My notes from the final message at the Rastock annual conference.  Excellent stuff.  Audio to follow.

A good quote from missiologist George W. Peters:  

An unfortunate and abnormal historic development has produced autonomous, missionless churches on the one hand and autonomous churchless missionary societies on the other hand.

Mike, Welcome to our green and pleasant land.

As a Brit who has recently returned from 3 years in the Land of the Free, I can see a few things that we can certainly laugh about concerning the English.

Feel free to comment on our love for tea, long tea breaks, not to mention our second breakfasts and elevenses. Feel free even to comment on our bad teeth. (But don't our pre-teens look happy without a mouthful of metal?) But leave our sausages and our pronunciation of the ENGLISH language well alone... or you'll get me started....

OK, it's too late, I'm taking the bait.

If we have extra 'u's you have extra syllables. e.g. why not use (vb.) a word like "use" (n.) rather than utilizing (vb.) a word like "utilization" (n.)?

What ever happened to short vowels? Did they get lengthened by sea-sickness crossing the Atlantic? And why loose that beautiful crisp "t" for a softer "d"?  So why has "hot" become "haaard" (with a properly silent 'r' that doesn't get rolled but merely lengthens the vowel - even more than you've already lengethened it) "hat" become "heead", "hit" becomes "hiyed",  "hut" become "huuud" and "het" become "head"?

And then, Mike, what about all the ridiculous euphemisms that you've gifted the language, such as "bathroom" and "restroom". So, the Living Bible translation of 1 Samuel 24:3 reads "Saul went into a cave to go to the bathroom". What, was it? An ensuite cave? I heard recently of the phrase used by American Businessmen, "Negative goodwill." Negative goodwill, Mike. Surely the perfectly adequate phrase in the English Lanuguage would be "ill-will" wouldn't it, Mike?

And the beautiful English Banger! It's perhaps the main reason that we were keen to return home. How, Mike, could you call it inedible!?!?!? Is it because we haven't added half a pound of sugar!?!? In 3 years in America I never found a salad dressing that didn't have sugar as one of the 3 top ingredients... to go on a SALAD. If I'd wanted so much sugar I'd have had a nice spotted dick with custard for pudding.

Mike, Mike, Mike, leave it alone!

Anyway, back to Colossians 3:1-17 for this Sunday's sermon.
" Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all." (Colossians 3:11, ESV).
Or, as the Living Bible would have it, "In this new life one's nationality or race or education or social position in unimportant; such things mean nothing. Whether a person has Christ is what matters, and he is equally available to all."

If you haven't heard the CCEF podcast on Physical and Spiritual Well-Being with Dr. Mike Emlet, you should carve out half of an hour and listen to it.  It contains some excellent reflection on and advice to pastors/counselors regarding the way that physical problems can contribute to emotional and spiritual problems.  

Hey Mike,

Well, after several weeks, I’ve finally found time to do some more blogging on Total Church. (McKinley, does the day have more hours in the suburbs, or are you just a whole lot more disciplined than me!?)
Part One of Total Church, “Gospel and Community in Principle” introduces the reasons that Gospel and Community are to be the governing principles of church life.
Chapter 1 fleshes out the centrality of the gospel.
The gospel is to be central in the life of the church because “God rules by his word” (24) and not only that, “God extends his rule through his word” (28). Thus there is no divide between being “word-centred” and “Spirit-centred”, because the sword of the Spirit is the word of God. (29)
The chapter is biblically theologically very rich.
“Adam and Eve were to express their commitment to God’s reign by trusting his word of command… That is why the rejection of God’s rule begins with the rejection of God’s word.” (25)
The faith-giving power of the word is then traced through the bible, into the church:
“In the Church the risen Christ rules through his Word. That is why the only skill that is required of church leaders is that they can teach, rightly handling and applying the word of God.” (27-28)
Particularly insightful is the section reviewing the biblical theological union of word and Spirit, from creation to New-Creation. (30-31)
How then are we to ensure that we are being Spirit-centred? By being word-centred:
“We might even say that being word-centred is synonymous with being Spirit-centred…. Our role is to read, hear, proclaim, teach and obey the word. The Spirit’s role is to do the work of God through that word.” (31)
But even in this section of principles there is great practical application. I love the section encouraging us all to have gospel-priorities in our lives.

Perhaps one might have a minor concern that this would detract from the special ministry of the cross-cultural missionary; perhaps, but I'd rather get the whole Christian community thinking radically about gospel-centred living, and then get us thinking even more radically about cross-cultural mission, than find an excuse for continuing in worldliness.

Chapter 2 explores the importance of the Christian community as central to the Christian identity (38-45) and the Christian mission (45-48).

Again this is theologically very rich. “God is persons-in-community. Human personhood too is defined in relational terms…. By becoming a Christian I belong to God and I belong to my brothers and sisters. It's not that I belong to God and then make a decision to join a local church. My being in Christ means being in Christ with those other who are in Christ. This is my identity. This is our identity. To fail to live out our corporate identity in Christ is analogous to the act of adultery: we can be Christian and do it, but it is not what Christians should do. The loyalties of the new community supersede even the loyalties of biology (Matthew 10:34-37; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 11:27-28) If the church is the body of Christ then we should not live as disembodied Christians!"
In applying this to how we see ourselves there is a very helpful section encouraging us to rethink how church is central to our identity.
“The prevailing view of life today is that of an individual standing on his or her own heroically juggling various responsibilities: family, friendships, career, leisure, chores decisions and money.... An alternative model is to view our activities and responsibilities as spokes of a wheel. At the centre or hub of life is not me as an individual, but us as members of the Christian community. Church is not another ball for me to juggle, but that which defines who I am and gives Christlike shape to my life.” (42-34)

Chester and Timmis are continuing to make their case very well, in ways that I hope will be life-changing to many readers, and through them to the vitality of many churches.

As yet though, I have been left with many questions about, “Yes, but how do you do that.” So I hope that it will not be so long until I get to blog again on Total Church, and get into Section 2, "Gospel and Community in Practice"

At the 2008 Desiring God National Conference, Sinclair Ferguson preached a great message on James 3 (Hear/Read all the conference talks here) . In the spirit of Jonathan Edwards, he identified these 20 resolutions that James makes in his letter regarding the tongue. Enjoy!

--------------------------------------------------------------

I love humor (and for better or worse, I especially like McKinley's). Humor, like all speech, is a gift of God. Yet every time we open our mouths we are communicating a worldview, an agenda (good or bad), and this can most naturally come out in the small talk and humor of our daily lives. Therefore, a good framework to consistently put before ourselves whenever we open our mouths is James 3, along with these resolutions from Jonathan Edwards related to the tongue:

16. Resolved, never to speak evil of anyone, so that it shall tend to his dishonor, more or less, upon no account except for some real good.

31. Resolved, never to say any thing at all against any body, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this Resolution.

34. Resolved, in narrations never to speak any thing but the pure and simple verity.

36. Resolved, never to speak evil of any, except I have some particular good call for it. Dec. 19, 1722.

38. Resolved, never to speak anything that is ridiculous, sportive, or matter of laughter on the Lord' s day. Sabbath evening, Dec. 23, 1722. [I personally think its OK to laugh on the Lord's day, but Edwards opinion is clear here, isn't it?]

70. Let there be something of benevolence, in all that I speak. August 17, 1723.

Can I still blog here?

Give or take 85...

Greg and Thabiti, thanks for your thoughtful posts.  I agree with and was challenged by what you wrote.

Here are a few initial thoughts about humor (in no particular order).

• It seems safe to say that possession of a sense of humor is part of being created in God's image.  In Scripture God seems to delight in pointing out the ridiculous and idolatrous in ways that are funny (e.g., I Samuel 5:1-5).
• Like everything else, the Fall has obscured the image of God in our humor.  We find things funny that are lewd, inappropriate, and disgusting.  Hence Sam Kinnison (no link there, this is a family blog!).  In an ironic twist, this has given rise to Christian comedy, which may be worse than the problem it was meant to solve.  But I digress.
• Most humor is a poking at societal norms.  Many societal norms (within and without the church) are stupid.  Making light of them isn't wrong, but it will make some people uncomfortable.
• Some humor will make some people uncomfortable. Henri Bergson said that humor usually requires a “momentary anesthesia of the heart” that desensitizes the hearer's sympathy for the person or thing being ridiculed.  So it's funny to make fun of Christian comedy, Bono, or TBN... but only if you don't stop to put yourself in the place of the poor, hardworking Christian comedian who's just trying to do a good job and make people laugh (this is why Holocaust humor never flies... it's almost impossible to have the necessary emotional detachment from a horror like that).  Some people are sensitive to the plight of others, and that's oftentimes a very good thing.  But their temperment means that they don't understand how others can have an emotional distance that allows them to laugh at others without being mean-spirited.
• Humor (even biting humor) is an appropriate weapon against false teachers and false ideas.  There should be an unending campaign by Christian pastors to mock Kenneth Copeland until he repents, quits, or dies.   
• Humor is also a valid way of correcting error and pointing out foolishness.  I don't think there is anything wrong with pointing out the absurdity of the things that we (meaning Christians) say and do.  So, for example, Reformed people who endlessly criticize every believer who doesn't agree with their take on every theological matter... they are good targets for humor. 
• If you're going to try and be funny, you have to be aware of the absurdities and inconsistencies in your own life.  You have to be willing to laugh at yourself.
• You shouldn't use Martin Luther's personal conduct as a justification for the way you do humor.  Luther said lots of things in his personal life and wirtings (e.g., virulent anti-Semitism) that we wouldn't want to hold up as a model for believers.
• Humor in the pulpit can be very dangerous.  It's like a narcotic.  Your people will love it (how much more entertaining to hear you riff on something than to teach Leviticus or talk about sin).  You'll love it (less sleeping, more laughing at how hilarious you are!).  And the temptation will be for you to give the people more of what they want and less of what they need.  I listen to about 10 sermons a week, and some of the guys I listen to are both funny and really good teachers.  But here's what I notice... they have to tell three jokes for every one that really lands.  Two out of three just kind of linger there and die.  And so the whole sermon feels like it's being interuppted by second rate comedy.  Over time, my fear is that the people will come hungry for your humor and not necessarily for the word of God.  They will be dependent on you and your charisma and your sense of humor, and you'll never be able to plant churches because you can't find anyone else as funny as you are, and so you'll have to pipe your sermons into other locations. 
• So, I write a lot of things on this blog and say a lot of things in personal conversation that I wouldn't consider saying from the pulpit.  Not because I am a hypocrite (I am, but just not on this issue), but becuase I don't want to distract from the teaching of God's word.

OK, that's enough for now.  Thoughts?

Even if my practice of its precepts isn't.  So, I'm guilty of having said things in the pulpit that I wish I could take back.  I'm not the perfect man of James 3:2, and I suspect he doesn't exist.  I've offended people with insensitive comments and off-color illustrations or jokes.  Some people were fine with what was said, but others were pricked or hurt or unsettled.  No news flash here: but I'm not perfect when it comes to speech.

But, Mike, Eph. 4:29 seems really, really clear to me.  "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen."  Then there's Eph. 5:4--"Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving."

I read these two verses and God whips out the plumb line on my speech.  "Only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs" and obscenity, foolish talk and coarse joking are "out of place."  Isn't that exactly what gnaws at us?  Our speech feels "out of place" at times.  Even if we can imagine some moments when we can be daring and cutting edge, our conscience accuses us with that "out of place" and out of bounds feeling.

So, the missional argument doesn't seem very compelling to me.  There is no one more missional than God himself.  And yet, He commands that this specifically is off limits for His servants.  And every image used to described the Christian (light rather than dark; new man rather than old man; etc) assumes that the things of the world no longer typify our lives.  Only Jesus is sufficiently holy and wise to speak repeatedly and flawlessly with sharp language without sinning.  Perhaps this is a case where "WWJD" really isn't all that helpful as a guide.  Better to follow the clear word.

I just finished reading Stephen Dempster's marvelous book Dominion and Dynasty.  It's truly one of the best surveys of OT story and theology I've ever read.  It will help you preach the Old Testament, and is well worth the read.

Dempster steps through the Old Testament, though, in the order of the Tanakh, which is the Bible that Jesus himself would have used---"The Law, prophets, and writings," as he says.  So I've been having a debate with one of our CHBC interns about this:  Should Bible publishers today scrap the current order of the Old Testament and start publishing Bibles in the old Jewish Tanakh order?

Here's an article by Prof. Jim Hamilton at Southern Seminary arguing "Yes."

Here's a nice comparison:

What do you think?

That was just one time, and you know as well as I do that you deserved it.

Seriously, I think the use of coarse, vulgar sexual and scatological language in the pulpit is nothing but a sign of immaturity in a preacher.  I know the argument is that it is somehow provocative and attention-getting, but come on----watch a movie, or just listen to people talk every day.  People aren't provoked or shocked by that kind of language; they hear it all the time.  The only thing they're shocked by---or more likely, just find funny or amusing---is that it's Supernerd the Preacher trying to be cool by using that kind of language in church.

Yea, you'll get a rise out of people by doing it---at least a few times---but what a cheap thrill!  Once they get used to hearing you talk like their non-Christian coworker, you'll have to figure out some other way to titillate them.  And then what?  What's provocative when provocative becomes boring?

Look, you want to really provoke people?---and I mean deeply, to their core?  Tell them they're "SINNERS," instead of just broken, dis-integrated people in need of meaning in their lives.  Tell them God's going to rightly DAMN them (there's a curse word alot of preachers shy away from) for their sins.  Then tell them the Son of God died in their place, and that they have to repent and depend on him entirely if they're not going to go to HELL (there's another one). 

Now that's provocative.  Saying **** in the pulpit is child's play.

OK guys, here's an email that I got from a college student who used to be in our congregation (lightly edited by me):

Okay, let’s take “don’t counsel by telephone” as an example.  Here is how I would nuance it: “Try to avoid phone counseling, but use it when it is helpful or necessary.”   While I generally avoid phone counseling, I have had to do it when:

• a person called at 3 am and she was about to commit suicide.
• a pastor called on his way to house where he knew he was going to face a wife who was contemplating suicide.
• a wife called because her husband hit her the night before and she didn’t know what she should do.

While all of these situations don’t fit the “normal” counseling situations I see on a day-to-day basis, they are certainly situations where I found myself needing to carefully shepherd and care for the person calling.  And obviously, because of the nature of the situations, it couldn’t wait for me to schedule an appointment later in the week.

Now, someone might respond, “These are rather extreme situations….so of course you should help them immediately.”  Okay, fair enough.  But there are some other situations where I’ve found phone counseling useful:

• Checking-in on a struggling church member who lives far, far away from the church. 
• Answering a question that might take only take a few minutes. 
• Having a conversation with a counselee whose circumstances make it very difficult to get to my office.
• Checking-in on a counselee who faced a significant day (for example, getting
  news from a doctor about potential cancer) and I don’t think it is wise to wait
  until the next appointment before I hear how the day went.

Generally, I want 98% of my counselees to have face-to-face interaction with me.  But as you can see from the examples above, I’ve found some situations where phone counseling can potentially be helpful.  I usually will work to follow-up these situations with a face-to-face meeting.

Hey, Thabiti, I guess living in Washington and being surrounded by lawyers has certainly taught me much about the fine art of nuancing statements.

You are, by consensus--maybe even unanimous--opinion, the nicest guy we know.  But you can't say, "While I appreciate Dr. Adam’s list, I’d want to nuance a number of his statements" and then just move on like that was some obscure footnote to an archaic Latin manuscript.  We want the goods man!  How would you nuance?  Nuance, baby, nuance!  Enquiring minds want to know.

1.       Don’t counsel people who want absolute confidentiality. 

Mark Dever spoke three times at the Desiring God pastors' conference this past week.  He ended one of his talks--on the corporate witness of the church---with this quote from Charles Spurgeon about the pastor's task.  On yet another "That's-It-I'm-Done" Monday, I thought it might encourage you to press on and keep up the fight:

I am occupied in my small way, as Mr. Great-heart was employed in Bunyan’s day.  I do not compare myself with that champion, but I am in the same line of business.  I am engaged in personally-conducted tours to Heaven; and I have with me, at the present time, dear Old Father Honest:  I am glad he is still alive and active.  And there is Christiana, and there are her children.  It is my business, as best I can, to kill dragons, and cut off giants’ heads, and lead on the timid and trembling.  I am often afraid of losing some of the weaklings.  I have the heart-ache for them; but, by God’s grace, and your kind and generous help in looking after one another, I hope we shall all travel safely to the river’s edge.  Oh, how many have I had to part with there!  I have stood on the brink, and I have heard them singing in the midst of the stream, and I have almost seen the shining ones lead them up the hill, and through the gates, into the Celestial City.

Brits always saying "whilst"?

Did you hear about the atheistic advertising campaign in London with backers such as Richard Dawkins? They raised over £120,000 to put lots of posters on buses.

This week there are plans for Christian responses from groups with which I'm not particularly familiar.

Our technodeacon has come up with an alternative campaign...

shamwow, greg, until you mentioned it below, leading me to google it, and let me just say, "Wow," it really looks impressive. Have you seen the youtube video? And the thing is, friends, if you act now, you can get four for only $19.95. You'll never need to buy paper towels again! 

our resident Shamwow guy.  He does all our commercials.

friends, the counter-culturally cool and eschatalogically beautiful t4g cd is now on sale here.  for $6.  check it out.

The New York Times, today:

HT: Lukas Naugle

Splits and controversies among evangelicals in both Britain and America often receive attention. Moments of unity and cooperation, not as often. 

Here's a great recent instance of unity in Britain: Anglican Hugh Palmer (who has followed John Stott at All Soul's) giving an encouraging talk on the Spirit's work in 1 Cor 2. at the charismatic Jubilee Church.

Adrian Warnock has some interesting observations on both of these trends.

If you haven't seen it, check out the tithe rap.  

Well, as we all await an update on Mark's sabbatical, I have two things that I have been finding particularly useful in the past weeks. 

Jonathan, thanks for plugging Worldliness.  It's another one of those short, extremely helpful meditations from our brethren at Sovereign Grace.  Because they take the doctrine of sin seriously and cross-centeredly, they've been by God's grace supplying the Christian world with excellent stuff.  We've been reading Worldliness for the first 5-10 minutes of Wednesday night Bible study, and I've recently purchased a handful to give out to some of the attendees.  By the Lord's Spirit, it's bearing fruit and challenging our thinking.  Thanks for the recommendation, bro.  Highly recommend it.

Chapter 2 of the Mahaney edited book Worldliness is written by Craig Cabaniss. It's entitled, "God, My Heart, and the Media." He begins by observing the fact that media makes up the continual background of many of our lives, and he provokes one to ask whether or not we're aware of all the assumptions that are slowly filtering into our hearts and minds as we imbibe thoughtlessly imbibe the media.

For instance, many Christians take care to avoid the more explicit moments in movies (e.g. sex scenes). Yet we often don't give a second thought to the fact that entire storylines are premised upon, not just secular, but sinful worldviews: "Pleasure without guilt. Ecstasy without relational destruction. And worst of all, sin without judgment" (53). And when we let storylines undergirded with these kinds of worldviews comprise our "entertainment," our "down-time," our "rest," there's an effect: "Filling our minds with these media deceptions dulls our sensitivity to God's holy hatred for sin" (53).

I found this personally challenging. I often find that, after watching movie, somehow my heart has been subtly turned toward loving the world more. I'm not saying Christians should never watch movies--though perhaps we should watch less; and we should definitely watch all of them prayerfully and circumspectly, in way I have failed to do. 

Cabaniss lists several pages of questions to ask oneself about one's media viewing. Here are some questions he says we should ask of our hearts (pages 57-59):

• "Why do I want to watch this program or film? What do I find entertaining about it?"
• "Am I seeking to escape from something i should be facing by watching this? Am I seeking comfort or relief that can be found only in God?"
• "What sinful temptations will this program or film present?"
• "Do I secretely want to view something in it that's sinful?"
• "Am I watching because I'm bored or lazy? If so, what does that reveal about my heart?"

There's lots of good stuff here. I'd highly recommend the book and the chapter.

Okay, time to do some upaid advertising for Crossway:

Over vacation I read most of the little book Worldliness, edited by C. J. Mahaney (Crossway, 2008). It's fantastic! I plan on reading it with a number of brothers.

Each of the authors does a great job of focusing on the heart, and not simply rules. Chapter 1 sets the stage with its discussion of 1 John 2:16. Every chapter then discusses worldliness in the language of "the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes, and the boasting of what he has and does." Notice, the emphasis is on the desires of the heart. Hence, the chapters all have titles like, "God, My Heart, and Media," "God, My Heart, and Music," and "God, My Heart, and Stuff." (Fundamentalistists, pay attention to the emphasis here.)

Here's one moment from chapter 1 that I found challenging:

So often we're ignorant of the signs, the symptoms of worldliness. People can be attending church, singing the songs, apparently listening to the sermons...

But inside, that person is drifting. He sits in church but is not excited to be there. She sings songs without affection. he listens to preaching without conviction. She hears but does not apply.

A love for the world begins in the soul. It's subtle, not always immeditately obvious to others, and often undetected by the people who are slowly succumbing to its lies.

It begins with a dull conscience and a listless sould. Sin does not grieve him like it once did. Passion for the Savior begins to cool. Affections dim. Excitement lessens for participating in the local church. Eagerness to evanglize starts to wane. Growth in godliness slows to a crawl. (page 20).*

Let's pray that we would not forsake our first love (Rev. 2:4).

* From Worldliness edited by C. J. Mahaney, © 2008.  Used by permission of Crossway Books, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL 60187, www.crossway.org.