Glory & Grace

It’s March 20^th and I’ve posted nothing on the blog this month. I leave town tomorrow, so I’m not sure I’ll post anything for the rest of the month. I started the month in Central Asia and I’ll end it in Central Florida (DV).

My youngest son’s varsity basketball team has won the Michigan High School Athletic Association District and Regional Championships, and they play tonight in Quarterfinals. Our school has won 7 State championships in soccer, but only one in basketball (1985), so they flying in pretty rare air right now. Tough road ahead, but definitely possible. It’s fun to watch them compete.

Next week, while on vacation in Florida, I’ll be playing basketball most mornings with a few of the kids from that team. I remember setting a personal goal to be able to play with the boys (I’ve got four of them) until the youngest one finishes high school. I set that goal about a decade and a half ago, but now it—all of the sudden it seems—is almost here.

The time passes so quickly. Boys turn into men before you know it. It’s not really that I’m feeling old; it’s that the primary parenting years pass so quickly. We never stop parenting, but the way we do it definitely changes. Thankfully, a lifetime building good relationships leaves the door open to a lifetime of giving advice and counsel. But there are so many lessons that need to be poured into a little life, and now that they are no longer little, I find myself thinking about how much better I could have used the time I had. God has been extraordinarily kind to me in that my sons love the Lord and want to serve Him in spite of their dad’s flaws.

So, my advice to all of you young parents out there is simple: seize the day! Before you know it, they’ll be grown. Teach them, don’t just regulate them. Cultivate a relationship that will last beyond the time they live under your roof. Help them learn to live with God’s pleasure as their great ambition. Show them by your life what really matters.

You don’t have as long as you think you do!

I was looking for something else and came across this post on the original version of this blog from back in June of 2009. It seemed worth bringing over to the new version for accessibility and for those who didn’t even know there was an old version. The backdrop is a sermon that was preached at a conference that generated a lot of online heat.

A couple of weeks ago, when the fur was really flying, I sat down after a Sunday evening service and outlined some thoughts about being in the uncomfortable position of moderating a meeting at which someone uses the pulpit improperly (whether intentionally or not). I am grateful that I’ve never faced a very bad situation, but it seems inevitable, if you have a lot of outside speakers, that someone will say something that presents a challenge to you. I had hoped to write it out in article form, but haven’t gotten around to doing it, so I decided to just add some more notes to the original outline.

The Context Affects the Decision

• Is this something which can be dealt with at a later date as a part of normal shepherding and preaching?
• Is this something which should be addressed now because this group doesn’t regularly assemble? E.g., a conference or seminar
• Is this something which can or should be addressed immediately because the nature of the group permits or requires it? A group of pastors should be able to handle this better than most, and a group of students may need this more than most.
• Is this something which seems to deliberately take a position with the intent of contradicting a well known and well established position of the host or some party involved in the meeting? IOW, if you perceive that someone has tried to settle a score or put a notch on his belt, that might warrant addressing it (even if it is just to ask for a clarification on that matter).

The Importance of the Doctrinal Issue Affects the Decision

• Is this a matter of significant doctrinal consequence and ramification? If the gospel is at stake, I think something must be done immediately—whether that is a gentle clarification or an outright challenge (and I’ve had to do both).
• Is this only a matter of differing interpretations or is it really a matter of rejecting biblical truth?

The Nature of the Communication Affects the Decision

• Did the speaker clearly violate the biblical obligations to speak truthfully and for the edification of those who hear?
• Did the speaker display a combative attitude or tone that indicates that he knows that what he is saying is controversial and against some of those who are present? If the speaker initiates the conflict, then don’t feel badly about stepping up to the challenge.

The primary factor is the doctrinal content and implications of what was said.

If heresy has been proclaimed, then it should almost always be addressed immediately. Differing interpretations can be allowed to stand in most cases, unless it is a crucial matter to a pastor and local assembly. Most often, though, it can probably be addressed in the course of normal shepherding and ministry of the Word.

The second factor is the nature of the communication, especially if joined to the significant doctrinal issues.

Anytime a speaker seems to pursue controversy deliberately and does so by unbiblical means, it warrants public correction (or at least voiced objection).

Most times when a speaker accuses others of false doctrine in a combative way and is clearly mistaken in his view, it warrants public address of some sort.

• It may that a question of clarification would be the best way to approach it. Something like, “Brother, it sounds like you were saying X, but I wonder if that’s really what you meant or were trying to say because….” IOW, you seek clarification in case you’ve misunderstood or it was a simply misstatement on his part.
• If there is little to no doubt about what has happened, then the proper response would be to either express disagreement with his view or if warranted, to challenge him about the nature of what he has done.

In those cases where a well-intentioned speaker has espoused a position which is contrary to the position of the host or others present, it is generally best to let it alone unless you feel it could cause a significant and unnecessary disruption.

• The people most likely to be upset are the ones who are already most firmly convinced, so there is no fear of them being led astray. Those who are unaware of the issue will not even notice it.
• If there is concern about the impact what was said might have on those who heard, then a decision needs to be made about the right context for addressing it and whether it needs to be addressed directly or not.
• If it happens in the course of a church service, then you should have plenty of opportunity to address it down the road since you meet with these folks regularly.
• If it happens in a conference or some other unique setting, then it really comes down to how important the issue is and how grievous the error was.

These are rough, unfinished thoughts, but hopefully will be of some value to those of us who, either now or in the future, have the responsibility for leadership when God’s people gather together. As I’ve said in other posts, God’s Word is the standard and authority, not the preacher, so I feel no obligation to let any man just say what he wants to say because he’s “God’s man.” Even the OT prophets were obligated to speak truthfully!

I read a piece by Ann Coulter that expressed something that I have been thinking about recently in light not only of the present political campaign, but of how I’ve seen the same thing manifest itself within the professing Christian community. I’d like to avoid getting into the whole ball of political wax in Ann’s article, so here’s the portion that interests me and from which I’d like to launch into a larger discussion:

This strange new version of right-wing populism comes down to reveling in the feeling that you are being dissed, hoodwinked or manipulated by the Establishment (most of which happens to oppose Romney) the same way liberals want to believe that “the rich,” the “right-wing media” and Wall Street Republicans (there are three) are victimizing them.

It’s as if scoring points in intra-Republican squabbles is more important than beating Obama. Instead of talking about the candidates’ positions — which would be confusing inasmuch as Romney is the most conservative of the four remaining candidates — the only issue seems to be whether “They” are showing respect for “Us.”

While I agree with her basic point here, I’d like to extend the argument somewhat by suggesting that the Establishment versus Us angle is really a cheap piece of demagoguery being used by candidates (and activists and some bloggers) to achieve their own agendas. A demagogue is “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”

A radio ad I heard is a perfect example of this. It is put out by the Winning our Future SuperPac and focused on painting one candidate as the Establishment guy in order to discredit him. Its entire message was built on an assertion (candidate X is the Establishment candidate) and an appeal (don’t let the Establishment tell you what to do). No argument to the ad at all—not one piece of evidence was introduced to prove the assertion. In case you don’t know who Winning the Future supports for the Republican nomination, it is Newt Gingrich. The irony is rich. Here’s a guy whose whole career has been inside and alongside of the political Establishment and his SuperPac is engaged in demagoguery like this. The ad was nothing more than an attempt to use popular prejudices to gain power.

I’ll admit that it disappoints me, but doesn’t surprise me that this kind of stuff happens in political campaigns. The simple reason is that it works and politics is often about not much more than that. I am disturbed by the fact that this kind of demagoguery seems to be steeply on the rise and often the dominant note of political discourse in our day. The fact that it is becoming the mantra of supposed conservatives is a very bad sign of things to come. That is especially true when folks with commercial interests lead the charge—the temptation to use this tactic to build an audience has to be as great as to win a campaign.

My larger concern, however, is how this kind of “them vs. us” cliché seems to be showing up so much in the online world among those who name the name of Christ. Granted, there has always been a segment which builds it popularity and cohesiveness purely by demonizing others in contrast to focusing on the articulation of one’s own beliefs clearly. As a short-term strategy, it works more quickly to build a coalition against something than it does to build it for something. Enemies frighten people and fear motivates. As a long-term strategy, though, it inevitably implodes because fear can turn to paranoia and is also easily exploited by self-serving people.

Just watch any group whose prime reason for existence is to be against something or someone. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one that hasn’t eventually become self-cannibalizing. The demagoguery of the leaders breeds distrust. The kinds of people who are attracted to it never seem satisfied and tend to start turning on one another. It’s ugly, ineffective, and ultimately dishonors God.

But it works in the short term and is an effective way for people to make a name for themselves. Pick a target and pound away while claiming to be the last defender of the truth. Position yourself as the voice for the little guy, the crusader against the Establishment. Tap into whatever prejudice will gain listening ears or reading eyes. Paint yourself as the person who some mythical Establishment hates or has hurt. Frame yours as the voice of the people. It works…for a while.

In reality, this demagoguery is not much more than what Absalom did when he stood in the gate and wooed the heart of the people away from his father, King David. He told them what they wanted to hear, painting a picture of the Establishment that fomented a desire to overthrow it. The analogy is not perfect, but I think the heart of the matter fits—Absalom was perfectly happy to gain power by promoting the dissatisfaction of people, then capitalizing on it.

Our cultures, the one outside and the one inside the church, seem to be in danger of dumbing down to the point that demagogues will rule the day. You can see it throughout the political campaigns. You can see it all over Facebook protest groups. You can find it too often in tweets and blog posts. It may work (short-term), but it is not right.

Here’s the basic fallacy of the ER2 storyline—once you’ve granted to someone good standing as a Christian brother and fellow servant of the gospel, you can’t claim that you’re going to be sitting down to discuss whether he is truly such or not. You’ve already tipped your hand, so the rest of the time it means that you’re just bluffing. And you must think we are all pretty stupid not to recognize this. Especially when the event itself and the post-mortem reports make reference to the wonderful time of fellowship and prayer together the participants enjoyed before the big “showdown” regarding Jakes’ theology.

ER2 was not about theological and ministerial differences. It was about commonalities. Or, to put it another way, it was about minimizing differences in order to highlight commonalities. The end of the day conclusion was supposed to be something like, “Yeah, we’re all different and have our disagreements, but we all love Jesus, want to see people saved, and want to grow big churches. We’re all on the same team.” That might be an acceptable goal for a day of discussion like ER2 if: (1) you are in fact on the same team, and (2) you’re not promoting the event as an opportunity to find out if that is actually true. To promote and prepare for the event with the assumption that you are all on the same team, while talking like you’ll make your conclusion after the event is simply dishonest.

Let’s not kid ourselves about what the real purpose of something like ER2 is, though. James MacDonald (and to a lesser extent, Mark Driscoll) is using it to position himself as a leader, as someone who influences church life in our day. He is building a reputation and a network. Is that a problem? No, I don’t think so. Is he unique in pursuing this purpose? Absolutely not. Our day is full of efforts like this—T4G, the Gospel Coalition, 9Marks, Shepherds Conference, Desiring God. All of these are competing in the marketplace of ministry ideas because they believe they have something to offer and they want to help churches and pastors. I’ve got no principled problem with anybody trying to influence other people.

If James MacDonald wants to help pastors and churches, then creating a platform to do so is a legitimate effort. The problem arises when anybody chooses to build that platform in ways that compromise the gospel or send an uncertain sound about fundamental theological truths. This is the grave danger for all efforts to build movements or coalitions—trying to reach certain constituencies often results in compromising relationships with errant leaders. That danger is only increased by the celebrity culture and obsession with visible success that dominates contemporary Christendom.

Schedule big names and you can draw a big crowd. Gather a big crowd and you’ve opened new avenues for your own influence. It doesn’t make any sense to me to fight the reality, or even legitimacy, of this. Who reading this wouldn’t rather hear a Spurgeon than me (with the one exception of my wife, I hope!)?  My main problem isn’t with big names, with big names getting scheduled for events, or with the fact that people like to hear big name speakers at events. All of that is just the way it is and some of it is completely justifiable—some people have big names because they are serious about God’s Word and have been so for a long time. I’ve given up trying to figure out why some men are more popular than others. Really doesn’t matter to me. It is what it is.

The reality of creating a platform for influence does not, however, mean that we can ignore what the Bible says about false doctrine. It is wrong to form unholy alliances even if it is for the purpose of reaching more people with the truth. The truth always suffers when people start scheming like this. The “greater good” inevitably becomes the club to beat down opposition to compromises. That and the issue seems always to get mired in personal debates that sound more like “I am of…” than whether biblical truth holds the place of functional control in our decisions.

The invitation of T. D. Jakes to the Elephant Room is simply another version of the same problem that has plagued evangelicalism for 60 years. What is the boundary of Christian fellowship? Or, to turn it another way, how unorthodox can a person be before we conclude that he is beyond the boundary of Christian fellowship? There has been a very broad swath of evangelicalism that has been willing to shift the boundary wider and wider if doing so brought the possibility of expanded influence.

How has that worked out for evangelicalism? Maybe one way to answer that would be to wonder whether Ockenga, Henry, and Carnell would have invited someone with the belief system of T. D. Jakes to something like the Elephant Room. I might be wrong, but from what I have read of their writings, I don’t think they would have considered Jakes an evangelical. So, who has been influenced by whom over these past sixty years?

Personally, I think that Thabiti Anyabwile has provided some of the best commentary on the inclusion of T. D. Jakes into the Elephant Room discussion. His initial offering before the event was dead on target, and his follow up post is also worth reading. He continues to provide valuable insight that by highlighting the personal dimension of false teaching. This is not merely an abstract discussion of theology or ministry.

This last post by Thabiti also serves to highlight the rottenness of what Bryan Loritts posted right after ER2 and followed up on in a video conversation with James MacDonald. It appears that Loritts has taken down the blog post, but in it he makes the case that the loudest opponents of ER2 have been “middle aged white Reformed guys” and he suggests that “a few of my black brothers [are] playing into what some have historically called white idolization in their longing to fit in with this Reformed crowd”?

Here’s the video of him making the same basic charges.

I’d like to make three points about these charges. First, this is a classic example of shifting the focus away from the complaints being lodged against ER2 and T. D. Jakes to the people who have lodged them. The age and ethnicity of the ER2 critics are really irrelevant. The real question is, “Are they right in their complaints?”

Second, and much worse, is that Loritts impugns the motives of the black critics of ER2 and Jakes by suggesting that they are being vocally critical in order to gain acceptance with the middle aged white guys. This really is a despicable tactic which borders on calling them a bunch of Uncle Toms. The only commendable aspect of his assertion is that it is so transparent that the slime factor is easily seen.

Third, I think it important to point out the role that MacDonald plays in facilitating this baseless charge against his black critics. It is obvious that Loritts is being interviewed by MacDonald in order to make this point. Worse, MacDonald plays all naïve in the face of Loritts’ accusation against his brothers, “What would they be leveraging it for? Opportunity?” What James ought to have been doing is saying, “Brother, it seems like you’re judging these men’s motives, aren’t you? Have any of them told you that they are opposing ER2 in order to gain a larger hearing in the white theological world?” Instead, MacDonald plays his part perfectly and lets Loritts take the cheap shot.

The irony here is that the whole exchange leaves the door wide open for speculation as to why Loritts would take that shot and also why MacDonald would give him air time to make it. The reason that is so is because neither MacDonald nor Loritts actually engaged the charges against Jakes and ER2. Instead of dealing with theology and biblical obligations to defend the Gospel, they threw in some red herrings. I think that stinks.

The theological issues at stake in this debate are very important—denial of the Trinity and a false prosperity theology are major, not minor problems. That these matters were so poorly addressed in ER2 should be a very serious cause of concern. It was a classic case of pietism trumping doctrine, with the added intoxicant of celebrity schmoozing poured on top. A very bad day in light of Acts 20:28-30.

It is also important, I think, to expose the methods being used to obscure the truth here. Good men are raising important, serious theological questions and objections, and those objections are being met with personal insults and artful dodges. Sadly, I’m not really surprised by this because that has been the mode of operation for decades—rebut questions about doctrinal concern with accusations of theological nitpicking; pit love against doctrine; emphasize the personal piety of those accused of false teaching; drop hints that certain unhappy people are just jealous of other’s success; imply that people are using controversy to gain visibility and opportunities.

These are not new tricks. That they were trotted out so quickly just shows that things have not changed. That they seem to work so effectively is what ought to concern anybody who is serious about sound doctrine and the health of the church.

Wow, there are times that you would love to just crawl back in bed and start the day over. This is one of them. Shortly after posting a blog about the Elephant Room, I received an email from a friend, who had received one from another friend, pointing out an enormous and careless error on my part–the post that I critiqued was by Bryan Crawford Loritts, not Crawford Loritts of The Gospel Coalition.

This was a very serious and careless mistake on my part. Although I doubt that Crawford Loritts will ever hear of my post, I want to apologize as publicly as I made the criticisms. I’ve trashed the other post because I need to do a major re-write of it given this significant error. Bryan said things that deserve to be challenged, so I may replace it with a new one. For now, though, the important thing is for me to correct the record clearly.

I also apologize to the readers of this blog for my carelessness. I’m humbled by the reminder of the Preacher’s statement about dead flies right now (Eccl 10:1).

We finished off our church’s Prayer Week yesterday afternoon with a wonderful time of praise to the Lord through song and testimonies, followed by worship at the Lord’s Table. There are times when my heart just melts as I stand before our congregation as they sing full-hearted praise to the Lord. We closed the praise service with “My Jesus, Fair”, a song which our congregation has come to love very much. The last verse is absolutely powerful as it proclaims the triumph of Jesus Christ—“My Jesus, strong, shall come to reign, to reign in majesty—the Lamb arose and death is slain. Lord, come in victory!” What a glorious day that will be.

Yesterday morning we spent time thinking about three prayers recorded in the OT. Two of them were by Hezekiah (Isaiah 37 and 38) and the third by Nehemiah (1:4-11). The specific focus of our attention was the way in which each man framed his petition before God; specifically that they joined reasons for God to answer to their requests. They were earnestly seeking God about a matter that they considered very important, so they boldly expressed its importance to God.

I’ll not re-preach the message here, but I do want to lay out three possible reasons why I think we, in our day, don’t pray like these men prayed: (1) spiritual—we don’t sense the seriousness of our situation like they did; (2) theological—we don’t genuinely believe that prayer makes a difference in the outcome of things; and/or (3) methodological—we have learned bad habits of prayer that reduce it to something like reading a list to God attached to a few “bless them” and “be with them” type prayer clichés.

The main focus I intended for the sermon was to address the third problem. The other two are vitally important problems to be faced, but unless we move on to the third we will almost never pray the way we ought to pray. I’m burdened about the state of prayer among contemporary believers (which includes me!) in that it seems that a lot of our praying is so lifeless and cold. It can almost seem, at times, as if we don’t really care whether we receive the things for which we are asking. I should be clear about the fact that this is not unique to our day. Consider what Charles Haddon Spurgeon had to say in the 19^th century about his day:

a great many people play at praying, it is nothing better. I say they play at praying, they do not expect God to give them an answer, and thus they are mere triflers, who mock the Lord. He who prays in a business-like way, meaning what he says, honors the Lord. The Lord did not play at promising, Jesus did not sport at confirming the word by His blood, and we must not make a jest of prayer by going about it is a listless unexpecting spirit (“Pleading,” in Twelve Sermons on Prayer, p. 51).

His concern is mine. I define pleading with God in prayer as fervently presenting our requests before God along with reasons for God to answer those requests. Requests plus reasons. Too often we simply run through a list of requests, but don’t take time to talk with God about the reasons we are asking for these things. Unless we are praying in a completely mindless way, we have reasons, so it is important that we express them in prayer.

Why is it important to join reasons to our requests? It is tied to the very nature of prayer. The Westminster Shorter Catechism defines of prayer as “an offering up of our desires unto God, for things agreeable to his will, in the name of Christ, with confession of our sins, and thankful acknowledgment of his mercies.” The front end of that has two parts: “our desires” and “things agreeable to his will.” If we don’t truly desire the things we seek from God, then our prayer lacks sincerity. If we desire things that are contrary to God’s will or without regard for God’s will, then our prayer lacks integrity.

Identifying the reasons which support our request pushes us to subject our desires to the light of God’s Word. This can have the effect of purifying and intensifying them. We are more confident that what we seek is in line with God’s revealed will, and that ought to stir us to seek it more fervently. It produces more thoughtful, focused praying, and focus is an essential aspect of fervency in prayer.

Let me encourage you, therefore, to consider whether you need to slow down your prayer life a little in order to deepen and strengthen it. Instead of running down your prayer list in order to make it quickly through, pause to think about what exactly it is that you’re seeking from the Lord and why, based on Scripture, you are seeking it from Him. Make specific, meaningful requests that spring from God-centered, Scripture-saturated reasons.

I am a pastor who wants to preach God’s Word faithfully. I also happen to teach preaching to seminary students who also want to preach God’s Word faithfully. I want, by God’s grace, to teach them well and help them “rightly divide the Word of truth” for God’s glory. I spend, therefore, a lot of time studying hermeneutics and homiletics. I am very thankful for the influences in my life that shepherded me toward expositional preaching by example and training. I am also very thankful that we live in a day with a renewed emphasis on expositional preaching, and that this emphasis is not satisfied with technical accuracy, but longs for Christ-honoring exposition of the sacred text. We live in a great day to learn how to preach.

One important discussion about preaching which is happening in our day is about how we read the Bible. In an over-simplified way, that discussion focuses on whether we read the Bible as being about us or whether we read it as being about Christ. I say over-simplified because I think that framing the discussion like this is an unhelpful false dichotomy. Is it about Christ? Absolutely, it is. Is it about us? Absolutely, it is. It is not about Christ to the exclusion of us, nor about us to the exclusion of Christ.

I completely agree with the critique of some preaching that it ends up being not much more than moralistic self-help. I don’t think, however, that the proper answer to this is to swing the hermeneutical pendulum toward spiritualization and allegorization. There is New Testament warrant for seeing, for instance, Old Testament texts as addressing the kind of life believers should live (cf. 1 Cor 10:6 “so that we would not crave” and 1 Cor 9:10 “for our sakes it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope”). And there is clear, direct statement in the New Testament that the “Scripture is inspired by God and profitable…so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16-17).

This post is prompted by a video done by Matt Chandler promoting the Gospel Project. Now, I’m not familiar enough with that project to opine on its value, so don’t read this post as making comment on it. The video is what caught my attention and evokes my concern. In it, Chandler sets up the kind of false dichotomy that is becoming much too common and popular, even choosing to illustrate it with the same biblical account that is used by Timothy Keller and others—David and Goliath. In a nutshell, Chandler’s point is that we aren’t David, Jesus is. Goliath isn’t the problems in your life, he represents sin and death.  IOW, you can either read the Bible as being about you or about Jesus.

What Chandler does, though, is leave us with only moralism or allegory as the options, neither of which is an acceptable approach to the Scriptures. It isn’t about how we can kill the giants in our lives, but it also isn’t an allegory about Jesus and sin. (Chandler’s appeal to the shadows mentioned in Colossian 2 misses the mark considerably since v. 16 tells us what things were shadows—food, drink, festivals, new moons, Sabbath days.) Read in its literary context, the account of David and Goliath is showing us why David was chosen by God to be the next king and precisely where Saul failed so badly. God called David “a man after [His] own heart” (1 Sam 13:14) because David was confident in the Lord’s promises and committed to the Lord’s glory. Saul, on the other hand, did not trust the Lord and was committed to his own safety and kingdom more than God’s. The trajectories for the two men are going opposite directions and cross paths in 1 Samuel 17.

Does reading the text this way result in moralism? Not at all, because the center of the story is God—the battle is the Lord’s! David provides a pattern of trusting God, not self-effort or works. God uses people who trust Him enough to risk their lives for His glory. God’s leaders should be that kind of person because He is that kind of God. Does reading the text this way exclude Christ? Not necessarily. Setting the text within its larger contexts will lead us to Christ—the historical books leave us longing for a better King than any we find in them; the ultimate victory will be provided for by God because the battle is His. Is Christ sometimes ignored? Sadly, yes. In fact, I’m sure I’ve been guilty of this. The answer, though, is not to position Christ as the allegorical key to interpreting the Scriptures. That shifts the authority away from the text of Scripture to the creative thinking of the interpreter, and that kind of shift is neither proper nor profitable.

P.S. I recently preached on 1 Samuel 17 in a college chapel, so perhaps it can serve as a test case for those wishing to examine this further. I don’t think I reduced the text to moralism, but perhaps those of you more attuned to that will differ with me. If you think so, I’d welcome your critique to help me see where I’m mistaken on this. As I said above, I am a preacher and I teach preaching, so this is not a theoretical discussion to me. I want to handle the Word properly and help others do so as well. If I’m mistaken, I want to change. I don’t think I am, but I’m open to challenge on it.

Addendum: After I had written the post above I received two emails with a link to a post by Mike Riccardi addressing the same video and subject. Mike says many of the same things I do plus more. I’d encourage you to read it.

From Russell Moore:

The next Jonathan Edwards might be the man driving in front of you with the Darwin Fish bumper decal. The next Charles Wesley might be a misogynist, profanity-spewing hip-hop artist right now. The next Billy Graham might be passed out drunk in a fraternity house right now. The next Charles Spurgeon might be making posters for a Gay Pride March right now. The next Mother Teresa might be managing an abortion clinic right now.

But the Spirit of God can turn all that around. And seems to delight to do so. The new birth doesn’t just transform lives, creating repentance and faith; it also provides new leadership to the church, and fulfills Jesus’ promise to gift his church with everything needed for her onward march through space and time (Eph. 4:8-16).

After all, while Phillip was leading the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ, Saul of Tarsus was still a murderer.

What is it about Teresa that puts her on a list along with Edwards, Wesley, Graham, and Spurgeon? Personally, I don’t think Graham belongs in that list, but that’s a debate for another time. The real question, in my mind, is how can a conservative evangelical include Teresa on a list like this? Does Russell Moore believe that Teresa’s life represents the transforming power of God’s Spirit? Is there some evidence somewhere that she renounced the false gospel of works salvation? I’ve not seen it, but I’ve seen pretty clear arguments to the contrary.

I hope this was a careless mistake by Moore. It ought to be corrected. I fear it is too common a mistake among those who wish to expand the mission of the church into the kind of work that Teresa did. It certainly represents a dangerous tendency, as I’ve written previously.

What I wrote above was actually done on Monday, but I didn’t want to drop a post right on top of the one about prayer, so I waited until this morning. It seemed wise to check back on Moore’s post to see if he had updated it or made any corrections that would influence this post by me. To my chagrin, not only is there nothing by Moore to clarify, there are plenty of commenters who defend what he has done against the concerns expressed by others.

I’d encourage you to read Moore’s defenders in the comment section for a real time illustration of what is wrong with evangelicalism. The defenses range from the typical “well, he didn’t really say that” argument down to claiming that the book of James somehow backs up his inclusion of Teresa in that list. It is encouraging, though, to see objections as well. The state of things is very muddled and won’t get any better while leading evangelicals hold up folks like Teresa as examples of the Spirit’s work to transform lives and provide leadership for the church.

It is our custom as a church, at least for the past 16 years, to mark off a week near the beginning of the year as Prayer Week and give special attention to congregational prayer. It runs from Sunday to Sunday, concluding with an afternoon praise service that God always uses to encourage hearts. I use the sermons during prayer week to direct our attention to matters related to personal and/or congregational prayer, but also matters generally related to our devotion to God and service for Him. We don’t do “revival meetings” as a church, but this week always serves as a great time of spiritual renewal at the start of the year.

I love the prayer meetings we have during Prayer Week. Each morning we gather in two groups (men and women) at 6:30 to pray for about 50 minutes. We prepare a prayer sheet built on the acrostic P-R-A-Y (praise, revival, ask, yield), with Scripture and suggested items under each section. I’ve not be in the ladies group, but with the men we make only a few comments at the beginning and then dive into prayer. We work our way through each section with men leading the group as God puts it into their heart to do so. I tell the men at the beginning that I will pray at the transitions between sections so they know it is time to move into the next one. The prayer time flows seamlessly and passes very quickly as we seek the Lord together. After we finished praying as a large group, we break into pairs to pray for each other before head off for the day.

We also have a Concert of Prayer during the midweek service. That name is drawn from Jonathan Edwards’ call for prayer. We cancel all of the regular ministries that happen on Wednesday night so that we can gather everybody together for prayer. We devote the entire time to prayer, some of which is expressed in song to the Lord. The basic format involves praying with a partner, in a small group, and as a full assembly. That requires some organized chaos near the beginning of the meeting where I ask folks to find a partner and then join a group of six to eight people. We separate the men and women on different sides of our auditorium, something which is not necessary, but seems to produce a more comfortable arrangement for praying together.

I lead the Concert from the pulpit, giving some brief instructions about prayer and presenting the subject about which we will pray. I’ll ask them to pray together as partners for a specific topic, and then let them do so for a few minutes. I’ll present a subject for prayer in their groups, and have them pray together for 5-7 minutes. Following the group prayer, we’ll have 1-3 folks lead the entire congregation in prayer for another set of requests. We cycle through this format (partners—group—assembly) at least twice during the course of the prayer meeting. Generally, the first time through focuses on spiritual renewal in our personal lives (partners), congregation (groups), and among Bible believing churches in our area (assembly). The second time focuses on the spread of the gospel through our personal witness (partners), congregational ministries (groups), and missions (assembly). Following each cycle we sing a song directed toward the Lord as expression of our desire to serve Him.

This year we also have used the first two Sunday nights of the year for prayer meetings, mingling prayer in small groups along with having designated men lead us in prayer for specific requests that they were given in advance. There are few things that encourage my heart as much as listening to an auditorium full of people praying together for God’s work and blessing on our lives and congregation. We pray in small groups for a few minutes every Sunday evening, but there is something powerful and refreshing about spending a full hour in prayer together. It’s good for our souls, draws us closer together, and exalts the Lord.

The words of Paul to the Colossians constantly challenge me, “Devote yourselves to prayer…” (Col 4:2a). He’s writing to a congregation, so we should hesitate before we immediately jump to the conclusion that this is a call for private devotions. I think he means that the church was to be devoted together to prayer. We’ve got a long way to go, but by God’s grace, we want to be that kind of church. May He graciously pour out the Spirit of grace and supplication on us and beyond for His glory!