell. They stand upon its brink, and are just ready to fall into it, and are senseless of their danger. Is it not a reasonable thing to fright a person out of a house on fire?"

Our anger just like preaching about Hell may awaken someone to their danger, but this is not saving faith. That is why the anger of man does not bring about the righteousness of God. Righteous anger has its place. It may awaken someone to the danger they are in or the great harm that their conduct or attitude is causing, but your anger will never really change someone’s life and heart. It is something to think about. How many people do you know testify that it was the righteous anger of their parents or of their husband or wife that finally lead them to Jesus? I don’t know of any. But I know a great many people who will say that it was the enduring love and mercy of my parent or husband or wife that finally broke through in my life.