Live your theology.

Read this quote from J. Gresham Machen (emphasis mine) & then watch the opening ceremony of the PCUSA’s 219th General Assembly. Then let me know what you think.

It is true that the decisive thing is the regenerative power of God. That can overcome all lack of preparation, and the absence of that makes even the best preparation useless. but as a matter of fact God usually exerts that power in connection with certain prior conditions of the human mind, and it should be ours to create, so far as we can, with the help of God, those favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel. False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacle at its root. . . . What is today a matter of academic speculation begins tomorrow to move armies and pull down empires. In that second stage, it has gone too far to be combated; the time to stop it was when it was still a matter of impassioned debate. So as Christians we should try to mold the thought of the world in such a way as to make the acceptance of Christianity something more than a logical absurdity. . . . What more pressing duty than for those who have received the mighty experience of regeneration, who, therefore, do not, like the world, neglect that whole series of vitally relevant facts which is embraced in Christian experience – what more pressing duty than for these men to make themselves masters of the thought of the world in order to make it an instrument of truth instead of error? — J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Culture

My sermon from Sunday evening is posted over at the Tacoma BPC site.

It’s an introductory sermon.  As far as introductory sermons go, they can be really good, or really bad.  The really bad ones are basically history lessons.  You get background information about the city, the economic conditions, what was happening elsewhere in the world at the time the letter was written.  Who was emperor, what their reign looked like, etc.  All this might be interesting, but if it’s the meat of your sermon, you missed the mark.  Widely.  After all, we’re called to preach Christ Jesus.

Here’s how I went about it.  First, who is Paul writing to?

Timothy, duh.  But not only Timothy.  His declaration of his apostleship is an indicator that this pastoral epistle was meant to be read by more than just Pastor Timothy, but by the churches in the region, as was customary or the apostolic epistles.  Timothy didn’t need the reminder that Paul was an apostle.  With that bit of info we’re able to look at who Timothy was (and shake the idea that he’s nothing mroe than a weak-stomached inexperienced Pastor unable to decide what he should do next).  We also get to look at the authority of Scripture every time we do a sermon on an epistles introduction.

The gospel meat of the message has to do with Paul’s specific decision to show Jesus as coequal with God the Father as well as his declaration that he’s working under marching orders from God  (both found in 1 Timothy 1:1).  Paul isn’t writing this epistle just because he loves Timothy as a true son, but because Christ has commanded him to do so according to the office he called Paul into.

Unbelievers have marching orders from God.  They are to turn away from sin via repentance and put their faith in Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, 2 Peter 3:9, to name a few instances).

Believers have marching orders from God too, and 1 Timothy deals with a number of them.  So the message calls for repentance and obedience through the proclamation of the Gospel as well as an exhortation to serve Christ in love by remembering what the standing orders God has given us are (think Commission, Great).

Give it a listen. Let me know what you think, about this post or about the sermon in general.

I preached the final sermon on the book of Ruth chapter 4 yesterday morning.

The man with no name (the redeemer who opts not to take on Naomi & Ruth) is a good illustration of many in the church today.  He’s willing to serve Christ… to a point.  When all he was required to do was put some money up front and take care of an old woman, he was all about it.  In fact, he might even get ahead on the deal.  After Naomi dies, he’s got some extra land all to himself, since she didn’t have any sons to inherit it.  But when Boaz revealed the fine print (Ruth came along with the purchase, and he would have to provide an heir for Naomi) the man with no name backed out of the deal.

The nameless man saw his finances getting stretched, his inheritance diminishing and said the cost was too high.  Boaz had no such qualms and continued to serve the Lord by providing for the poor and the needy – he’d been helping Ruth & Naomi for a while, all without even a whiff of personal gain.

So it is with following Christ.  We’re slack when it comes to counting the cost of discipleship (Luke 14:28-33).  Instead of cultivating a life where we seek to glorify God (even, gasp! at a personal cost) we cultivate a life where we’ll only go so far.  Love your neighbor unless they’re just too annoying.  Love one another so long as they meet your personal marks for piety, competence, or personality.  Make disciples so long as you’ve got the time, etc.  The Christian who lives like this, will be nameless, while the believer who seeks to honor Christ by loving Him and keeping His commands will, like Boaz, be known.

Also: Boaz totally “gets” the importance of having a godly, Proverbs 31 kind of wife.

Also, Also: God is amazing & incomprehensible and Christ’s suffering and love for us are brought into a clear perspective via this chapter.  Let me know what you think.

Ruth Finds Redemption, is available for streaming or downloading on the TBPC website.

If you’ve been a Christian for any amount of time you’ve come to the realization that citing Matthew 7:1 is not an acceptable way of getting someone to clam up when the discussion moves to areas of your personal or devotional life.  Jesus doesn’t ban us from evaluating the spiritual state of co-heirs to the promise, but instead shows us how it ought to be done.

So as Christians we accept that our lives can and should be examined.  Our brothers and sisters will know us by our conduct (Matthew 7:16-20).  Observational love toward one another is a measure stick by which people will know you to be a disciple of Christ (John 13:35).  We’re even called to seek to save those who are entrapped within sin for the purpose of saving them from hellfire (Jude 23).  In each instance, we’ve got to be able to make a judgment call according to the standards put forth in Holy Scripture.

The problem is, even Christians who understand and affirm this to be true, don’t like to have their lives challenged (or even examined for that matter).  So people do their best to get around any chance of critical examination.  These are the two most common ways it’s done, from my experience:

You see, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9).  This one is a favorite for those who simply don’t wish to take action or think about the spiritual state of someone else.  Acknowledging the unrepentant sins of your child, or your spouse, or boyfriend, or girlfriend, or friend-friend, or Great Aunt Sally, or Pastor, Elder, or Congregation is going to require some action (see above).  So if someone is asking about the spiritual estate of a Christian that ought to know better, the issue can be quickly be dismissed by invoking the magic clause “You can’t know their heart”.  Allow me to demonstrate:

“Is it really wise for this unmarried couple to go on an overnight vacation to the beach, free of any accountability?”

“You can’t know their hearts!”

“All I ever see from this guy is bitterness, rage, anger, condescension and intolerance.  I’m beginning to worry that he may not be sav -”

“You can’t know the heart!”

“Darth Vader sure does choke a lot of people to death in fits of rage…”

“You can’t know his heart.”

Uttering that phrase instantly stops the conversation in its tracks.  Forcing the person asking the pesky questions to acknowledge that only God knows a person’s heart — that we may well be surprised by who enters into eternal rest in Christ Jesus, as well as the ones who don’t.  Problem solved.  Issue avoided.  The only known solution is to respond with “duh” and continue the conversation.

This particular phrase is the one most utilized whenever we are directly faced with an inquiry, or even an idea that we’d rather not give any thought about.  And sometimes, it’s true.  You can rightly say “I’m not called to do that” if someone is asking whether you ought to be a Pastor, or an Elder or Deacon for that matter.  But we use the term as a way of avoiding the process of thinking about issues relating to living the Way.  And that’s where the trouble comes in.

Take for example a baptist and a Presbyterian discussing the sacrament of baptism.  The Presbyterian explains why he thinks baptizing the children of believing parents is a proper biblical practice.  The baptist, not swayed by the argument, responds “I’m just not called to baptize infants.”  You see the problem?  It’s not an issue of whether we’re called to something but whether it’s biblically acceptable to hold the position or act the way we do.  And some issues are legitimately difficult to parse (such as baptism) and fellowship ought not be destroyed because we hold contrary opinions informed by Scripture.

Claiming that “we’re not called” to do something is usually irrelevant.  Because as a follower of Christ, you ARE called to obey his word.  So if someone is suggesting that there may be an issue with modesty on account of the Gene Simmons – level tightness of the cut-off shorts & halter top you’re wearing to church the acceptable response isn’t “I’m not called to wear less revealing clothing” but rather “Here’s why, biblically speaking, I feel this outfit is appropriate.”   Another example is home-schooling.  There is agreement among believers that teaching children is a responsibility God has entrusted to parents.  My wife and I are both convicted that God entrusted this duty on parents with the expectations that it not be delegated to someone else, but that the parents themselves personally see to it.  So often times, people will ask why we home-school, and we’ll give that reason (along with others).  Nine times out of ten, the response isn’t any sort of engagement or biblical discussion, but a simple “I don’t feel called to do that.”  The trouble with this is that we’ve rejected the opportunity to apprise and evaluate our actions in light of the Word in favor of the “do what you feel” mantra of post-modernist thinking.  And many Christians don’t even realize they’ve done this, because of the Christian-ese language used throughout the process.

So, the next time conversation arises, think before you utter the terms “I’m not called to do that” or “you can’t know the heart”.  Are they relevant?  Is it truly an issue of calling or is it an issue of obedience?  Are the actions of the brother ambiguous enough to not shed light on the state of their soul, or are you ignoring a dead vine?  You get maybe 5 minutes to talk about something substantial on Sunday, don’t waste them with these modern Christian clichés!