Anti Rights?

One of the hot political topics over the last several years has been the issue of marriage as it relates to the LGBT or homosexual community. With the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision today and 2012 being a major election year, we’re certainly going to be hearing a lot of rhetoric surrounding this topic once again.

This has become a major rallying point for many in the conservative community, especially the [incredibly] influential evangelical movement in America. The standard position among Evangelical Christians has been one against the redefining of marriage. Thus many conservatives have funded campaigns to legally define marriage as being between a man and a women. At the outset I want to make it very clear that I believe and agree with the conservative position on this issue.

This is a theological issue. God ordained marriage as being between a man and a woman. Every culture has a basic framework for this family relationship because every culture grew out of God’s initial creation as described in the book of Genesis. The question I seek to tackle here is how we, the church, ought to engage in this discussion as we move forward into the 21st century.

This is a divisive issue. As a result of its divisiveness, it is used (like abortion and immigration) as a political weapon in campaigns to pit groups against one another and influence votes. Other than division, very little ever results from the political campaign rhetoric.

Losing the war of words

This debate has shifted, and although some “battles” have been won on the conservative side, the momentum has begun to slide to the other side, because the phraseology of the debate has changed. Such as in the debate over abortion, where we, conservatives, are now deemed “anti-abortion”, whereas they are “pro-choice”. Likewise, an ever so slight wording change has shifted the discussion over marriage. The discourse has moved from that of marriage to civil rights. We are now the “anti-rights” camp, and they, “pro-rights.” As a result, the generation called “Millennials” (those born between 1980 and 2000) are now moving into voting age and are largely pro gay marriage. Millennials will be the largest voting demographic for the next generation, therefore, as it stands now, within the next 20 years we will see the legalization of homosexual marriage in America (as well as the likely legalization of marijuana). This presents us, the church, with an incredibly difficult situation. Or is it actually an opportunity?

Changing the debate

I do believe that there is a better way wherein we can turn this discussion around, while maintaining a footing from which the church can speak into our culture in the years to come.

I do not know a single American Christian who does not love his/her civil liberties. That being the case, we should agree with the LGBT community that they should not in any way be denied civil liberties. This is not a religious issue, it’s constitutional. We are quick to cry foul when we think our rights are being infringed upon but not so quick to do so when the rights of others are endangered. We must be consistent in our position, therefore we ought to be pro rights in this area also. The question is, how can we be pro rights while maintaining a biblical position?

Yes, we believe that homosexual behavior is sin. We do not think that the institution of marriage can be redefined, for it was ordained and defined by God. Therefore, since marriage is a religious institution, and the public sector of our nation desires to maintain a separation of church and state, we the church, ought to petition our government to remove themselves from the discussion of marriage, by having them refuse to continue in providing marriage licenses. In the place of marriage licenses the government should grant civil unions only. They would determine who receives such unions and the rights associated with them. (As a side note, the government needs to clearly define who should receive such rights, as we are quickly moving in a direction wherein we have no ability to draw a line between who receives rights and who does not. In such a case we would have no ground from which to say that polygamist, pedophile or incestuous unions could not be valid).

If the church would spearhead this move, we would carry the discussion in a whole new direction. Marriage would maintain its religious definition as being a God ordained union between a man and a woman. Churches would continue to preform marriages under God’s ordered institution, while requiring those being married to also receive a legal civil union through the state, and then, we would no longer be portrayed as those taking rights from those seeking them.  Additionally, I think such a move by the church would bring to light that many within the LGBT community have a deeper motivation than the legal redefinition of marriage.

This is, by the way, not a new or original idea; Harvard Law Professor, Alan Dershowitz wrote on the subject in an LA Times op-ed in December of 2003, and many others have weighed in since that time.  There may be a number of issues I am overlooking as I open this discussion, but at the very least I think it is a discussion we need to have.


Strain Out The “Hype” Flies

Ecclesiastes 10:1   Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment, and cause it to give off a foul odor; so does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.

Solomon tells us that a small thing can negatively affect a great thing.

I wish to address what may be a small thing.

There is a tendency among some church to hype things.

The word “hype” is defines as follows.


verb (used with object)

1.  to stimulate, excite, or agitate (usually followed by up ): She was hyped up at the thought of owning her own car.

2.  to create interest in by flamboyant or dramatic methods; promote or publicize showily: a promoter who knows how to hype a prizefight.

3.  to intensify (advertising, promotion, or publicity) by ingenious or questionable claims, methods, etc. (usually followed by up ).


4.  exaggerated publicity; hoopla.

5.  an ingenious or questionable claim, method, etc., used in advertising, promotion, or publicity to intensify the effect.

Some church leadership leans in this direction.  In an effort to engage congregants and attract the unbelieving world, efforts are made to convince people that they need to be at the next conference, outreach, teaching series, church service, or other event.

Words and phrases like “life changing”, “revolutionary”, “once in a lifetime” or “epic” are used repeatedly. I wonder if these words actually have lost their meaning to many people.

Every pastor or lay minister believes in the power of God and the power of the Gospel to change lives.  I do not mean to downplay godly efforts that are blessed by our loving God.

What I am concerned with is the overstatement which some church leaders think is needed in order to convince people that they ought to attend the next event.

Are some churches inadvertently creating an “artificial excitement” and hyping people and events up, believing that necessary way to convince people to attend?

Are we creating a Pavlovian response in the people, in that they feel they need to be excited because the church leaders are excited, and that the next event will be epic? It is almost as if “excitement breeds excitement”, as opposed to “Jesus breeds excitement”.

Please understand that I am all for being excited about the work we do.  I think it is great to read a facebook post from a pastor who is excited to teach a passage, and who is inviting his church to be there.  A shared excitement is not what concerns me.

What does concern me are the “little flies in the ointment”, in which the pastor takes the next step ever so slightly.  Pastoral excitement seamlessly turns into a gentle and/or extreme hyping up of the congregant.  The importance of the next series, or the newest book by the pastor, is treated as a “must see, must have, must do” opportunity that the congregant dare not miss.

We who preach are all about cause and effect.  We want people to be affected for their personal blessing, and for the glory of God.  We want them to be affected for the purposes of the kingdom of God. We want to see people changed.  Are we trusting that Jesus and the Gospel are enough of a “cause” to bring to right affect/effect?

The question we must ask ourselves is this:  Am I ever so slightly using carnal means to accomplish this?  Are the godly intentions and biblical methods that I use, being slightly affected by the “little flies in the ointment”?  Am I planting a mixed crop of godly living which is stirred up by mixed methods and reasoning that nudge the flesh in barely discernable ways?

Are my thoughts subjective and possibly wrong?  Absolutely.  Am I in the place of rightly judging how another pastor reaches people.  That is not my place.  I have my opinions, but I have been wrong many times.

Or, there may be truth is this.

May we who serve Jesus and serve people be ruthless in our self examination of such things.

May we be careful to strain out “the little flies in the ointment”.





Paradigm Shift

[dropcap style=”dropcap3″ color=”black”]L[/dropcap] ast week myself and two of our assistant pastors attended a seminar on “storying” the Bible. For 5 days we we considered both the process and the purpose of such an approach. The interest in such a course is the result of much reading and a growing conviction (especially as a result of the Perspectives on the World Christian Movement course) that, because of high rates of illiteracy, the unreached and unengaged of the world require alternate methods, or means whereby they can discover and harness the truths of scripture. In the process of walking this path, I’ve discovered several things that are potentially paradigm shifting.

Stepping out-of-the-box is difficult.

While not a groundbreaking statement, it does need to be recognized that we have a certain Christian culture that we prefer, and like any cross-cultural experience, this brought a significant level of culture-shock. Within the western evangelical church, we value inductive, expositional Bible study; especially in our Calvary Chapel stream. We’re most comfortable with an open Bible, a pen and a notebook or journal. When the leader of this seminar required that we close our Bibles and put our pens and papers away, I knew I wasn’t at a Calvary event. During our hour+ drive home each of the first three days we found ourselves talking much of our [initial] dislike for this process.

Westerns can benefit too.

It’s a striking statistic, 87% of Americans are preferred oral learners. While only 14% are illiterate (which is higher than many might imagine), it’s the smallest segment of our society (13%) that are highly-literate. This means that a very small demographic of Americans are able to engage in any meaningful self-study of the Bible. I know, it’s difficult for us to believe this, but because most of our church services are geared toward the highly-literate, we have a much larger demographic of the 13% represented on the typical Sunday morning. Is it possible that we’re neglecting a large segment of our society?

Western culture places high value on literacy. In many ways it is considered the key to success. This is certainly seen in the money that developed nations give toward literacy programs, like that which UNESCO has focused on for decades. All such things are definitely good, but the fact remains “The illiterate you will have with you always.” I’m not advocating for any removal of literacy training, but I am thankful that God inspired Paul to write, “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

For the last several years our church has partnered with a ministry that records and distributes audio scriptures for people-groups in highly illiterate nations. They have an ambitious goal of bringing the Word of God in recorded form to the 30 nations of the world with 50% or higher illiteracy rates. As one called to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, I have found myself wondering, “How do we disciple those that are receiving our audio Bibles?” Discipleship is key; Jesus commissioned us to make disciples and apart from it many groups will fall into syncretism. I’m more and more convinced that the answer to my above question is a narrative discipleship method. The reality is, this is not exclusive to third-world developing nations.

While I think that our methods for discipleship are good and should not be discarded, another tool in the toolbox is certainly beneficial. As I mentioned several weeks ago in a previous article, our success as equippers should not only be based on having good Bible students. In considering this method and the fruit of it, I think it has great potential for enabling our congregation to discover and digest significant Biblical truth in a way that they can retain and apply it.

Narrative bible discovery is not emergent

Now I know, “Narrative Theology” and “Bible Storying” are code for Emergent. Be that as it may, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren will not be guest bloggers on CrossConnection any time soon. Perhaps the most enlightening revelation in all of last week’s course was the recognition that, when done correctly this method is actually more textually correct than not. While it may be hard to believe, I was struck by the Biblical accuracy that was maintained in simply telling, retelling and examining the stories for the observations and applications that are found in them. Anytime that someone—in this very interactive, dialogic process—brought forth something that was even the slightest bit “off,” the moderator (i.e. storyteller) would simply say, “Can we find that in the story?” Immediately the group was brought back to the word and it was easily sorted out.

The process was [very] different than what I, as a pastor/teacher, am generally use to. But, as the week went on it became a joy to see God, by His Spirit, direct the discussion and bring forth truths that I did not initially see, although they were right on the surface. While I’m not completely sure just how we will incorporate this into the life of our church, I do know that it will be utilized in some fashion as we move forward.

Further consideration:

Simply the Story
The God Story Project
GCM Collective
National Assessment of Adult Literacy

Ministry Idolatry

Our hearts are idol factories. We all know this to be true. Ever since the fall of Adam and Eve, humanity has been doing its best to value itself outside of God and for its own purposes. Martin Luther was correct in his assessment that if a person gets the first commandment right (having no other gods before Him) then they would not ever transgress the rest of the commandments. All of our sins are rooted in our heart’s predisposition towards idolatry.

This can become increasingly a problem for people who have been called into ministry. Because the human heart is always looking for a way to justify itself outside of Jesus, it is very easy for us to try and find our standing before God in our service. Let me say from the outset, there is a fine line between walking out our callings and having ministry idolatry. Only God knows the intricacies of the human heart. So please do not think that I think that I know the motivations of another’s heart. I do not and realize (more and more each day) that before his own master a servant stands or falls. There are too many people writing in the comments sections of internet sites that think that they can speak about the motivations of another’s heart. I do not wish to add myself to that cacophonous chorus. But I do want to address a very present struggle that is at work within the heart’s of every minister.

For many of us, we struggle with finding our full identity in Christ alone. There is something glorious about being used by God to bless the world in the name of Jesus. But it is very easy to find our identity in our ministry rather than in Jesus alone. I believe that this is why so many cannot imagine their spiritual lives outside of the work that they do for Jesus. I often ask myself, “How would I do if God asked me to leave the pastoral ministry? Would I be bored? Would I like going to church? Would I feel a void?” By asking these questions, I have found that my heart finds its value in a million things other than Jesus. Looking back over my past as a Christian, I have found my heart exalting “being a Christian”, “being on the worship team”, “being an elder”, being an assistant pastor”, “being a church planter”, “being a part of a specific movement”, “being a conference speaker”, “being an author”, and on and on ad nauseum. Do you see how this goes?

Ministry idolatry is a way to allow our service of God to keep us from actually relating with God. We can be incredibly busy and effective but yet really not relate with God at all. We allow our service for Him to define us rather than allow Him to define us for us. Anything that we value ourselves by or whatever our allegiance is outside of the person and work of Jesus, that is idolatry. So let us ask the Spirit of God to expose our heart idolatry!

Soteriology in the Middle (Part II)

“…He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”[1]


In my last post I said that in following posts we’d be taking a look at what I’d call a “moderate” and more biblical perspective on Soteriology in contrast to the classic Calvinistic and Arminian systems of Soteriology.  Specifically in this post we will be talking about regeneration- the new birth.  The Bible is very clear that the person who is truly a child of God,[2] accepted and forgiven for their sins in light of the atonement of the cross of Christ being applied to them through faith is born-again.  The Holy Spirit has come to indwell them[3] and sealed them for the day of redemption.[4] He has made them a new person spiritually speaking.[5]

But how does the new birth come about in a person’s life?  That is really the question that is before us.  Do people have enough good left in them in their fallen state to simply make a decision to trust in Christ when presented with the gospel message apart from any divine enablement to do so as Pelagians teach?  Is a person born-again in a moment in time because by exercise of their own free-will they put their faith in Jesus’ work performed in their behalf on the cross as Arminians would contend?  Does God sovereignly make people born-again before they exercise or express faith in Jesus as Calvinists would say?  Or is there another way in the midst of these approaches to answering this question that gives the best account for the most biblical passages that deal with the issue at hand?


Arminianism and Calvinism on Depravity

Pelagianism is generally rejected by orthodox Christians. So we won’t specifically deal with that system of thought in this post other than to say up front that what is often flippantly termed “Arminianism” today is truly Pelagianism when you consider primary manuscripts written by the architects and proponents of these systems.  So let’s shift our focus to the Arminian and Calvinistic answers to our question.  We will start by stating the Arminian and Calvinistic views of the depravity of mankind.  The Arminian position (or Remonstrance if you like) was originally articulated by Jacobus Arminius (16th-17th Century).  Arminius taught in regard to human depravity that “In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.”

To be fare, I did not represent the Calvinists as well as I could have in my descriptions of some of the five points in my last post.  Some dear and close Calvinist friends pointed these spots out to me in regard to my last post and I want to remedy those mistakes here lest I inadvertently create a straw man to argue against in dealing with these subjects.  So in putting forth the Calvinistic view of the depravity of man (a view not drastically different from Arminius’ own view described above) allow me to quote from a classic Calvinist confession on the subject- the London Baptist Confession of 1689:

“As the consequence of his fall into a state of sin, man has lost all ability to will the performance of any of those works, spiritually good, that accompany salvation.  As a natural (unspiritual) man he is dead in sin and altogether opposed to that which is good.  Hence he is not able, by any strength of his own, to turn himself to God, or even to prepare himself to turn to God.”[6]

What both of the above views have in common is that they agree on what we would theologically call Total Inability.  The idea is that due to the fall of mankind human beings cannot, will not, and do not desire to trust in Jesus for their salvation apart from God liberating them from their bondage to sin and enabling them to do so.


Scriptural Affirmations of Total Inability

Both classic Arminianism and Classic Calvinism affirm Total Inability because Scripture itself does so.  Consider the following verses:

John 6:44- “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 Romans 8:7-9: “Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.”

 1 Corinthians 2:14: “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.”


God Must do Something

Most orthodox believers agree in light of verses like those above that there is a spiritual blinding[7] and/or deadness[8] that must be illuminated[9] or reversed through spiritual resurrection which must take place to enable a sinner to trust in Christ.  Again, the question is what is that work that God does to bring about the ability of a person to trust in Jesus and believe the biblical gospel?  Arminians believe God has universally granted the ability of all individuals to choose Christ by restoring their originally God-given free will through Prevenient Grace.  The doctrine of Prevenient Grace is defined well by the Church of the Nazarene:

“…through the fall of Adam they (Humans) became depraved so that they cannot now turn and prepare themselves by their own natural strength and works to faith and calling upon God. But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.”[10]

Calvinists have a different explanation of the work that God does to enable faith in the life of the sinner.  They infer from verses that teach Total Inability that the work God does to produce the possibility of faith in the elect is the work of new birth (regeneration), though in truth verses describing Total Inability do not explicitly say this is so or demand such a conclusion.  They contend that regeneration precedes faith.  This is a logical inference they term as a logical necessity based on their view of Total Depravity.  As noted in my last post on Soteriology R.C. Sproul states the Calvinist view that regeneration precedes faith this way: “We do not believe in order to be born-again.  We are born-again in order to believe.”[11]

Let us be clear that if a person is born-again before they exercise or express faith in Jesus that they are saved before they exercise or express faith in Jesus.  In saying they are “saved” I do not mean that they have experienced every dynamic of biblical salvation at the moment of regeneration.  For example I understand that glorification is part of the wider biblical theology of salvation and that no Calvinist would claim a person is glorified at the moment of regeneration.  None-the-less, God Himself equates the work of regeneration with being a literal work of salvation in the person who experiences the new birth.  Consider the following statement of God in Holy Scripture:

“…He saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.”[12]

Some Calvinists understanding of the weight of stating that a person is “saved” before they exercise or express faith in Jesus because of God’s secret work of regeneration in their hearts causes them to prefer that their position not be characterized this way.  But as shown from scripture above this would necessarily be the unavoidable reality if regeneration does indeed precede faith.  Even the great preacher and committed Calvinist C.H. Surgeon acknowledged that when people are regenerated they are saved.  In his sermon Warrant of Faith he conceded, “…man, being regenerated, is saved already, and it is an unnecessary and ridiculous thing for me to preach Christ to him, and bid him believe in order to be saved when he is saved already, being regenerate.”[13] But we are saved “thru regeneration” according to the Holy Spirit inspired Apostle Paul.  If advocates of the idea that regeneration precedes faith don’t like to be characterized as believing a person is saved before they exercise or express faith, it is their position that must be abandoned and not the characterization of their position by those who articulate it scripturally.


What Does God Do?

I am in the moderate middle on the exact work that God does to enable sinners to put their faith in Jesus for salvation.  I am not Pelagian because I believe in Total Inability.  I am not Classically Arminian because I do not believe that mankind is automatically and universally in a state of Prevenient Grace due to the merits of Christ on the cross and therefore able to make a free-will decision to trust in Jesus at any given time.  I am not a Five Point Calvinist because I don’t believe the work that must be done on behalf of sinners to enable them to come to faith is the work of regeneration.  I am somewhere in the midst of each of these views.

Stated positively, I believe that all people are totally depraved and as such are in a state of Total Inability when it comes to desiring or being able to actually choose to respond to the gospel message in faith.  I believe that God sovereignly works in the hearts of people to bring them to a place where they understand their need to trust in Christ and understand that Jesus is the solution to their sin.  I believe that upon bringing them to this place of understanding those who are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”[14] are effectively brought to faith in the gospel and repentance through the convicting and enabling work of the Holy Spirit.[15] When the sinner enabled by God heeds the command of the gospel in faith they are regenerated through faith as scripture declares, and born-again.[16]

Soteriological Moderates (which I consider myself) are able to affirm verses on Total Inability while not twisting sequential verses which describe the order of events at salvation and demonstrate that faith is the vehicle that brings regeneration into a sinner’s life, not the result of regeneration.  A handful of verses that clearly demonstrate that faith precedes regeneration would include:

Ephesians 1:13-14: “In Him you also [trusted], after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.”

According to Paul the order of salvation goes like this: A person hears the gospel.  Next, they believe the gospel.  Lastly, having believed the gospel they heard they are sealed with the Holy Spirit.  They hear, they believe, they receive the sealing of the Spirit.  A Calvinist ordering of this might say they hear, they receive the Spirit, they believe.  That is not what the verse states.

Galatians 3:2; 14c: “This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?… we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”

Again, reception of the Spirit is through faith.  Faith is not the result of involuntarily being born-again through a secret work of God in the heart.

John 20:30-31: “And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

The Apostle John, a teacher of Total Inability in John 6:44, found room in his understanding of Total Inability to believe that faith still precedes new life (regeneration).  He compiled the massive account of Jesus’ life and miracles found in the Gospel of John so that his readers might believe that Jesus is the “Christ, the Son of God,” and that “believing” they may have life in His name.  Note that new life through Jesus comes to a person after or through believing according to John.  Again, a Calvinist rendering of this would say something like, “I write of these works of Jesus that God might give you spiritual life so that you can believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.”  Again, this is not what scripture says.

What I’ve chosen to call illumination (2 Cor. 4:6) must remove the hindrance of Total Inability so a person can put their faith in the gospel to be born-again.  Some kind of illumination must precede faith so that we can believe.  But these sequential verses demonstrate clearly, and I believe irrefutably, that faith precedes regeneration.  Such a picture is portrayed in Acts 16:14:

“Now a certain woman named Lydia heard [us]. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”

At the moment of this woman’s conversion “the Lord opened her heart” to enable her to believe the gospel Paul was preaching.  Upon opening her heart she was able to “heed” or respond to the gospel Paul preached.


Nagging Questions

A defining moment in my position on the order of salvation came when I began to think about how Old Testament saints were saved, or counted righteous before God.  Most evangelicals believe that the gift of regeneration is a special work of God which He performs in His people during the New Testament age alone.  If the Calvinist is right and regeneration must occur in a person’s life before they can exercise saving faith in the gospel, how is it that Abraham “believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness” if he was never regenerated?[17]  To be clear, Scripture tells us that the thing Abraham “believed” (or put his faith in) so as to be accounted righteous before God is nothing less than the Gospel!

Galatians 3:8-9: And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, [saying], “In you all the nations shall be blessed. So then those who [are] of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.”

Indeed it is not only Abraham who was able to respond to God’s promises in faith apart from being regenerated, but Hebrews chapter eleven lists a mountain of Old Testament (and therefore unregenerate) saints who somehow were able to believe in the promises of God looking forward to the cross in a saving way.

So here’s the issue: I believe that Abraham was in a state of Total Inability.  I believe that I (in the New Testament age) am in a state of Total Inability.  God did something in Abraham that was effective and sufficient to enable him to have saving “faith” in the promises of God that was not regeneration!  And yet, though I am no more dead in my sin than Abraham, the Calvinist would tell me that I must be regenerated or I cannot exercise or express faith in the gospel.  Am I to conclude that Abraham was less bound by Total Inability than I am?  Or am I to conclude that I am dead spiritually to a more intense degree than Abraham?  This is inconsistent and contradictory and devastating to the idea that regeneration must precede faith.

When I’ve asked the question of how Old Testament saints were able to exercise faith apart from regeneration to advocates of the doctrine that regeneration precedes faith I have yet to see them answer how this can be.  They end up affirming the moderate position by saying things like, “Well clearly God had to do something even though it wasn’t regeneration.”  To which I say, ABSOLUTELY!  And I would contend that it is the same thing He does to enable people to come to saving faith today.  He works in us to enable the response of faith to the gospel.  Upon our response of faith to the gospel we are born-again.  Call that work of enablement what you will.  I’ve chosen to call it illumination.  What’s clear is that while a sovereign work of divine enablement must precede faith, faith most certainly precedes regeneration.  Until next time…

[1] Titus 3:5b NKJV

[2] Romans 8:14-17

[3] 1 Corinthians 6:19

[4] Ephesians 1:13

[5] 2 Corinthians 5:17

[6] A Faith to Confess: The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689

[7] 2 Corinthians 4:4-6

[8] Ephesians 2:1-3

[9] John 12:32; 16:7-11; Acts 16:14

[10] Nazarene Manual. 2005-2009

[11] Sproul, R.C. Chosen by God. Page 73.

[12] Titus 3:5b Emphasis Added

[13] Spurgeon, C.H. Warrant of Faith

[14] 1 Peter 1:2 NKJV

[15] John 16:7-11;

[16] Acts 16:14 NKJV

[17] Genesis 15 6 quoted in Galatians 3:6 NKJV


Back in July of 2006, I did something I could not have imagined myself ever doing. I went on a cruise. We sailed out of Port Canaveral in Florida, and then headed down to Cozumel, MX, then on to Belize City, then over to Costa Maya in MX, then to Nassau in the Bahamas. It was a decadent experience, but it was fun. But I have to say I was glad to return to the world of routine and service to the Lord, free from the buffet lines of a cruise ship. I got very full. Way too full.

What can be gained from a time like that? Well for one, learning how to properly rest is a very important thing. In our frenetic, fast-paced society, we have far too little real rest. Rest is recuperation. Rest is revitalization. Rest is restorative. Rest provides perspective. Rest is a regrouping process. Rest is therapeutic. Rest is the non-activity or activity that accomplishes these ends. Rest can even include the absence of noise.

Many times in the past—when on vacation—I scurried around thinking that I needed to get in as much “fun” as possible. Driving here and there, doing this or that, I’d oftentimes have to come home and rest from my “rest.”

Consider the best Biblical definition or description of rest that I’ve been able to find in the Bible:

For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. (Hebrews 4:10)

That’s it! In the context of Hebrews, God is talking about the ability to stop trying to earn God’s favor. It’s the cessation of works which we think are meritorious (i.e., that “earn” our grace). Biblical rest is trusting wholly in Jesus Christ, and in what He has accomplished for us in His death, burial, resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and High Priestly ministry. It is the utter reliance upon God, with nothing coming from ourselves as a source of rightness or wholeness with God.

Taking that principle in the direction of how we should go about this business of resting, the implication is that we stop trying to do. We just are. We end our own efforts and we just settle down into a state of solitude, into a posture of peace. We trust God, knowing that it’s His will that we get restored, healed, rejuvenated, etc.

How much rest do we need? Well, the Bible teaches that a weekly dose is the minimum. One day a week. But then there are other periodic opportunities we can also take advantage of during any given year. Vacations, longer weekends, just about any time that God gives us.

As we remember rest’s purposes—and as we focus on and trust in the Lord to fulfill those purposes in our lives—we’ll be strengthened for the battles and ministry ahead of us. This is the time to serve the Lord! We need all the strength we can get. There are six other days in each week in which fellowship with God, life, service, family, struggles, trials, joys, and sorrows take place.

I’m trying to learn how to live in the moment. Trying to learn how to “be” where I am. Trying to learn to soak in the power and grace of God Himself. Trying to not have to be accomplishing something all of the time.

I must be making some progress … the other day after a busy morning at church I found myself in the kitchen with my wife. Nothing was on the immediate schedule, and I was able to just chill out. I was resting. I liked it.

Know Him and make Him known…updating the GPS

I’m one of those people that appreciates, enjoys, and openly declares the value of a good motto or slogan.  I’m always on the look out for not only a “catchy” motto or slogan, but one that also truly represents how that organization actually operates on day to day basis in the real world.

Many churches use a slogan or a phrase or two to express their vision and I’m all good with that.  In fact, I’ve learned that the process necessary for the leadership of a church to create and then adopt and begin promoting a motto/slogan is incredibly healthy and I highly recommend it.

Of all the slogans for various ministries that I’ve heard, my favorite has always been the one for YWAM.  I’m fairly sure Loren Cunningham didn’t invent it, that he probably heard it from someone else, but for more than 50 years, YWAM’s catchphrase has been to:  To know God and to make Him known! 

For years, I thought that you just couldn’t get much simpler or clearer than that.  That statement, in my opinion, is pretty much the GPS that every believer, not just a Christian organization, should be navigating life by.  I don’t really think it needs to be messed with…..but……I’ve come to the conclusion that another few words might be helpful to add.

The few words that I would add are the result of some of the things I’ve learned in our ministry to refugees here in Phoenix, talks with my youngest daughter and her friends and other 25 and under people that I know here in Phoenix and that younger generation that I’ve read about in various books about ministry to them.

The common theme among the people I just mentioned is that they are looking at people that claim to follow Jesus and measuring whether they want to know more, NOT by what those Jesus followers say about God but by how much those Jesus followers are willing to divulge about who they themselves really are in a meaningful relationship/friendship.  In other words, transparency, vulnerability, authenticity, and honesty, are what these people desire to see and hear from us before they choose to give any validity to our message.

So, here’s how I personally have updated YWAM’s slogan for myself:  I exist to glorify God by Knowing Him and making Him known by opening myself up to be known.  In other words:  To know God and make Him known…by letting myself be known.

Letting yourself be known isn’t comfortable, isn’t accomplished in a few minutes, and is always humbling.  But it’s worth it.  Our God let Himself be known through His Son…not only by the words His Son spoke, but the day in, day out living of life.  Our Lord was transparent, vulnerable, authentic, and honest in day to day life and all those He interacted with in that life.  He knew God and made God known by letting Himself be known.

And one last thought.  If this is crucial in our interaction with those who don’t know Him, how much more crucial is it for us to be that way with those who do know Him?  We may be all of those things in the pulpit, with our words and stories, but are we that way with our church leaders and our church members?  If we’re only that way in the pulpit, but won’t live that way in real relationship with staff, leaders, or church members, how effectively are we really making Him known?