Who do I credit for this one?  JT, links to Tony Reinke, who quotes David Powlison: 3 Questions to Spark Substantive Conversation with Your Spouse. 

Josh Harris asks a very important question.  Should we use Twitter in church?  Piper also weighs in.  Also Richard Clark give us an Ecclesiology of Twitter

The next installment of Reading the Classics Together at Challies’ blog will be The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment.  If you’ve never read this book I’d suggest buying it and joining the conversation. 

JT plugs a new album from Voice: A Theist.  I’ve heard good stuff so far…but am personally unfamiliar.  Rhapsody is yet to carry his music. 

Great article by Challies on confession. 

I’m not sure what my Arminian brothers think of this but you’ve got to respect a guy rapping about Particular Redemption:  (HT: John)

Dr. Moore discusses the “Pro-Life Majority”

I liked this:

“Ultimately all that will be there in the new, redeemed creation will be there  because of the cross.  And conversely, all that will not be there (suffering, tears, sin, Satan, sickness, oppression, corruption, decay and death) will not be there because they will have been defeated and destroyed by the cross.  That is the length, breadth, height and depth of God’s idea of redemption.  It is exceedingly good news.  It is the font of all our mission.

So it is my passionate conviction that holistic mission must have a holistic theology of the cross.  That includes the conviction that the cross must be as a central to our social engagement as it is to our evangelism.  There is no other power, no other resource, no other name through which we can offer the whole Gospel to the whole person and to the whole world than Jesus Christ crucified and risen.”  (Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God, pages 315-316)

Wow.  I mean seriously.  Wow.  How dare we center our life and mission around anything but the Cross.

A couple of years ago I read Mark Dever and Paul Alexander’s excellent book The Deliberate Church.  Recently a friend of mine as well as a couple other people have made mention of this book.  I thought it would be helpful to journey through this book with a few other believers.   It has been awhile since I read it and could certainly use other believers to think through some of these issues—especially others from different churches.  I will attempt to summarize each chapter (so maybe those that are not reading the book can still follow along) and then ask a few questions that we can discuss in the comments. 

If you have not bought this book yet, you really should.  It is only $8.99.

Quick Summary:

Dever wonders ‘why did you buy this book’?  Accident, discouraged, wanting to make an impact, disillusioned, or looking for new life in your church (the next great thing)?  Regardless of the reason for your purchase (or following along with us as we read through it) it is important to know from the beginning what this book is not.  It is not new, it is not a program, and it is not a quick fix.  This book is not about innovation it is about biblical faithfulness.

Dever defines the purpose simply as this: “To be deliberate about treating the biblical Gospel as that which feeds the church’s growth, drives its progress, and governs every aspect of the church’s corporate life and leadership.” (21) 

The foreword is closed out by asking a very important question:  Is it replicable?  Thankfully, it is absolutely replicable.  It is important as well to catch what Dever says on page 23, “[these] are not intended to be taken as either exhaustive or exclusive, but simply as an attempt to revive a warm conversation about how we feed, lead, and protect the flock of God.”  It will take patience and it depends on the sovereignty of God.  The goal is faithfulness. 

Quotables:

“Healthy growth takes time, prayer, hard work, patience and perseverance.”  (20)

“Our goal isn’t to see how innovative we can be.  Our goal is to see how faithful we can be.”  (21)

“…human method has to remain plain, or else it will naturally supplant the Gospel’s rightful role…the Gospel is cast in bold relief against the backdrop of our own admitted weakness.”  (22)

Questions:

• So why did you buy this book?  Or why do you want to discuss it? 
• What do you think of this statement: “When the Gospel enjoys functional centrality, the church gains traction in the culture…”?
• This one is from the book:  “Does the Gospel enjoy functional centrality in your church?  Why or why not?  Are there ways in which your current model of ministry might siphon off the glory of the Gospel for itself?  How so? 
• What other thoughts and questions do you have?

Last time we discussed the three different types of cultural engagement.  This time we will look at the stick-shaker.  Remember last time we defined the stick-shaker as the one who looks at the problems of the world shakes a stick at them, rebukes them, rallies the troops to pick up their sticks, and hopes that by enough stick-shaking the problems will go away.  Today we will consider what the stick-shaker gets right and where I believe the stick-shaker turns from the Bible. 

The stick-shaker is correct that worldliness is a major problem.  When the world infiltrates the church you have major problems (see Corinth).  We are told by the apostle John not to “love the world or the things in the world.  If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” 

There is also an element of engagement that the stick-shaker does get right.  In Ephesians 5:11 we are told to “take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead to expose them.”  Sometimes the way that we are to engage is by loving rebuke.  So there are some things that stick-shakers get right and there are areas where we are indebted to their faithfulness to the holiness of the gospel.  But there are also serious problems with a stick-shakers view of engagement.

The fundamental error of the stick-shaker can be seen in a quote by JC Ryle’s book Holiness.  By no means am I accusing JC Ryle of being a stick-shaker.  These words, I think, meant something different in his day.  However, this quote will serve to show the underlying mindset of the stick-shaker:

[There] are [those] who are always trying to keep in with the world.  They are ingenious in discovering reasons for not separating decidedly, and in framing plausible excuses for attending questionable amusements, and keeping up questionable friendships.  One day you are told of their attending a Bible reading; the next day perhaps you hear of their going to a ball.  One day they fast, or go to the Lords’ table and receive the sacrament; another day they go to the racecourse in the morning, and the opera at night.  One day they are almost in hysterics under a sermon of some sensational preacher; another day they are weeping over some novel.  They are constantly laboring to persuade themselves that to mix a little with worldly people on their own ground does good.  Yet in their case it is very clear they do not good, and only get harm.

The problem with what Ryle is saying is that there is nothing innately wrong with a ball, watching horses go around a track, opera, or weeping at a novel.  Can these things become worldly and sinful?  You bet.  But can you enjoy an opera, read a novel, watch race horses, or enjoy a ball and it not be sinful?  Can Jesus go to a wedding party?  Where Ryle errs on this point is that he creates a needless dichotomy between sacred and secular. 

This needless dichotomy is the fundamental error with stick shakers.   And because of this they will defend their position with a great amount of vigor; after all, they are defending the sacred against the secular—God against the world.  The problem, though, is that the “world” that John is referring to is not the opera or great works of fiction.  The “world” that John is referring to is the God-hating mindset of secular man.  As D.A. Carson points out for John the world, “is not the universe, but the created order (especially of human beings and human affairs) in rebellion against its Maker.”

Furthermore, you do not see this type of cultural engagement with Jesus.  His sharp rebukes were often reserved for the religious elite.  Prostitutes, tax collectors, and society’s outcast often were given grace.  The problem with the stick-shaker is that they  create an “us v. them” mentality and often they feel more holy because they are not like the world.  I like what Paul Tripp says, “Whenever you believe that the evil outside of you is greater than the evil inside you, a heartfelt pursuit of Christ will be replaced by a zealous fighting of the “evil” around you.” 

If you are a stick-shaker that refuses to get your hands dirty and really incarnate the love of Jesus into other people’s lives then you need to come to grips with the sin in your own heart.  The reason for you disengagement is probably a combination of fear and pride.  So, realize that your greatest enemy is not the person across the street that is in love with world; your greatest enemy is indwelling sin.  Realize that the only hope that you have is the same hope that your neighbor has—the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Rather than engaging your neighbor with picket signs engage him with the love of the gospel.

To be continued…

A [rooster] was once strutting up and down the farmyard among the hens when suddenly he espied something shinning amid the straw. "Ho! ho!" quoth he, "that's for me," and soon rooted it out from beneath the straw. What did it turn out to be but a Pearl that by some chance had been lost in the yard? "You may be a treasure," quoth Master [Rooster], "to men that prize you, but for me I would rather have a single barley-corn than a peck of pearls." Precious things are for those that can prize them.    From Aesop’s Fables

Is this fable not the story of the unbeliever and the life-long struggle of the believer?  Christ is indeed the pearl of great price and yet we so often desire a “single barley-corn” rather than a “peck of pearls”.  The rooster’s problem is the same as ours; he is living for food which perishes and neglecting the greater treasure. 

Lord, give us hearts to treasure that which is truly treasure.  Give us the faith of Moses that chose to endure suffering for the sake of Christ rather than the fleeting pleasures of sin.  Remove our hearts of stone that can stare at beauty and desire bread for today rather than bread which endures forever.  

Last January (that’s 2008) I read Richard Sibbes’ The Bruised Reed.  Chapter 5 in particular was used by the Lord to convict me deeply about my attitude towards those under my care.  This comment of Sibbes was particularly convicting:

"Preachers need to take heed therefore how they deal with young believers. Let them be careful not to pitch matters too high, making things necessary evidences of grace which agree not to the experience of many a good Christian, and laying salvation and damnation upon things that are not fit to bear so great a weight."

How often have you seen a new believer (or even a seasoned one) for that matter highly discouraged because someone makes a major deal out of a minor issue?  I know I have been guilty of playing the “you may not be saved” card (especially early on in ministry). 

Do my work for me…

What are some examples of “making things necessary evidences of grace” and “laying salvation and damnation upon things that are not fit to bear so great a weight”?  What are these “evidences” that you have mistakenly used? 

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5 ESV).

1. Don't assume that just because you don't see it happening --- its not happening.

2. Don't assume that just because it doesn't make sense to you --- it doesn't make sense.

3. Don't assume that just because it isn't the way you want it done --- its not being done correctly.

4.When its not your responsibility --- don't assume that you'll see the situation better than those involved and those to whom God has given leadership responsibility.

Let's be honest with ourselves. Each of us has more than we can handle trying to take care of the joys & responsibilities God has given us. After all, our perspective on our own lives is a bit skewed. How much less is our perspective when trying to evaluate and critique someone else according to our own wisdom?

Sometimes we do have the responsibility to evaluate and critique what is going on around us. But we should never confuse the responsibility God gives us with the ability to see and know the hearts and deeds of all men. Let us never confuse God-given responsibility in one arena of life with responsibility for all life and activity. As a pastor, I will never see all the ministry happening through my congregation. As a pastor, I should hope that our Sunday School teachers, missions leaders, and ministry leaders have a clearer sense from God how would have them lead the people given to them in those ministries better than I. If I lean on my own understanding, despair or delusion is not far away.