C.S. Lewis: Why to seek the author’s intention

From John Piper over at DesiringGod.org.

In answering the question why we should care about an author’s intention, C. S. Lewis gives two answers in his book An Experiment in Criticism.

“Why,” they ask, “should I turn from a real present experience—what the poem means to me, what happens to me when I read it—to inquire about the poet’s intentions or reconstructions, always uncertain of what it may have meant to his contemporaries?”

There seem to be two answers. One, is that the poem in my head which I make from my mistranslations of Chaucer or misunderstandings of Donne, may not be so good as the work Chaucer or Donne actually made.

Secondly, why not have both? After enjoying what I made of it, why not go back to the text this time looking up the hard words, puzzling out the allusions and discovering that some metrical delights in my first experience where due to my fortunate mispronunciations, and see whether I can enjoy the poet’s poem, not necessarily instead of, but in addition to my own. (100-01, paragraphs added)

I would add two more.

1. CourtesyTreat authors with respect and seek what they were trying to communicate. I call it the hermeneutical Golden Rule: Do unto authors as you would have them do unto you. Most of us are offended if someone spreads the rumor that we said hurtful x, when in fact we said helpful y.
2. Authority

    

   If we are reading the Bible, it’s authority lies in the author’s intention (ultimately God’s) not our perceptions. We honor the authority of scripture by doing the hard work of thinking authors’ thoughts after them.

Iain Boyd: Final devotion for Philippians study and further reading

We will be taking a brief hiatus from our Philippians devotionals.  They will be starting back on the week of Jan 10th.  In the meantime, I would encourage you to find some way of reading the Bible on your own.  Let me propose three different methods:

a.  Essential 100 Bible Readings:  This list runs through some of the key points in the thematic development of the Bible.  If you were to read through these 100 passages a few times, reading one of them a day, you would begin to have a solid grasp on the flow of the Bible.

b.  Scripture Union also has some great devotionals.  Many people have been using something along the lines of Forward Day by Day or Our Daily Bread for years.  The problem with these devotionals is that you don’t actually read much of the Bible.  Scripture Union’s devotionals provide systematic ways to read through parts of the Bible.  You could either do their Advent devotional “Journey to Bethlehem,” or one of their bible study guides like Discovery or Encounter with God. 

c.  Through the Bible in a Year.  This would take a little more effort than following the daily devotionals online.  The payoff, however, is tremendous.  I use the Discipleship Journal, but you could use the One Year Bible, McCheyne’s Bible Reading Plan.  You could even use the Episcopal Daily Lectionary.  It is helpful because all the readings are bite sized.  However, you won’t read the whole Bible, and sometimes the readings are from the Catholic Apocryphal readings, which we don’t consider inspired Scripture.  Whatever you do, don’t let the pattern God has formed in you in the past weeks slip away!  Capitalize off of it and use it as a launch pad to get you set on a life time course of daily spending time alone with God!

Click here to read the final devotional for this series

John Calvin: The Freedom of Christ

You may wonder why these two entries are dealing with freedom in Christ. I read them over this week in preparation to lead the Regenerate weekend, a youth conference for the Diocese of South Carolina. The theme? You guessed it! Freedom in Christ. Prayers much appreciated. I will post audio of the talks if possible, if not I will post full text. By the way, one extraordinary thing about this excerpt from Calvin’s commentary on Galatians is that you are able to see a window into the passion of Calvin for the Gospel.

Many persons, having never viewed the subject in this light, charge us with excessive zeal, when they see us so warmly and earnestly contending for freedom of faith as to outward matters, in opposition to the tyranny of the Pope. Under this cloak, our adversaries raise a prejudice against us among ignorant people, as if the whole object of our pursuit were licentiousness, which is the relaxation of all discipline. But wise and skillful persons are aware that this is one of the most important doctrines connected with salvation. This is not a question whether you shall eat this or that food, — whether you shall observe or neglect a particular day, (which is the foolish notion entertained by many, and the slander uttered by some,) but what is your positive duty before God, what is necessary to salvation, and what cannot be omitted without sin. In short, the controversy relates to the liberty of conscience, when placed before the tribunal of God.
The liberty of which Paul speaks is exemption from the ceremonies of the law, the observance of which was demanded by the false apostles as necessary. But let the reader, at the same time, remember, that such liberty is only a part of that which Christ has procured for us: for how small a matter would it be, if he had only freed us from ceremonies? This is but a stream, which must be traced to a higher source. It is because
“Christ was made a curse, that he might redeem us
from the curse of the law,” (Galatians 3:13;)
because he has revolted the power of the law” so far as it held us liable to the judgment of God under the penalty of eternal death; because, in a word, he has rescued us from the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death. Thus, under one department is included the whole class; but on this subject we shall speak more fully on the Epistle to the Colossians.
This liberty was procured for us by Christ on the cross: the fruit and possession of it are bestowed upon us through the Gospel. Well does Paul, then, warn the Galatians, not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage, — that is, not to allow a snare to be laid for their consciences. For if men lay upon our shoulders an unjust burden, it may be borne; but if they endeavor to bring our consciences into bondage, we must resist valiantly, even to death. If men be permitted to bind our consciences, we shall be deprived of an invaluable blessing, and an insult will be, at the same time, offered to Christ, the Author of our freedom. But what is the force of the word again, in the exhortation, “and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage?” for the Galatians had never lived under the law. It simply means that they were not to be entangled, as if they had not been redeemed by the grace of Christ. Although the law was given to Jews, not to Gentiles, yet, apart from Christ, neither the one nor the other enjoys any freedom, but absolute bondage.

read the rest here

Martin Luther: What is the freedom Christ brings?

Another excerpt from Luther’s commentary on Galatians. Though written over 500 years ago, it is still recognized as one of the finest commentaries on Galatians and theological works of all time. I’ve forgotten how many times I’ve read through it.

What liberty does Paul mean? Not civil liberty (for which we have the government to thank), but the liberty which Christ has procured for us.

At one time the emperor was compelled to grant to the bishop of Rome certain immunities and privileges. This is civil liberty. That liberty exempts the clergy from certain public charges. Then there is also another kind of “liberty,” when people obey neither the laws of God nor the laws of men, but do as they please. This carnal liberty the people want in our day. We are not now speaking of this liberty. Neither are we speaking of civil liberty.

Paul is speaking of a far better liberty, the liberty “wherewith Christ hath made us free,” not from material bonds, not from the Babylonian captivity, not from the tyranny of the Turks, but from the eternal wrath of God.

Where is this liberty?

In the conscience.

Our conscience is free and quiet because it no longer has to fear the wrath of God. This is real liberty, compared with which every other kind of liberty is not worth mentioning. Who can adequately express the boon that comes to a person when he has the heart-assurance that God will nevermore be angry with him, but will forever be merciful to him for Christ’s sake? This is indeed a marvelous liberty, to have the sovereign God for our Friend and Father who will defend, maintain, and save us in this life and in the life to come.

As an outgrowth of this liberty, we are at the same time free from the Law, sin, death, the power of the devil, hell, etc. Since the wrath of God has been assuaged by Christ no Law, sin, or death may now accuse and condemn us. These foes of ours will continue to frighten us, but not too much. The worth of our Christian liberty cannot be exaggerated.

Our conscience must he trained to fall back on the freedom purchased for us by Christ. Though the fears of the Law, the terrors of sin, the horror of death assail us occasionally, we know that these feelings shall not endure, because the prophet quotes God as saying: “In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment: but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee.” (Isa. 54:8.)

We shall appreciate this liberty all the more when we bear in mind that it was Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who purchased it with His own blood. Hence, Christ’s liberty is given us not by the Law, or for our own righteousness, but freely for Christ’s sake. In the eighth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, Jesus declares: “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” He only stands between us and the evils which trouble and afflict us and which He has overcome for us.

J.C. Ryle: “unsanctified knowledge of Christianity”

With this post I am able to kill two birds with one stone.  First off, I’m able to point you towards a site that I’m pretty excited about.  Erik Kowalker is a courier at Fedex in the day, while by night he is a reformed vigilante propagating Gospel ministry through the writtings of the one and only J.C. Ryle.  He posts short quotes from the great Bishop of Liverpool on an almost daily basis.  Go check him out here. Secondly, with this post I get to point out the dangerous error of “unsanctified knowledge of Christianity.” As Dante and a few others (C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce) show us, hell is full of Christian theologians. Anyone can learn Christian theology, but a sign of the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Christian is that knowledge must have influence over our hearts, our minds, our emotions and our bodies. That is “sanctified” knowledge.

“Let us beware of an unsanctified knowledge of Christianity. It is a dangerous possession, but a fearfully common one in these latter days. We may know the Bible intellectually, and have no doubt about the truth of its contents. We may have our memories well stored with its leading texts, and be able to talk glibly about its leading doctrines. And all the time the Bible may have no influence over our hearts, and wills, and consciences. We may, in reality, be nothing better than the devils.”

~ J.C. Ryle

Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Luke, volume 2, 125.

check it out on Erik’s blog here

John Hendryx: On Free Will

This was sent to me by my good friend Sami. I have no bibliographical info on this quote and would like to provide it if anyone could contribute it. It is a fantastic excerpt on free will. Thanks Sami!

Consider a new mother, her infant and the approach of a madman with a dagger. Like most mothers, this new mother adores her baby so much that she would be willing to sacrifice her own life if it would save her child. But, in this instance, she faces a choice. A madman approaches her and holds out a dagger and orders her to sacrifice her baby. In fear she chooses to flee from him and, of course, refuses to kill her child. But the question, which seems ridiculous because the answer is so obvious, is why doesn’t she plunge the dagger into the child? She has the physical capacity to do so, right? She could easily plunge the knife into the child with her physical ability but she refuses, and in fact in incapable of doing so. Why? It is because her great affection for the child makes it morally impossible for her to carry out such an act under any circumstance. In the same way, we naturally (while unregenerate) refuse to plunge the dagger into the sin which we so love and join ourselves to Christ. Our disposition and affections determine the necessity of our choices.

John Frame once said in regard to the difference between Determinism & Fatalism: Determinism means that all events are rendered unavoidable by the cause, which include our choices. Fatalism says all events will happen, regardless of our choices. We believe that apart from a supernatural work of the Spirit to change our disposition, to disarm our natural hostility and illumine our hearts and minds to the truth, we would always turn our affections away from Christ toward darkness (John 3:19, 20). We have the physical ability to say a prayer or walk an aisle, but our hearts are filled with hostility toward God and we naturally suppress the truth in unrighteousness as Paul asserts in his epistle to the Romans. Our inability is simply a matter of the affections and we chose accordingly. Some persons, when they see Christ immediately have affection for him and others despise Him. The question we must all ask is, what makes the two to differ? Thanks be to God for Jesus Christ who has disarmed our hostility, forgiven our sins and adopted us into His own family.

John Hendryx

The Perfect Hymn

We sang this hymn as the final song of worship to our communion service at the Diocesan Convention this past weekend. After singing it together, Iain leaned over to me and said “That’s the perfect hymn.” I agree. I sang it at both of my ordinations (deacon, priest), at my institution as Rector of Trinity Church, and at my son’s Baptism. I also remember singing it at Andrew Pearson’s ordination to the deaconate just before I preached. After sining that I hymn I thought to my self, “why even preach? We have already said everything that we need to? Two weeks ago I sang it at a wedding. Just this past weekend, under immense spiritual pressure we sang it together at Diocesan Convention. It is indeed the perfect hymn.

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Doug Wilson: Porn as Liturgical Corruption

This is just a short sketch of something that requires much fuller treatment. On top of that, this is a statement about just one aspect of this problem, and not an attempt to minimize the other problems that might be in play.

Pastors are usually husbands as well, and this means that when a pastor has a wandering eye, he is insulting his wife in exactly the same way that other husbands are insulting their wives through the same behavior. Every Christian husband is the head of his wife in a way analagous to the way that Christ is the head of the church (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:23). This means that every husband is constantly speaking about Jesus, whether he wants to be or not. He does not have the option of being silent about Jesus. His behavior is a statement about his theology of headship. He is saying that “this is an appropriate way for a head to act.” And because Christ is the ultimate Head, the behavior of lesser heads are statements about the nature of His headship. Just as abusive fathers are lying statements about God the Father, so unfaithful heads are a lying statement about the fidelity of Christ to His bride.

So of course a pastor needs to be faithful for that reason alone. He took his marriage vows independently of his ordination vows. But is there any additional level to this? I believe so.

When worship is being conducted in a fully biblical way, the minister and the congregation enact (in a liturgical way) a dialogue between Christ and His bride. The minister is standing in for Christ as His herald, His ambassador, His representative. This means that a pastor who has a problem with porn is lying about Christ in two ways. The first is in the way that every husband would be lying, because every husband represents Christ in some way. But the second way is at a much higher level — the minister is set apart in another unique way, and he has been set apart in this way in order to represent Christ in a more heightened way than all husbands do.

Working from the other direction, what will a secret porn problem do to the preaching and teaching? The minister who has a radical inconsistency between his enactment of Christ in his private life and his enactment of Christ in his official capacity is aware (as others are not) of the inconsistency. But people are not built to live with such inconsistencies. We don’t like walking with rocks in our shoes. So the two ways to remove the inconsistency would be 1. to repent of the porn use and deal with it appropriately or, 2. begin to teach and preach in ways that create more and more wiggle room for everybody.

read the whole thing here

Tim Keller: Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century Part II

GOSPEL-CENTERED – Acts 15: This is the next strategic principle for ministry in the 21st (and the 1st!) century. I do not simply mean by ‘gospel-centered’ that ministry is to be doctrinally orthodox. Of course it must certainly be that. I am speaking more specifically. (1.) The gospel is “I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey” while every other religion operates on the principle of “I obey, therefore I am accepted.” (2.) Martin Luther’s fundamental insight was that this latter principle, the principle of ‘religion’ is the deep default mode of the human heart. The heart continues to work in that way even after conversion to Christ. Though we recognize and embrace the principle of the gospel, our hearts will always be trying to return to the mode of self-salvation, which leads to much spiritual deadness, pride and strife, and ministry ineffectiveness. (3.) We must communicate the gospel clearly–not a click toward legalism and not a click toward license. Legalism/moralism is truth without grace (which is not real truth); relativism is grace without truth (which is not real grace). To the degree a ministry fails to do justice to both, it simply loses life-changing power.

Text: 15:1-25 Here we see Paul, in the middle of a church-planting career, going to Jerusalem for a big theological debate. Now, why do that? Surely we ministers need to be about the work of evangelism, not going in for theological discussions! But Paul makes no bifurcation here. Chapter 15 is down the middle of Paul’s mission! It’s clarifying the gospel itself. (1) The cause of the debate is that the earliest Gentile converts to Christianity had already become Jewish culturally. That is, many of them were “God-fearers” who had been circumcised and/or abided by the clean laws and the Mosaic legislation. (2) Then Paul began bringing in real pagans or God-fearers who had not become culturally Jewish. And he was not demanding that, when they became Christians, that they had to adopt Jewish cultural patterns. (3) Then a group arose (15:1) saying, “unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved”. They had taken cultural norms and promoted them to be matters of virtue and spiritual merit. When they did that, they lost grasp on the gospel of grace and slid into ‘religion’. (4) The Council on the one hand in Peter, got hold of one end of the stick: v.6-11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we [Jews] are saved, just as they are.” (5) But, wouldn’t you know it- -James gets a hold of the other end of the stick. He agrees with Peter, but rightly asserts that Gentile Christians, though free from any requirements as to salvation, are not free to live as they like as members of a Christian community. They are obliged to live in love and to respect the scruples of culturally different Jewish brethren. So they are ordered (we tend to miss this) to live in such a way that does not offend or distress their brethren who are culturally different. (They are not to eat raw meat, they are to abide by Levitical marriage laws, and so on.) There could hardly be a better case study of the old Luther-proverb that expresses the balance of the gospel. We are “saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.” We are not saved by how we behave, but once we are saved we behave in love.

So “religion” just drains the spiritual life out of a church. But you can “fall off the horse” on the other side too. You can miss the gospel not only through legalism but through relativism. When God is whoever you want to make him, and right and wrong are whatever you want to make them–you have also drained the spiritual life out of a church. If God is preached as simply a demanding, angry God or if he is preached as simply an all-loving God who never demands anything–in either case the listeners will not be transformed. They may be frightened or inspired or soothed, but they will not have their lives changed at the root, because they are not hearing the gospel. The gospel shows us that God is far more holy and absolute than the moralists’ god, because he could not be satisfied by our moral efforts, even the best! On the other hand the gospel shows us that God is far more loving and gracious than the relativists’ god. They say that God (if he exists) just loves everyone no matter what they do. The true God of the gospel had to suffer and die to save us, while the god of the relativist pays no price to love us.

The gospel produces a unique blend of humility and boldness/joy in the convert. If you preach just a demanding God, the listener will have “low self-esteem”; if you preach just an all-loving God, the listener will have higher self-esteem. But the gospel produces something beyond both of those. The gospel says: I am so lost Jesus had to die to save me. But I am so loved that Jesus was glad to die to save me. That changes the very basis of my identity- -it transforms me from the root.

read the whole thing here

C.S. Lewis: Author, Apologist and…Prophet?

An excerpt from his paper “Fern seeds and elephants” critiques modernist theology in the Church of England and ends with this amusing sentence that rings oh so true in these days.

“Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the vicar; now he tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more. Missionary to the priests of one’s own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.”

be sure to read the whole essay here

Martin Luther: On skepticism, scripture and Christ

The following is an excerpt from Martin Luther’s exchange with Erasmus which has come to be known as “The Bondage of the Will”.  If you are lucky enough to have this volume in Martin Luther’s collected works you will find the following excerpt in vol. 33 pg starting on pg 23.  However, the translation below is not what you will find in Luther’s Works but comes from an online edition that you can find here.  To set the scene Martin Luther wa a reasserter of classic Christian doctrine in the Augustininian tradition, which upheld (among many things, but relevant for this discussion) that the will of a human being was corrupted by sin and therefore sinful by nature.  For the sinful human it is unnatural to do anything in a “Godly” manner, therefore the human’s nature must be changed by “new birth” from above (1 Pet 1.3).  The reassertion of this fundamental truth of the scriptures and of Christian theology caused a massive stir (called the Reformation) in medieval Europe.  Enter Erasmus, who had Reformation sympathies but who also wished to maintain peace within the Roman Catholic Church.  In seeking middle road to stroke his Reformation sympathies while also seeking to appease the Roman Catholic Church he developed a squishy theology which Martin Luther was swift to address.  The excerpt below is remarkable for several reasons and the whole section is really worth a read.  Below Luther deals with the role of skepticism in the life of the believer, the clarity of scripture, and the purpose of scripture.  Enjoy mining these paragraphs.  You could do it for weeks. 

In a word, these declarations of yours amount to this—that, with you, it matters not what is believed by any one, any where, if the peace of the world be but undisturbed; and if every one be but allowed, when his life, his reputation, or his interest is at stake, to do as he did, who said, “If they affirm, I affirm, if they deny, I deny:” and to look upon the Christian doctrines as nothing better than the opinions of philosophers and men: and that it is the greatest of folly to quarrel about, contend for, and assert them, as nothing can arise therefrom but contention, and the disturbance of the public peace: “that what is above us, does not concern us.” This, I say, is what your declarations amount to.—Thus, to put an end to our fightings, you come in as an intermediate peace-maker, that you may cause each side to suspend arms, and persuade us to cease from drawing swords about things so absurd and useless.

What I should cut at here, I believe, my friend Erasmus, you know very well. But, as I said before, I will not openly express myself. In the mean time, I excuse your very good intention of heart; but do you go no further; fear the Spirit of God, who searcheth the reins and the heart, and who is not deceived by artfully contrived expressions. I have, upon this occasion, expressed myself thus, that henceforth you may cease to accuse our cause of pertinacity or obstinacy. For, by so doing, you only evince that you hug in your heart a Lucian, or some other of the swinish tribe of the Epicureans; who, because he does not believe there is a God himself, secretly laughs at all those who do believe and confess it. Allow us to be assertors, and to study and delight in assertions: and do you favour your Sceptics and Academics until Christ shall have called you also. The Holy Spirit is not a Skeptic, nor are what he has written on our hearts doubts or opinions, but assertions more certain, and more firm, than life itself and all human experience.

Sect. 3.—Now I come to the next head, which is connected with this; where you make a “distinction between the Christian doctrines,” and pretend that some are necessary, and some not necessary.” You say, that “some are abstruse, and some quite clear.” Thus you merely sport the sayings of others, or else exercise yourself, as it were, in a rhetorical figure. And you bring forward, in support of this opinion, that passage of Paul, Rom xi. 33, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and goodness of God!” And also that of Isaiah xl. 13, “Who hath holpen the Spirit of the Lord, or who hath been His counselor?”

You could easily say these things, seeing that, you either knew not that you were writing to Luther, but for the world at large, or did not think that you were writing against Luther: whom, however, I hope you allow to have some acquaintance with, and judgment in, the Sacred Writings. But, if you do not allow it, then, behold, I will also twist things thus. This is the distinction which I make; that I also may act a little the rhetorician and logician—God, and the Scripture of God, are two things; no less so than God, and the Creature of God. That there are in God many hidden things which we know not, no one doubts: as He himself saith concerning the last day: “Of that day knoweth no man but the Father.” (Matt. xxiv. 36.) And (Acts i. 7.) “It is not yours to know the times and seasons.” And again, “I know whom I have chosen,” (John xiii. 18.) And Paul, “The Lord knoweth them that are His,” (2 Tim. ii. 19.). And the like.

But, that there are in the Scriptures some things abstruse, and that all things are not quite plain, is a report spread abroad by the impious Sophists by whose mouth you speak here, Erasmus. But they never have produced, nor ever can produce, one article whereby to prove this their madness. And it is with such scare-crows that Satan has frightened away men from reading the Sacred Writings, and has rendered the Holy Scripture contemptible, that he might cause his poisons of philosophy to prevail in the church. This indeed I confess, that there are many places in the Scriptures obscure and abstruse; not from the majesty of the thing, but from our ignorance of certain terms and grammatical particulars; but which do not prevent a knowledge of all the things in the Scriptures. For what thing of more importance can remain hidden in the Scriptures, now that the seals are broken, the stone rolled from the door of the sepulcher, and that greatest of all mysteries brought to light, Christ made man: that God is Trinity and Unity: that Christ suffered for us, and will reign to all eternity? Are not these things known and proclaimed even in our streets? Take Christ out of the Scriptures, and what will you find remaining in them?

“Lifting High the Cross”

preached by Peter Moore on 10-18-09

For the full text of Peter’s sermon simply

Nathan Pitchford: A Review of Tim Keller’s New Book

Tim Keller is a wonderfully provocative preacher of the Gospel, who managed to plant a vibrant, growing, megachurch in the heart of Manhattan.  He has enjoyed much success with his writting, including The Reason for God: Belief in God in an age of skepticism.  His latest book explores the Counterfeit Gods of American Culture.  I’m not sure the article below should be called a book review, rather it appears to be a summary of the book.  Nevertheless it should be helpful for those of you considering buying it.  As for me, I’ve already made up my mind!  Tim Keller is a sharp, articulate, provocative theologian and I look forward to reading his latest contribution. 

When Wall Street began its painful crash in the Fall of 2008, a great deal of ill-placed global confidence was uncovered. Why did the Great Recession impact so many people negatively, what should we do in the aftermath, and how can we avoid being so let down as a nation and a culture again? In his latest book, Counterfeit Gods, Timothy Keller offers some real answers, not just for those tragically failed by the economic system, but for those let down and abandoned by any false hope or confidence whatsoever. Could it be that we are all guilty of trusting the wrong things for joy and security in life, and that our mask of idolatry was painfully ripped off when things turned bad? In a very insightful examination of our cultural “gods” the things we look to for meaning and success, Keller diagnoses our true underlying problems, which go far beneath the panic we felt when the stock market crashed, and gives hope for a true and lasting solution. A must-read for America today!

If you ask the average American on the streets if we are a nation given to idols, the obvious answer would be, “No!”. Idolatry was commonplace in the pagan Greek and Roman cultures, but may scarcely be found in these more enlightened times. But what if there really are counterfeit gods all around us, only the kind not made of stone or metal? “In Ezekiel 14:3,” Keller reminds us, “God says about elders of Israel, ‘these men have set up idols in their hearts.’ Like us, the elders must have responded to the charge, ‘Idols? What idols? I don’t see any idols?’ God was saying that the human heart takes good things like career, love, and material possessions, even family, and turns them into ultimate things. Our hearts deify them as the integrating centers of our lives, because, we think, they can give us significance and security, safety and complete fulfillment, if we attain them”. If this really is the definition of idolatry, then perhaps it is not so foreign as we think. And perhaps we are not just given over to, but being destroyed by idols. If we look for “safety and complete fulfillment” in things that can never finally provide that, then are we not doomed to despair? Are there not a great many more Wall Street experiences in store for us?

What exactly, in this culture, are the counterfeit gods that control us and let us down? How about romantic love, Hollywood style? If I can just find my one, true love, so many people think, my “soul mate,” surely I will be happy and fulfilled forever! But then that perfect person never comes, or worse yet, he or she comes and it only takes a little while to discover all the flaws and imperfections, and crushing disappointment sets in. Well, if happiness cannot be found in love, perhaps it may be in financial security – success and prominence – power and prestige – national glory, the success of capitalism, the triumph of my political party in Washington…. We labor for these things and more, thinking, if only I can accomplish this, secure this for myself, I will be happy and safe. But these counterfeit gods will surely let us down.

read the whole thing here

Christ and Conflict (Phil 1.27-30)

preached by Rob Sturdy on 10-11-09

Jesus Doesn’t Have Time For You and Other Popular Misconceptions

These are a series of videos produced by Vintage 21.  They were made to make fun of popular misconceptions about Jesus, such as “he’s too busy for you.”  Rest assured, Jesus most certainly does have time for you.  Enjoy the video.  Thanks to Danny for sending it my way and thanks for the guys at Vintage 21 for poking fun at this popular misconception and setting it straight through humor.