Have you been hearing as much as I have lately about "The Great Tradition?"  Besides sounding like some overwrought "Super-Secret Ancient Lost Mystery Symbol" from a Dan Brown novel, the Great Tradition also seems to have become something of a rallying point for those would like to see the theological differences between evangelicals and, well, pretty much anyone else, narrowed and submerged.

Simply put, the argument is that it is in the ancient creeds that we find the essence of what it means to be a Christian.  These creeds, it is said, are the ecumenical creeds, the universal creeds adopted by the church in its early years, and therefore they form a necessary and even sufficient ground of unity between Christians.  If you can affirm those ancient creeds, it's argued, then you have what is necessary to be counted and welcomed as a Christian.

I'll be curious to hear folks' thoughts on this, but my take on it is that while it's a nice thought, it finally doesn't work.  There are several reasons for this.  First, the creeds are only kind of ancient.  They are not as ancient as Scripture, and they themselves claimed only to be restating in systematic language what the Bible already taught.  Second, all the ancient creeds were written in response to specific heresies.  The Nicene Creed, for example, spends so much time on the idea that Jesus was "light from light, true God from true God" and all the rest because that's what was at issue when the creed was written.  It just doesn't deal in the same way with other truths.  Thus the AD325 version ends with the almost comically simplistic, "And we believe in the Holy Spirit."  Well, good!

That means that the creeds defined the full boundaries of orthodox Christianity only at the time they were written.  That does not mean, of course, that the creeds are not still useful to us; they are.  The ancient creeds defined several key truths of the Christian faith very well, and we'd be foolish not to heed them.  But we also have to remember that those creeds are not inspired, and they are unlike Scripture in that they do not contain everything we need for faith and godliness.  There were certain issues just as near to the heart of the gospel as those dealt with in the creeds, that were not challenged strongly until centuries later.  Take the doctrine of "justification by faith alone."  We understand that doctrine to lie at the very center of the gospel--salvation is wholly by virtue of Christ's life and death imputed to us, and not at all by virtue of anything in us.  To say otherwise is, at some level, to put one's faith in oneself rather than in Christ.  And yet that issue did not come to a critically sharp point until the 16th century (or perhaps slightly before).

The point is that there are people in all kinds of "Christian" traditions who could affirm the ancient creeds, and yet who we, as Protestants, would say have missed the biblical substance of the gospel.  If we throw away those distinctions and make our unity rest, not a little arbitrarily, on a few creeds from the 3rd and 4th centuries, I believe we will wind up throwing away the Reformation--and by extension, the gospel itself.

Does someone really want to make the argument that a group of individuals meeting virtually in SimCity is a biblical church? Apparently. See this article about pastor Douglas Estes's new book, SimChurch: Being the Church in the Virtual World. Thankfully, the article includes a healthy critique by a Portland, Oregon pastor who doesn't buy it: "The worship, equipping, and discipling ministries of the church simply can’t take place through the internet. Pieces of them can, but eventually the jump has to be made," he said. "A truly biblical Church requires that we heed the biblical call of Hebrews 10 to not give up gathering together and being present to one another in real, actual life." Well said.

Register by October 31'st for the Early Bird rate. Group rates and student rates are also available.

See you in 2010, Lord willing!

PS--In 2008, we got more than $200 worth of free books just by showing up!

http://www.t4g.org/conference/t4g-2010/

It should be noted on this blog that this past Thursday, the congregation of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC gathered to surprise and recognize Mark Dever for fifteen years of gospel ministry. I was there when Mark was installed as the pastor--a tiny church and a sea of grey hair. God has done amazing things through Mark's ministry through the years. He has raised up men who have gone into pastoral ministry (many of us were there to surprise Mark). Some have planted churches others are in established congregations. God has raised up missionaries. Others have gone to labor in seminaries. I stayed through Sunday and the church is bursting at the seams with men and women eager to sing God's praises and hear his word preached.

No, the idea of contexualization isn't always euphemism for the homogeneous unit principle. Yes, I’m grateful for the writers who push us to be sensitive and conscientious to our cultural surroundings.  But when I hear about multi-site churches deliberately using different campuses (aka churches) to appeal to different socio-demographic groups, it does seem that the HUP has reared its head. 

McKinley, here's a freebie for you.  This following excerpt comes from Mike McKinley's Church Planting Is for Wimps, which Crossways plans to publish this coming spring:

Not many books or church leaders these days speak anymore about the homogeneous unit principle—appealing to one homogeneous group of people. Somewhere in the 1980s or 90s church growth writers stopped using the phrase because they had heard enough complaining about it being biblically problematic. Still, they needed some way to target particular groups, so they began to speak in terms of “contextualization”—adapting yourself to a context. I don’t want to totally knock the good people-sensitivities involved with contextualizing. But the evangelical fascination with the topic makes me wonder if it’s just an updated version of the homogeneous unit principle: Pick your social demographic and appeal…I mean, contextualize to them.

When we start churches intentionally designed to appeal to a certain kind of person, we fail to heed the biblical mandate to become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22). It seems like many churches want to embrace the first phrase without the second. We want to become all things to some people. The problem is, becoming all things to some people, say, by rocking the tattoos and turning up the music often keeps us from reaching all kinds of people. After all, wooing one demographic (like urban young people) often means alienating others (like older people or foreigners).

It seems to me that Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 wasn’t saying that he would mimic the people he was trying to reach, you know, with a ripped tunic and Doc Marten sandals; he was trying instead to remove unnecessary offense whenever possible. He wasn’t telling them to sport goatees, he was telling them not to flaunt their Christian freedom in everyone’s faces. He was encouraging the church to be sensitive to their cultures, yes, but by being sacrificial in its love, willing to give up things it might not have preferred to give up. To this day, I enjoy punk rock. I could flaunt the tatts and plant a punk rock church that took its musical cues from Stiff Little Fingers and its attitude from the Clash. But how would this show love for the elderly women in my neighborhood, the same kind of elderly women who welcomed me to [my former church]? It seems like we should intentionally plant churches that will, as much as possible, welcome and engage people who are different and diverse with respect to age, gender, personality, and nationality….

Perhaps you’re thinking, “But young people simply won’t go to churches where the music is not tailored to them.” That may be partly true, but it’s only true insofar as they’ve been in churches with no biblical vision for reaching all people. But what if pastors everywhere decided to stop capitulating to consumeristic demands? What if pastors taught church members to lay down their rights for the sake of people who were different? Pastor, are you afraid that if you tried doing this, you might lose some of your market share?

So then, what should characterize a church plant that wants to reach people from all kinds of backgrounds? Well, it obviously needs to show intentional love to people from different cultures. People from other cultures will know pretty quickly whether they are welcomed or merely tolerated as a curiosity. In our church, we try to be intentional about having members from other cultures involved in leading our corporate gatherings, whether through prayer, Bible reading, singing, or preaching. In addition 40 percent of our elder board is comprised of non-white non-Americans (and that’s not including the lawyers, who should perhaps be their own ethnic group).

Also, the way that we order our gatherings can impact the way international believers feel. Many of the brothers and sisters in our congregation from other cultures were attracted by how similar our services are to the ones in their home countries. The music is different, sure. The way people dress is different, of course. Our services may be quieter or louder than what they’re accustomed to. But Christians gathered in churches in Thailand, in South Africa, in Niger, in Guatemala all do the same things: they pray, sing, read the Bible, and listen to the Word being preached. The more we focus on doing those things, the more “at home” international brothers and sisters feel. The more we import movies and drama and pop-culture into the church, the more specific and targeted our gatherings feel and the less comfortable these brothers and sisters feel.

Another joy of being at the FIEL conference in Portugal has been to get to know Stuart Ollyott. 

Jonathan Leeman and Matt Schmucker visited the Brazilian Conference last year

There's an interesting short piece from celebrity atheist Christopher Hitchens over at Slate describing the lessons he's learned from debating people of faith (particularly Douglas Wilson).  You can read it here.

I haven't yet run into an argument that has made me want to change my mind. After all, a believing religious person, however brilliant or however good in debate, is compelled to stick fairly closely to a "script" that is known in advance, and known to me, too. However, I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.

Wilson isn't one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just "metaphors." He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn't waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he "allows" it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners. I much prefer this sincerity to the vague and Python-esque witterings of the interfaith and ecumenical groups who barely respect their own traditions and who look upon faith as just another word for community organizing. 

The Washington Post has a report (via the Religion News Service) on the "Renewing the Evangelical Mission" conference that Jonathan posted about here.  

As we saw in the last post on this, God laughs at the hubris of fools. One of the things that is a clear display of their hubris is their own laughter: in presumptuous feeling of security they laugh at all circumstances; in premature celebration of victory they laugh at the misfortune of God’s people.
Yet their laughter will be silenced and the tables turned.
The fool is laughing because he considers himself to be in the position of God: unshakable, impenetrable. The archetypal force of evil and chaos, Leviathan, is depicted in Job as laughing in that way.
“Iron he treats like straw / and bronze like rotten wood. / Arrows do not make him flee; / slingstones are like chaff to him. / A club seems to him but a piece of straw; / he laughs at the rattling of the lance. (41:27-29)
Yet, even as he laughs he is being reeled in with a fishhook. His laughing tongue is being tied down by a rope, and will beg for mercy (41:1-3)
So too God’s godless enemies laugh as they rampage God’s people:
They deride kings / and scoff at rulers. / They laugh at all fortified cities; / they build earthen ramps and capture them. / Then they sweep past like the wind and go on— guilty men, whose own strength is their god." (Hab 1:10)
 Yet, their temporary victory is merely a plan of God to chastise his people, and it will be short-lived.
You will be filled with shame instead of glory. / Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed! / The cup from the LORD's right hand is coming around to you, / and disgrace will cover your glory. (Hab 2:16)
Sometimes the laughing isn’t just at their own assumed security, but also at the misfortune of God’s people themselves. Job is described as a laughing-stock (Job 12:4), At the destruction of Jerusalem, “Her enemies looked at her and laughed at her destruction.” (Lam 1:7).
Jesus himself warns that all who laugh like this have ill-placed confidence. Their foolishness will be revealed where their laughter is turned to mourning,
"Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep" (Luke 6:25)

We had better be pretty clear that we never use humour in this way.

A seminary professor is not the same thing as a church elder. That was probably the main thing I observed at last week’s Gordon Conwell Seminary conference “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” which I attended with Michael Lawrence. Consider a couple of obvious matters:

· An elder is chosen (hopefully) for his exemplary character, his ability to teach, and his track record of doing spiritual good (fruitfulness); a seminary professor is chosen because he or she excels in research and writing.

· An elder’s position requires a holistic regard for his sheep (their intellectual, emotional, spiritual, and physical states); a seminary professor need only be concerned with the “intellectual.”

· An elder’s entire life is expected to be integrated into the congregation’s life (like a shepherd and sheep); a seminary professor need only interact with students in the classroom.

What struck me at this academic conference, however, was how much the “rules of engagement” differed for elders and academics. Three examples:

· In the Western secular academy, one of the highest values is an open exchange of ideas without pre-judgment, a value which has clearly transmitted into Christian academic circles. Yes, there should be a place for Christians to openly consider new ideas, but consider the anthropology behind that democratic value: it assumes (these days, at least) that people are rational, objective, and basically good. When this is our starting point, we feel free to say whatever, whenever. An elder has a very different starting point. He knows that his sheep are weak and susceptible to temptation and self-deceit. Like a parent, he knows that intellectual growth is highly intertwined with spiritual and social maturity.  So he takes great care in what he says and does not say. He’s not nearly so democratic. Instead, he must be judicious.

· The academy, by definition, places a higher premium on saying something “new.” Many churches wrongly do this as well, and, admittedly, there is a right place for a “new song.” But the eldering enterprise, by definition, is about faithfulness. The best Christian academics, that is, the Christian academics to whom we are all indebted, say new things from time to time, but only in the effort to be faithful. Too often, however, the ambition for newness is an utterly different thing than the ambition for faithfulness.  

· Academics tend to work in isolation, and are assessed only (i) for their ideas (ii) by a small group of similarly-situated experts in their sub-specialty. Elders work in the midst of the assembly, and are assessed (i) for their ideas and their lives (ii) by the whole church body in all of its sociological diversity.

None of the rules for academic engagement are bad, per se. But they become bad in the Christian academy when they're divorced from pastoral sensibilities. This struck home, to speak frankly, by the utter lack of pastoral carefulness demonstrated by many of the speakers, a carelessness which I’ve witnessed too often in Christian academic circles. Here are three examples which showed up last week:

· Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

· One speaker presented what he described as a “new” formulation of how the divine nature participated in Christ’s death on the cross, which involved jettisoning divine impassibility and simplicity. At the conclusion, another professor responded by saying that he was willing to go along with this new formulation. Really? A sixty minute lecture and you’re persuaded? You’re willing to re-conceive the divine nature because someone really smart gave a paper? No prayer? No long hours of investigation? No discussion of the matter with the elders of your church?

· At a conference with the title “Renewing the Evangelical Mission,” not a single talk of the eleven was about the gospel (with one abstruse half-exception, mentioned in the last bullet).

Numerous matters like these, all heaped together, reminded me what a different thing the academic enterprise is from the eldering enterprise. One is about intellectual stimulation between supposedly good, rational people; the other is about spiritual warfare between desperate, clinging-to-grace people. It’s as if you enter the Christian academic realm and all the rules for pastoral care and wisdom suddenly change—in fact, it’s as if all the rules suddenly go out the window. “We’re all equals here. We’re all discerning and wise and godly. Take no heed!”

I praise God for the faithful academics who trained me in seminary. Yet the best ones were good because they were churchmen first and academics second. Any academic who takes offence at my remarks, I dare say, just might take offense because he or she finds more identity in being an academic than in being a churchman.

I'm sure there's some flaw in my thinking here, so I thought I'd throw this out on the Internet (where clear thinking goes to die) and get some feedback.

Matt and I just finished up a great 9Marks workshop here in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  It was a good group of brothers and sisters gathered here to think about the church.  Three brothers drove all the way from Brownsville, Texas---12 hours!---to come the workshop.  It's always an honor when pastors and other church leaders use two days of their lives to hear these talks; that's even more so the case when you tack another 24 hours of driving on the top!

Of course one of the things we talk about at length during these 9Marks workshops is preaching, and one of the most important points we make about preaching is that every text of Scripture points to Jesus Christ--and therefore that every sermon we preach should point to Jesus Christ.  It's not difficult to affirm the truth of that statement in general, but it can get difficult when you're looking at a certain passage in the Old Testament to figure out just how exactly this text points to Jesus.  Let me give you just one example, though.

I'm going to be preaching tomorrow morning to the church that hosted us this weekend.  The text I'm using, Psalm 20, is actually a very good example of a text that, at first glance, doesn't immediately look like it's about Jesus Christ.  But as I told the attenders of the Weekender, and as (God willing) I will preach tomorrow, when you look a little more closely at the psalm, you begin to see that it is actually beautifully messianic--and glorifying of Jesus Christ.

Grab a Bible (or open up a new tab, as it is these days) and take a look at the first few verses of the psalm.  Who is being talked to there?  People will often approach the Psalms thinking that they can read themselves directly into them.  Sometimes, to be sure, that's possible.  But something else is going on in Psalm 20.  You can't read yourself directly into it, because the psalm is actually being sung to someone in particular.  Who that is becomes clear in verse 6, when the singer says, "Now I know that the Lord saves his anointed"--that is, the Lord saves His King, the anointed one.  In other words, all these blessings that are prayed in the first few verses of the psalm are being prayed for the King.  The people are asking God to grant the desires and hopes of their King, and to make his plans succeed--and that realize that it's only when God blesses their King that they themselves will be blessed.

When you understand that, all of a sudden the whole Psalm becomes prophetic---a declaration by God Himself that he will not let His Messiah's mission fail.  Ultimately, that's not talking about the military plans of Israel's political king.  It's talking about the mission of the Great King to win His people's salvation.  No wonder Jesus cried out on the cross, "It is finished!"  Everything he intended to accomplish had been accomplished.  His people's salvation was won!

Brothers, when you step into the pulpit tomorrow, remember that basic point:  Every text of the Bible points to Jesus Christ and exalts Him.  By God's grace, every sermon you preach will do the same.

The Lord laughs at the hubris of sin. Kings who think they can shake their puny fists at the Messiah are laughed at then rebuked. (Psalm 2:4)

At that point he is laughing at sin.

Why? Because the one who sits enthroned in heaven laughs. He laughs at our stupidity and hubris in shaking our puny little fists at the almighty God – and doing so in some self-righteous stand against that God who alone is righteous. That’s sad, yes. That’s incredibly sinful, yes. But it is also very, very funny.

Dominic Steele in his excellent evangelistic course, “Introducing God” likens our rebellion against God to an incident with a friend of his. The friend was telling his 3 year old son that it was time to get in the bath. The three year old refused, and picked up a chair with which to attack his father. Sinful and rebellious, yes. But also so very funny that a little naked three year old really thinks that he can take on his Dad.

Jesus too uses laughable images to describe the self-righteousness of sin.

Those who can see others' sin more clearly than their own are like a man with a plank in his eye trying to remove the speck in his brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:3-6).

People who think they are doing a great job establishing his own righteousness are like people straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.(Matthew 23:24)

He uses another humorous image ironically to demonstrate the seriousness of sin. For a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven is like a camel going through the eye of a needle. It is ridiculously impossible with man, but joyfully, laughably possible with God. (Matthew 19:24)

So God laughs at sin. Its hubris is laughably funny.

Should we laugh at sin?

The righteous share in the Lord’s laughter (Psalm 52:6), though it is a laughter that leads to the fear of the Lord. We don’t laugh at the evil of sin – it is deadly serious. But, yes we should laugh with the Lord at the ridiculous hubris of it all. Our laughter is not to be self-righteous, but a comforting encouragement to keep walking with the Lord when we are tempted to follow in the way of fools.

In the final chapter of his book The Trouble with Paris, Mark Sayers gives "Six Keys to Living Well WIthin God's Reality".  These are aimed at young people living in the prevailing culture of the day.  They are:  

A highlight for me of Yesterday's West London Ministry Day for me was hearing Dick Lucas take lead two sessions through the Pastorals. He looked at the Word of God under attack in the first session, and the Man of God under attack in the second.

The second session concluded with 7 ways in which the man of God might be drawn away from perseverance in the ministry.
 

1. Would sin ever take him? (1t1:20, 1t6:11, 2t2:22, 1t3, tit1). Therefore examine carefully the particularly flaws of drink, money, temper, sex. Recent converts are therefore excluded.
2. Would opposition break him? (1t3:10, 4:14-18) Some people are a menace to the cause of the gospel. Will we patiently endure, and humbly plough the straight furrow?
3. Would the sheer hard work wear him down? (1t4:10) Will we work as hard as the soldier, athlete, farmer?)
4. Would disgrace destroy him? 2t1:8-11. You will be shamed if we follow Jesus “even to the point of being chained like a criminal (used elsewhere only by those with Christ on the cross). Would we rather tone things down to be accepted?
5. Would the undoubted success of the false teachers seduce them?  (Remember Elijah and the prophets of Baal, Ahab and Jehoshaphat). Note ‘as for you'… (1t6:10-11, 2t3:10, 2t3:14, 2t4:5.)
6. Will weariness with the fight for the faith cause him to stop battling? (1t1:18, 1t6:1) the need to engage in controversy but hate the controversial spirit.
7. Will the worldliness of the professing church discourage him away from faithfulness? (2t3:1-5) Will the minister be characterised but the love of money, themselves, pleasure, or by the love of 
   Christ?

It was heart warming and fitting to hear these warnings and encouragements from Dick Lucas, (now in his mid 80's, but still sharper than I ever have been or ever hope to be). Like Paul, Dick has recognised these temptations but, by God's grace has fought the fight, run the race, and awaits the crown.

Yesterday I had the privilege of spending the morning with a group of pastors and others in ministry across West London. It was encouraging for several reasons.

Firstly, it is always encouraging to be reminded that, like Elijah, we are not the only ones left trying to remain faithful to the Lord. There are dozens of gospel preaching, word trusting churches even in a quarter of our city. It was good to see those I already knew about and to meet more I'd not met before.

Secondly, we got to hear from Garry Williams reflecting on the way in which Calvin handled conflicts of justification with Sadoleto and with the Council of Trent.

From the manner Calvin's engagement on an issue where the gospel was at stake, Garry encouraged us to emulate his

1) Courtesy: Calvin does not attack the man, but only attacks the attack on the gospel.

How many of our debates even among evangelicals who agree on the gospel toady would begin as courteously as Calvin begins towards Sadoleto.

"In the great abundance of learned men whom our age has produced, your excellent learning and distinguished eloquence having deservedly procured you a place among the few whom all, who would he thought studious of liberal arts, look up to and revere, it is with great reluctance I bring forward your name before the learned world, and address to you the following expostulation. "

2) Courage:

When the gospel is at stake, we should be courteous to the man, we must be gentle (1 Timothy 6:11) but we must not mince our words about the gospel.

"Your ignorance of this doctrine leads you on to the error of teaching that sins are expiated by penances and satisfactions. Where, then, will be that one expiatory victim, from which, if we depart, there remains, as Scripture testifies, no more sacrifice for sin? Search through all the divine oracles which we possess; if the blood of Christ alone is uniformly [45] act forth as purchasing satisfaction, reconciliation, and ablution, how dare you presume to transfer so great an honour to your works?"

3) Carefulness:
Because error introduces subtle distortion of what are really simple truths, the pastor must expose the wolves by subtle distinctions in precisely what the truths are and why they did not

I'm beginning preparation for Sunday's sermon on Genesis 2:1-7 this morning. There we see exactly that. The serpent brings in a subtle distortion of God's clear and simple command, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"

Eve tries to clarify, but she does not get the distinction right; even she has ended up distorting the clear and simple word of the Lord: "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.' "

compare that to what God had said, ""You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

There are at least three ways in which she has been ill equipped to clarify.
1) there seems a shift away from the joy of being "free" to eat from "any" tree, to merely "we may eat fruit from the trees."
2) There were two trees in the middle of the garden. She has turned her eyes away from the fact that the tree of life itself was there, and that they were created that one day they would reach out and grasp and enjoy that fruit forever. She does not see the blessed tree, but only the cursed tree.
3) There was no prohibition to touch the tree (or to name it).

In taking a lack of care in seeing exactly where the serpent distorted she had introduced her own distortions, and had begun to distrust God's word.

Thirdly we heard from Dick Lucas on the Pastoral Epistles, but more of that anon.

Dee

Deepak, thanks for the way you serve the usefulness of this blog so well by asking such good questions...

Mark Dever often talks about the conclusion as being the point where the weight of the whole sermon falls down upon the congregation as it is pressed home in summary.

I think that's right. However, I find it incredibly hard to do. In a way it's a test of how coherent a message the sermon has been. If you are unable to summarise the significance of a particular sermon, then you will be unable to press it all home at once.

John Stott comes up with 5 different ways this can be done:

"The conclusion should not merely recapitulate your sermon—it should apply it. Obviously, you should be applying all along, but you should keep something for the end which will prevail upon your people to take action. “No summons, no sermon.” Preach through the head to the heart (i.e. the will). The goal of the sermon should be to “storm the citadel of the will and capture it for Jesus Christ. What do you want them to do? Employ a variety of methods to do this:

1. Argument—anticipate objections and refute them.
   
2. Admonition— warn of the consequences of disobedience.
   
3. Indirect Conviction—arouse moral indignation and then turn it on them (Nathan with David).
   
4. Pleading—apply the gentle pressure of God’s love, concern for their well-being, and the needs of others.
   
5. Vision—paint a picture of what is possible through obedience to God in this area." 

One useful way to do that is through a positive biography.

Find someone who has lived out the main point of the sermon well. So, for example, if the sermon had been on 2 Corinthians 4:16-18.

 ¹⁶Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. ¹⁷For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. ¹⁸So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

You reach the conclusion that it is all about living today in the light of the future. A brief survey of the fruitfulness of the life of Anthony Ashley Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury and ask what made him so fruitful. Then quote from him,

"I do not think in the last forty years I have lived one conscious hour that was not influenced by the thought of our Lord’s return."

Thabiti, Mike M., Mike G., Aaron, Jonathan, and Greg,

What is point of the sermon conclusion?  I know there are lots of ways to conclude a sermon, but in general what should a pastor be trying to accomplish as he wraps up a sermon? 

Thanks for passing on your wisdom on this matter.

I know a number of you guys like to talk about this development in some churches, so I thought I'd link to some thoughts from James MacDonald and ask what ye think.  It's part of his contribution to a recent book on multi-sites, giving some guidance to those considering (part one and part two).  And here is a video, "Multi-Campus Ain't for Everyone," about a two-minute summary.  What say ye?

I hate the word "non-Christian".  

Greg, thanks for the bizarre link, and insightful comments.

It raises the whole question of appropriate humour. Check out Mike McKinley's great thoughts from a post earlier in the year.

Look at a few posts either side to see some others' contributions on the subjects.

I thought it would be good to look into the ways laughter is depicted in the bible to try to draw some lines of how we should laugh biblically.

There seem to be at least six main categories of laughter (three righteous, two wicked or unbelieving, and one that could go either way). Some of them will break down into sub-categories. If we are encouraging our congregations to laugh, we had better be sure that we are encouraging righteous laughter (and not self-righteous laughter).
 

1. Laughter at the hubris of sin
   (Psalm 2:4, 37:13, 52:6, 59:8 Matthew 23:24, Luke 6:41-42)
2. Laughter of fools that will be silenced
   (Habakkuk 1:10, Ecclesiastes 2:2, 7:3-6, Jeremiah 52:39, Lamentations 1:7, Acts 13:41, 2 Peter 3:3, James 4:9, Jude 1:18)
3. Laughter of well founded confidence in the face of trouble
   (Job 5:22, Proverbs 31:25)
4. Laughter of unbelief
   (Genesis 17:17, 18:12-15, Luke 8:53)
5. Laughter of overwhelming joy at undeserved or unexpected blessing.
   (Genesis 21:6, Job 8:21, Psalm 126:2, Luke 6:21)
6. Laughter of human interaction and joy
   (Ecclesiastes 3:4, 10:19)

In a few short posts I hope examine each of these, and then examine ways in which we might appropriately incorporate righteous laughter and avoid foolish, wicked or unbelieving laughter.

One of the most interesting features of godly laughter, is that it comes not from taking nothing seriously, but from taking the right things seriously, but more of that anon.

What's does a pastor-athlete's office look like? Find out on C. J. Mahaney's study tour. No sneakers required.  (That 9Marks even calls them "Sneakers" means we are sadly out of touch with athletic reality)

A friend sent me a link yesterday to one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard.  On September 16, John Piper spoke to a large conference of the American Association of Christian Counselors.  He decided to start the message by confessing a list of sins he had struggled with all his life.  Here's the result.  Listen to the first five minutes and then read on after the jump:

Listen 

Curtis Allen (Voice) was nice enough to take some video of the interview he and Shai Linne had with Mark Dever.  You can watch the whole thing on Voice's blog (ihearvoice.blogspot.com) but here's a little taste:

Dear Pastor:  If you are like me, you get to have lots of conversations about sin and suffering.  Just think about your congregation...Some of your sheep are depressed.  Couples struggle with martial conflict.  You are bound to know a few workaholics.  Many men are leading their wife poorly in marriage.  Men struggling with internet pornography; women struggling with eating struggles.  Maybe you've had someone who is suicidal.  And the list goes on and on. 

A common thread that often runs through these sins is anger. 

The depressed person is angry at God for her sorrow.  The wife is angry at her husband for his neglect.  Woman who is struggling with food is angry with herself for constantly giving in.  The man stuck in internet pornography is mad at himself for always giving in to the sin.  And the list goes on and on.

I don't want to do a long excursis on anger.  Rather, I want to suggest four resources for those struggling with anger or those who are helping someone who is struggling.

#1:  To start, David Powlison's lectures that CCEF's National conference.  

#2:  Robert Jones book Uprooting Anger. 

#3:  Paul Tripp's CDs or DVD set How to be Good and Angry. 

#4:  Steve Estes' talk on anger within church leadership.

Pastor, I hope these suggestions provide a few good biblical resources to help you care for angry sheep. 

Matthias Media Conference featuring: Dever, Carson, Jensen, Payne, Helm, and others. You should check it out if you're in the Chicago area. 

At the 2009 conference, they're going to zero in on the third and often neglected 'P': people. Because gospel growth happens in people and through people.

Deepak,

Thanks for the great question about pastors' wives.
Thabiti, thanks for the great response.

As someone who made his greatest ever decision in his life (that wasn't effected by irresistible grace - though she's pretty irresistible) in asking Hannah to marry me, let me give unmarried (would-be-)pastors some tips on looking for a woman who will make an exceptional pastor's wife.

1) Recognise that an exceptional pastor's wife is someone who will be exceptional at encouraging you to be a faithful pastor. This means first of all that you will have someone who loves Jesus, and loves to see you love Jesus. Whenever I act in transparently sinful ways, I'm so thankful for a wife who is quick to encourage me to spend time in the word and on my knees.

Though there are no biblical qualifications for pastors wives, I think it is a practical necessity that a pastor has a wife who deeply loves Jesus. If not, he has enough pastoral work to do within his family without seeking pastoral responsibilities outside of it.

2) Don't marry a woman who has as her life's ambition the desire to be an exceptional pastor's wife. If, as Thabiti so rightly said, "pastor's wife" is not a biblical office, look for a woman who will be a great wife and mother. A woman who particularly wants to marry you because you are a pastor may have all kinds of pre-conceived expectations of what her life might look like in that role, but it is very likely that just trying to be a faithful wife, and, Lord willing, mother will not be high enough on her agenda.

When Hannah and I started talking about marriage, she was willing to be a pastor's wife because she wanted to marry me. Don't go marrying someone who is willing to marry you because she wants to be a pastor's wife.

3) Before marrying, make it clear that you feel that the Lord would have you serve as a pastor.

When you are married, however, recognise that the possible places where you will serve the Lord will be made clear to you in part by the response of your wife to particular opportunities. So, if you decide that the Lord calls you to go to be a missionary in India, and your wife makes it clear that she is unwilling, recognise that the Lord is saying through your wife "no, not now". If you still really feel the Lord would have you in India, pray for a change of heart in your wife, but don't go "with or without her consent". I'm grateful for the Lord's providence in using Carey's decision to go to India without his wife's consent. However, I don't think that this decision should ever be a model of how we prioritise ministry to the world over ministry to our wives, however strategic that ministry might be.

OK Carey fans, shoot me down...

Typically I approach Psalm 23 from the standpoint of the sheep, looking to God (or Christ) as my shepherd. After all, it begins, “The Lord is my shepherd.”

Yet as an elder who is to imitate Christ and “shepherd God’s flock,” there’s a sense in which Psalm 23 offers me--and you, elder--a secondary reading from the shepherd’s standpoint. Yes, our primary reading of Psalm 23 should always be as a sheep. But those of us who are elders should also look to Psalm 23 to learn what the posture of our hearts for our congregations should look like.

Specifically, we should ask the Lord to teach us

· To destroy all ambition for praise and recognition.

· To set aside cultural conceptions of leadership. And instead…

· To center our hearts on helping members of the church to NOT WANT by leading them to look to the sufficiency of the Chief Shepherd in all things.

· To give us the ability to help them LIE DOWN IN GREEN PASTURES and LEAD THEM BESIDE QUIET WATERS, such that interactions with us would leave them feeling refreshed and rested in the gospel.

· To walk away from our time with members of the flock, and have them feeling like their SOULS have been RESTORED, as if the evidence of our presence in the room is someone’s restored soul.

· To help LEAD THEM IN PATH’S OF RIGHTEOUSNESS for the Chief Shepherd’s NAME’S SAKE—and never be party to their sin or stumbling.

· To remind, comfort, and equip them to walk through THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW OF DEATH, FEARING NO EVIL because they know the Chief Shepherd is WITH THEM.

· To use the ROD AND STAFF of pastoral authority TO COMFORT THEM, such that they can look back on past exercises of our authority and remember that good came, protection came, growth came when their elders wielded that rod and staff.

· To PREPARE A TABLE FOR THEM IN THE PRESENCE OF THEIR ENEMIES, not promising them prosperity now, but reminding of their hope amidst adversity now.

· To remind them that God has marked them off as HIS ANNOINTED ONES, because they are united to the Annointed One. They are special to him!

· To sit under our teaching and find themselves continually looking down into THEIR CUP of the gospel and rejoicing at how it OVERFLOWS.

· To PURSUE them WITH GOODNESS AND MERCY.

Furthermore, if husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church, should we husbands not pursue our wives with the same Psalm 23 shepherd-like regard?

And if we are to imitate the shepherd-like love of God for his children, does Psalm 23 not provide us as fathers (mothers, too) with a job description?

We’ve probably talked more than enough about the God Exposed conference, but I’d like to offer one more personal testimony:

Having been to seminary and having sat through my share of pastoral conferences, I’ve heard a good number of the “Why we preach” or “Ministry of the Word” or “Expositional preaching” talks.  I’ve even given the talk a few times. So when news of another such talk pops up in the blogosphere, I confess to often responding (wrongly) with the “yeah, yeah, know that” attitude.

Yet may I suggest every preacher and church leader would serve both himself and his congregation to listen to a talk like Dever’s at least once a year? “The Power of God’s Word” (Mark 4:26-34)

I am humbled by John Knight's comments to my post on special needs the other day (you can read the full response at the second website listed below).  He has now alerted me to two resources that I did not know existed, both Bethlehem Baptist Church related.  I pray the church of Jesus Christ not miss God-given opportunities to shepherd all His people.

Check out these two websites:
http://www.hopeingod.org/MinistriesSpecialNeeds.aspx
www.theworksofGod.com

Christianity Today posted multiple answers to this question from various pastors and professors.  Click here to see them.  I'm glad the question is being asked!  For a while there seemed to be no debate.

I agree with you guys entirely on this.  It is a heart-wrenching situation, and I can understand completely why this man's parents would so fervently desire to see him become a member of the church.  After all, they see his life every day, so maybe they're able to see evidences of grace in his life that no one else can.

Even so, the limits of the church's authority are very clear.  She can only bring into membership those who are able to give a clear and credible profession of their faith in Jesus Christ.  Church membership is only a "right" for those who can do so. 

It breaks the heart to think that someone who may very well be a brother in Christ, saved by his blood and seated with him in heaven, should be denied membership in his church.  But here's what could bring comfort:  If this dear man is indeed a Christian, then the fact that the church is, sadly, unable to act in his case does not change one thing about his relationship to Jesus.  That man answers to his Lord, and he hopes in his Lord.  The title of his salvation is in his Lord's hand, not the church's.  

And for his parents, I think they are right to have great hope that God has saved their son.  Maybe there are evidences of grace that no one but his parents have opportunity to see.   But even if not, even if the disability is too severe, I think it's good and right that they should have hope for their son's salvation through Christ---not because he is somehow innocent or deserving of salvation because of his hardships, but because God is just and merciful. 

Matt, I think you are correct.  If the person is unable to communicate their trust in Christ, the church shouldn't take them into membership.  This isn't to say they don't trust Christ, but rather simply that they can't communicate it in a credible way.

I took a call from an elder in a church yesterday asking about membership for one who has "special needs", who is apparently severely limited in his ability to relate and converse, to the point of an inability to convey the gospel in any meaningful way.  The parents of this 30 year old man are anxious to have him received into membership.  This family lives in the southern part of the U.S. and, as the elder described it, believe membership is a "right." 

This is one of those times where I don't want to be an elder/pastor.  These situations break one's heart and cause sleepless nights -- am I doing the right thing by admitting or denying membership? 

At some point you have to make a decision.  As difficult as it is and given the severity of the applicant's condition, I counseled the elder to view this situation as analogous to a child who was too young to communicate a credible profession of faith and therefore not grant membership.  We're not saying he is not a Christian; we're simply saying it is nearly impossible for us (the church) to discern.  But of course the church should extend care to him in every way possible.  

I was asked for counsel on this matter and don't have much more to go on then I have conveyed in this post.  Can anyone give some guidelines in such a matter without getting into specifics?