pause

As evident in the lack of posts... I will be taking a brief blog hiatus in order to focus on some educational projects (i.e. classes) I am working on. Will resume in late Spring!

true ministry

Somewhere we must learn to be ministers of a true ministry, one that is characterized by "prayer and the ministry of the word (Acts 6:4)."

However, this is not always an easy task, for we often fall out of balance in this endeavor. We often become so preoccupied with our scholarship, wisdom and programs that we fail to remember the power of prayer in our ministries. We fail to remember we must minister out of who we are and what God is teaching us, rather than relying on our external competencies. We fail to remember it is all about God's power, rather than our abilities demonstrated in some strange blend of eloquence, storytelling and explanation, which so often veils His very Gospel (2 Cor. 2).

But then, when we recognize that the Word of God is "spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:14)," we often get so obsessed with the spiritual that we forget the importance right doctrine has. We soon become mystics, seeking an overt spiritual experience that often places our subjective reception of what we think God wants us to know over what His Word plainly teaches.

How do we work through this? Psalm 119:17-18 seems to demonstrate a balance of knowledge, prayer and obedience quite well:

Deal bountifully with Your servant,
That I may live and keep Your word.
Open my eyes, that I may see
Wondrous things from Your law (nkjv).

kingdom summary

There is still not an absolute consensus on what the kingdom of God is, and what it isn't, but I prefer leaning toward the oft considered outdated kingdom view 1 (reread that post). It is necessary; however, that we as believers are free to discuss and engage these issues without seeming divisive in any way. There is only good when, as the Bereans, believers are free to discuss and disagree.

Here are some conclusions about the kingdom of God, especially in light of Jesus Christ:

1. Though it is generally understood that there is a spiritual, universal element of God's kingdom reign in the here and now, and for all eternity, and that Christ presently reigns in our hearts as the Church, there appears to be a very distinct manifestation of Christ coming in His kingdom, which is yet future. A plain reading of scripture does not seem to allow for blurring of this age, and the age to come (Matt. 12:32), or a present physical manifestation of Christ as already fulfilling the Davidic throne. Passages such as Dan. 7:13-14 and Matt. 25:31 seem to confirm a stronger "not yet" than the "already/not yet" paradigm seems to allow:


"I kept looking in the night visions,
And behold, with the clouds of heaven
One like a Son of Man was coming,
And He came up to the Ancient of Days
And was presented before Him.
¹⁴"And to Him was given dominion,
Glory and a kingdom,
That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
Might serve Him
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
Which will not pass away;
And His kingdom is one
Which will not be destroyed (NASB)."

And

"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him,
then He will sit on His glorious throne (NASB). "

Further, the book of Hebrews (Heb. 10:12, etc.) plainly understood see Christ at the right hand of the Father, rather than being seated at the Messianic throne of David. Only a slightly spiritualized reading would see anything other than this.

2. A plain reading of the many promise passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, such as Ezekiel 36:28:

"You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My
people, and I will be your God (NASB)."

and the fact that Jesus did NOT rebuke His followers for seeking the kingdom to be restored to Israel, but He did rebuke them for seeking a time line:

^"Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” ⁷ And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority (Acts. 1:6-7 NKJV)."

...demonstrates a very Jewish nature of Christ's future, physical millennial kingdom (Rev. 20).

3. The debate on social action, such as obediently taking care of widows and orphans (Jas. 1:27), is not affected in any way whether the kingdom is "already" or "not yet" (notice Jas. 2:5 might be using future language of the kingdom). Thoughtful believers recognize the essential obedience of these acts regardless of their view on the kingdom. The fallacy that those who stress the "not yet" do not partake in social acts is absurd... they just avoid vehemently the "Social Gospel" movement.

4. Defeat of the supernatural - The book of Hebrews sees the realized defeat of the enemies of God, a key peice of inaugurated eschatology, as yet future:

" Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him (Heb. 2:8 AV)."

Other questions have been asked during these last few posts concerning abuses of the already/not yet paradigm as historically laid out by Goerge Eldon Ladd. These questions may be valuable for some to discuss as it affects our theology and practice. Further, the question still arises as to what our mission is as church communities. Is it the Great Commission, or is it the "other" commissions? Were the "other" commissions given to the church, Israel, the seventy, etc.? What about our statement of faith? Is it a valuable statement of accountability? If so, how does that bear on our views of the kingdom?

kingdom part 3 (view 2)

This second view of the kingdom is probably the most prominent current view among Grace Brethren, and is a little more challenging to summarize, in that broad variations of this view are found in many circles (progressive dispensationalism including some forms of pre-trib thinking, historic covenantal premillennialism, some covenantal thinkers, many charismatics, etc...)

Emphases: This view differs from the first view in that it attempts to streamline the kingdom of God and Christ's kingdom. Rather than seeing two unique aspects of the kingdom, proponents of this view see the kingdom as progressively being unfolded in phases, ultimately being fulfilled or consummated after Christ returns.

This view teaches the kingdom of God is initially and presently, but partially being manifested in this age with the Church, with Christ presently fulfilling prophesies to David of having one sitting on the Davidic throne (2 Sam. 7) as present King of the Kingdom. Thus an already/not yet tension of the manifestation of God's kingdom is created, rather than waiting for Christ's fulfillment of these and other prophesies until the future millennium (Rev. 20).

Likewise, this view sees eschatology (the study of last and consummated things) to be partially fulfilled on earth beginning with Christ's first coming, thus it is explained as an "inaugurated eschatology." Some holding this view still maintain some distinction between God's covenant people Israel and His people the Church; and, some maintain some form of a Jewish sense to Christ's consummation of the kingdom when He returns, but this is generally softened as the kingdom is viewed as already being manifested.

Application of the Gospel:

Many proponents of this view agree with those of the first view that the Gospel is focused on individual redemption, yet this view focuses strongly that those who receive the Gospel are kingdom citizens with a King victorious over the supernatural. This emphasizes believers who are to live out kingdom ethics and who are to manifest the power of Christ in their lives.

Thus, social action is often seen as kingdom acts, rather than just simply obedient responses. This view avoids the extremes of social Gospel and pursuit of perfect health and wealth; however, in that it maintains the "not yet" tension with the inaugurated "already." Some in this view see the dominion mandate in Gen. 1:28 as applicable (despite the fall) and believe a fuller Gospel message of creation redemption should be taught.

Questions: Is this view biblical? Some have concerns that this view is less allowing of the pre-tribulation view in our statement of faith. Is that true? Some are concerned that many extreme dominionists and extreme charismatics have used this view to defend power evangelism and christian theocracy and redemption, yet more conservative proponents of this view disagree. What do you think?

kingdom part 2

Here is the first view of a couple of views of the kingdom. Keep in mind these couple of posts may, over-analyze, over-word, over-simplify and generalize at times :)

Emphases: Common among earlier Grace Brethren, this first view sees two aspects or phases of the kingdom. One aspect being the kingdom as God's universal and sovereign reign over all things, including His rule in our lives and hearts. The other aspect is God's kingdom manifested on earth among men, usually set up with a mediator/king physically and spiritually ruling, which will specifically be fulfilled in Jesus' future reign on earth.

Thus, this view sees Jesus as presently sitting on the right hand of the father in God's universal reign (Heb. 10:12), while Christ's future reign as king of the kingdom is messianic, millennial, earthly and future, preserving the distinction of "this age and the age to come." It sees Christ as not yet fulfilling promises to David ( 2 Sam. 7) of having one sitting on the Davidic throne (fulfilling the earthly kingdom theme present in the O.T.) until that future millennial kingdom found in Rev. 20.

Those who hold this view tend to focus the eschatology (the study of last and consummated things) of Christ's reign primarily with Christ's coming again (the first phase of His future coming to catch up His church, the latter phase of His future coming for judgment), and do NOT tend to see these last things inaugurated or realized primarily in Christ's first coming on earth. This view also preserves a firm distinction between God's people Israel, and God's people the church, and sees the kingdom on earth having a very Jewish sense.

Application of the Gospel: Those who hold this view, like many others, believe the gospel message is primarily for individual redemption, and awaits the redemption of creation later (Acts. 3:20-21, Rom. 8:18-25), rather than striving for a sort of "fuller gospel" now.

Further, contrary to common inaccurate caricatures, this view fully allows and encourages social action, such as taking care of the poor and widows, even caring for the environment, but it sees these things as obedient responses to God's grace, like any other act of obedience, rather than being kingdom acts. Consequently, preaching the gospel of Christ crucified for sinners takes precedence, with acts of obedience being confirmation of that gospel.

Questions: Is this view Biblical? Is this view reflected in our statement of faith? Is a pre-tribulation rapture Biblical (first aspect of His future coming)? What about the kingdom implications? What about social action issues?

kingdom part 1

There are at least two main views of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven in our fellowship of churches (FGBC) that can be described briefly for sake of discussion as the traditional view of Grace Brethren as well as many conservative non-reformed baptists, etc. (dispensational premillenial) and the more current (and probably more popular) inaugurated view (most progressive dispensationalists / some reformed / many modern historical premilleniallists, many charismatics, etc.).

I will put a few posts discussing these views in the next week or so, but, for anyone interested in thinking through this topic, there are a couple of resources that might be helpful. One is Alva McClain's "The Greatness of the Kingdom" promoting the first view we will look at. The second is Russell D. Moore's "The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective." a conservative Southern Baptist promoting the second view that will be discussed.

Questions for thought: Since these next couple of posts deal with "non-essential" issues for faith in Christ and adherence to Christianity, does that mean the topic of the Kingdom is unimportant? Also, though we are not a "creedal people," should our statement of faith and tradition have any bearing on our views?

community

originally posted April 10, 2007

The word community is popular among people of faith. It signifies a common identity, a common purpose. People, living together in harmony and peace, sharing their lives and dreams together.

One may venture into the Holy Scripture and see such demonstrations of community as early Christians “… began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need (Acts 2:45 NASB). “

People were taken care of. Their needs were met. But is this all?

To understand what community should be, you must understand the purpose of it. Its purpose is not to become a binding interpretive authority over Scripture. It is not to bring peace on earth. It is not just to meet superficial needs. It is to build up Christian people in the faith under the headship of Christ, for

“we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love (Eph. 4:15-16 NASB).”

Let us build each other up, help each other grow and work together in unity under the headship of Christ, where true community lives.

Lectio Divina

It seems that the phrase or practice "Lectio Divina" is gaining ground among many evangelical Christians in recent times. I personally became more acquainted with this practice while working in Public Relations at a library in Indiana, about 4 years ago, by a former Church of the Brethren (not Grace Brethren) women turned Catholic. She described it eloquently as the ruminating prayer of a word or phrase in Scripture until it settles down within you and becomes part of you; then God becomes part of you.

Is this definition accurate? If so, is this practice Biblical? Just recently while looking for adult Sunday school concepts, I stumbled across (incidentally this stumble became the motivator for this post) a Baptist article favorable to the practice of Lectio Divina that confirmed the common knowledge that this is an ancient catholic practice preserved through the ages, and he suggested that it is a form of spiritual reading in which the goal is transformation, not information. He too confirmed the blessings of letting even one word resonate in the heart, "savoring each word" and letting it "ruminate" in your mouth. He suggests that each reader and prayer "listen for the word or phrase that is most ‘alive’ to you." He goes on to suggest that one allow God to speak through that word, paying attention to the images and feelings that word brings.

This focus on words isolated from context being used to receive revelation from God has spurred many to claim the practice as Catholic at best and Eastern Mysticism at worst, yet, in spite of these uses, many others claim that there is nothing wrong with the practice, that it is not mystical in any way or form, and it is not to be limited to one word or phrase. They also claim that it is merely a way to be transformed and not "modernist" in one's approach to Scripture... that it is a way of "meditation" that is purely Biblical, and any connection to Eastern thought is by way of the fact that at least the Biblical writers were merely an ancient Eastern Oriental (not Oriental in its modern usage) people.

So let us consider what meditation is in the Scriptures. Consider the quotes below:

I will meditate on Your precepts,
And contemplate Your ways (Ps. 119:15 nkjv)."

But his delight is in the law of the LORD,
And in His law he meditates day and night (Ps. 1:2 nkjv)."

In these quotes there seems to be a focus not on isolated words or thoughts, yet on the very ways and laws of God, which would have, history attests, in the ancient Hebrew mind required a lifetime of devoted study with the mind. So it is quite possible if not certain that if Lectio Divina is attributed to a Catholic practice of the rumination of one isolated word regardless of context and informative pursuit, and if this appeals and is not inconsistent with the Eastern mystical practice of emptying the mind, then the practice, regardless of how it is done, by name quickly becomes a distraction to a true Biblical meditation.

The response.

Why not choose to forsake the ancient practices of religious Christians who we share very little similarity with (namely, the practice of Lectio Divina and the use of its name), and take on the practices of thoughtful and studious meditation which was the practice of the Ancient Hebrew people God used to bring us His Word, and let that in depth study of His Word become a basis for our Transformation in Him.

Blog

I have decided that it is time to merge my two blogs, going from the general to the more specific. Those very few (5 or 6) people who have paid attention to my theology blog will be most satisfied at my change of approach :) My goal will remain; however, general in that I will speak on issues, rather than personalities.

Cultural Mandate and Premillenial Theology

originally posted on another blog 30 June 2009

The term "Cultural Mandate," often associated with leaders such at Chuck Colson and the late D. James Kennedy1 , is vastly becoming a topic of discussion among all Christians of various theological persuasions. In short its very concept and exhortation is that we are to redeem both creation and culture for the Lord, creating transformational pieces of scholarship, art and cultural communication; and it seems to be argued based on the reformed doctrine of common grace, coupled with the command given to Adam found in Gen. 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth (nkjv)." In addition, it finds its reasoning in the many commands in Scripture to take care of the widows and orphans (a careful study of who these widows and orphans were may be in order).

So, the question arises: Is this reformed and slightly dominionist leaning concept consistent with traditional premillenial theology (even historical premillenialism)? Probably not. Though Israel was and we today are commanded to consider and care for the orphans and widows (Jas. 1:27), there is no question the overall sense of the Gospel is christ Crucified for our individual sins (Eph. 2), which leads as a result love for the saints (Col. 1:4). And though the Bible speaks of reconciliation of creation through Christ's sacrifice (Col. 1:20), this reconciliation is merely a repositioning, for the redemption does NOT come until Christ's kingdom, the new heaven and earth and our glorification - all of which will NOT come before Christ's return (Rom. 8:18-30, 2 Pet. 3).

Further, in Hebrews 2:5-8 (esp. note v. 8) we have a clear indication, based on the Messianic and eschatological context of the preceding chapter and relevant Psalm quotes, that the subjection of creation will not be realized until His coming again in His kingdom.

Application? Should we care for the environment? Yes, out of a mode of stewardship. Should we care for widows and orphans? Yes, out of heart of love tranformed by God's grace. Should we do good things to our enemies, and show good to our culture? Yes, as a way to live out the spiritual kingdom implications of God's sovereign rule in our hearts now, while we wait for the redemption of culture after He returns.

endnote:
1. (www.coralridge.org, "Dr. Kennedy’s energetic commitment to both evangelism and cultural renewal is demonstrated by four organizations he founded: Coral Ridge Ministries, Evangelism Explosion International, Knox Theological Seminary, and Westminster Academy."

Yeshiva

originally posted 26 February 2009

Traditionally, the method of learning for Jewish men from the time of Christ until as recent as the late 1800's followed in a very general sense the yeshiva model. It symbolizes (and in some cases still is) a next step beyond domestic education, a place where young men would learn specifically the Torah, but eventually also the Talmud (Rabbinic interpretation after the time of Christ-Messiah during the early Christian Era), the entire Tanakh (the Torah-Law, the Neviim-Prophets, and the Ketuvim-Writings) and various Midrash (commentary) as well.

The brightest and most promising of students would eventually move beyond the "school" and train directly under a local Rabbi in a type of apprenticeship. Eventually many would become ordained Scholars by the local Rabbi (s) after suitable competence was achieved, rather than a prescribed set of courses. The yeshiva model (especially for youth) was generally under the leadership of a local teacher, as the school was an extension of the local synagogue, continuing as the Jews went back into Diaspora (dispersion).

The underlying concept of the Jewish educational system at large involved Rabbinic oversight and mentoring - local community training - with students literally sitting at the feet of scholars (Ac. 22:3), engaging in local class or local small group interactive learning and practice. For the Jew, Knowledge and Service went hand in hand, as the study of the Law has always been the highest of all prizes, never (for the noble-minded) engaged in to prepare for a profession or money building enterprise, but for the sake of learning the wisdom of God and teaching others alone.

Their studies, did; however, differ from other Eastern philosophical paradigms in that their focus was not mystical or extremely Pietist in seeking an overtly experiential or existential system, much like Jewish Kabbalah, as many modern commentators claim. Rather, a mere balance of simple knowing and serving was sought.

This begs the question: In searching out the Hebraic roots of Christianity, should this affect modern Christian practice and discipleship (learning), even to the extent of leadership training? I believe it should, considering that Jesus, the apostles, and the early followers of Jesus were all Jewish, and they modeled (though unofficially) this form of grassroots local congregation type training, leading us to consider the impact on modern discipleship paradigms used today.

For, so many rely solely on distant Colleges, Universities or Seminaries to provide the framework for theological understanding and leadership training, rather than finding learning and discipleship in their local communities. This leads to a disastrously high number of under-prepared and easily swayed minds attempting to shepherd congregations, having been unintentionally swayed to various theological interpretations and convenient novel ideas by professors and scholars unaware of the relative lack of understanding these young (or seasoned) believers really hold.

Does this mean that local fellowship based studies, if modeled after Jewish tradition, should replace academic higher learning? Not at all, but it should develop a level of training, wisdom and even scholarship among youth and adults that will allow for traditional (a relative term) college and seminary education to become a capstone of one's learning, rather than the foundation.

Psychology, Sociology or Theology?

originally posted 09 October 2008

All theological movements within Christianity are reactionary to some degree, but many recent movements seem to react far more against abuses of people, than abuses of doctrine, making sociology the authority, rather than truth.

These prevalent sociological themes and ideas in many current movements are summarized in popular works such "They Like Jesus but not the Church," by Dan Kimball, "Blue Like Jazz," by Donald Miller and "Everything Must Change," by Brian McLaren.

Now, many valid questions are being raised as to whether the church of the last couple of centuries have adequately lived out their faith, but does it warrant the type of reformation emotional response that is apparent today? Is a complete reworking of the traditional church necessary, filled with rhetoric of frustration? Is the traditional Church needing the same level of reworking as the Catholic church in the days of Luther, Knox and Calvin? Or, is the answer much simpler.

Why have some, such as A.W. Tozer, been able to differentiate between the current praxis of believers versus the praxis outlined in the Bible, without using consistent language of redefinition?

Why are some able to maintain some of the organization the Bible commends, but recognize important shepherding and nurturing still needing to take place, while others in these new movements communicate in extreme "change rhetoric," giving up on the traditional church altogether?

The issue and cause: An emotional response. I believe this is truly the dividing line. Many following some of the newer movements have not been legitimately cared for, have not legitimately healed from past or present wounds, and thus, have not felt comfortable re-acculturating back into the church life they grew up in. Not having their needs met, they have turned to ancient Catholic and Eastern Orthodox experiential rites, rather than leaning on Scripture alone to aid in gaining guidance from the Holy Spirit. It is a spiritual issue of counseling in which these believers need to be walked through their emotional response and find a standard (scripture) in which to proceed from.

On the contrary, many writers who have experienced healing, have been able to lay their church practice alongside scripture, have been able to maintain the historic orthodox doctrines of the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture (yes this is historic), salvation by grace through faith, the atonement, the tri-unity of God, the virgin birth, the second coming, the eternal punishment of the lost and the eternal hope of the redeemed. And, they have been able to lay all their beliefs alongside a plain sacred text. How?

An answer: The all powerful God, using His Spirit, humble shepherds and faithful believers confidently speaking the truth of the word of God, while living the timeless principles out entirely, and loving their fellow brethren. This was lived out by many in the reformation, many in the Anabaptist movement, and many in fundamentalist and conservative evangelical circles today.

Where do we go from here: We take a few steps back, recognize the causes of dysfunction and disillusionment, and work within our imperfect but holy church communities spreading the gospel and equipping others, preaching the whole counsel of God and guarding in love the church from false doctrine, without railing insults on those who have gone before us.

"And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears (Acts 20:25-31 nkjv)."

Expository reading, the Bible and the human mind

originally posted 26 September 2008

Psychologists, literary scholars and educators have all written and discussed on the importance of expository reading. Generally speaking, this is understood as reading for meaning, and is linked to the ability one has in reading documentation written for knowledge and understanding. It is the transfer of meaning, through reading, from a written source to the human mind.

In recent years, some theologians and specialists in various fields have considered how this discipline must be expanded to oral public reading, not just private research.

Dr. Wayne McDill, Professor of Preaching, Southeastern Baptist Seminary, gave an intriguing article posted on his Web site about the very idea of expository reading in the pulpit and church communities.

The idea is to renew the historical idea of reading accurately and clearly a given text so that one's mind will grasp the locus of meaning with as minimal human intervention as possible.

Biblically, it is interesting that Ezra read and translated accurately and clearly the law for quite some time, to an attentive people, while also providing exposition:

"3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law...

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading."

The focus on Ezra's exposition was most definitely the text itself, not on human wisdom, illustration or entertainment.

So where does that leave those of us charged with explaining and expounding the word of God today? I propose three key elements of application, primarily based on the presupposition of biblical authority and an inerrant text, (which is an important discussion for another time):

1. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then reading large portions of scripture may be essential. This point has become key in my ministry, but as been almost universally ignored in evangelical protestant churches.

2. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then reading that text accurately and in context is essential. This will require some familiarity with the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek that underlie these texts, and a willingness to moderately emphasize grammatical forms in reading, so as to emphasize the authors intended meaning.

3. If one believes in the authority of the sacred biblical text, then accurate exposition of that text in context is essential.

Here is where an important clarification is pertinent, especially in light of current scholarly and community opinion that a precise meaning (to the point of propositional truth) of a sacred text cannot be adequately ascertained. The sense of the point of a text can and should be found, and a general reading knowledge of the scholarly languages rather than a supposed fluency (fluency in an ancient language is always supposed) is valuable to find and communicate that precise point, but not to the extent of obsessing over every grammatical ending or construction. Rather, it is to give the thrust of the meaning.

My hope and desire is that a more proper respect to the sufficient word of God may be found in the form of presentation that is given to preaching and reading of the Scripture.

culture

http://theologyexplained.blogspot.com/

broken

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,
A broken and a contrite heart—
These, O God, You will not despise.

Psalm 51:17 nkjv

Psalm 51 provides three beautiful pieces of seeking God's mercy, bathed in the context of a man, David, who committed some of the most grievous sins possible.

Confession of sin (vv. 1-6), petitioning God's cleansing (vv. 7-11), and a humble, willing worship and ministry (vv. 12-19) are the fruits of a broken and contrite heart that desires restoration to God and is willing to accept His forgiveness.

All of us are capable of the path David chose in disobedience, so, by the power of the Holy Spirit, may we all respond to our faults with the same attitude of obedience as we learn to yield to God's ever present lovingkindness.

crucified reposted

It is refreshing to me that many preachers, scholars and writers are speaking again of the power of the cross. They are finding that no element of tightly programmed services, eloquent words or even gracious relationships can take the place of the primacy of the cross in our lives. The cross is the most applicable doctrine we can speak of, and it is the centerpiece of our faith. The reminder that Paul gives us is this: if all we know and all we can attest to is the wondrous cross of Christ, than we are on the right track.

"And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1-5 nkjv)."

leadership

In an evangelical culture obsessed with various creative and often professionalized terminology for leadership, desiring to produce "change agents" ready to transform the culture around us, it is nothing short of fresh and enlightening to draw from the depth of Scripture for the source of what spiritual leaders and spiritual servants should truly seek after:

Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. ³ Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; ⁴ but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word. (Ac. 6:2-4 nkjv).”

In the early church pastoral oversight devoted itself to the word of God and to prayer, and those that assisted them in service were wise, full of character and had the evidence of the Holy Spirit flowing through their life.

A simplicity is to be found in this text, for these early followers of Jesus Christ sought these very foundations for their ministry, rather than trendy methods and man made wisdom. We will do well if we follow their example in the avenues of service where we have been called, and in the spheres of influence in which we are given.

fighting God

"'But if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it-lest you even be found to fight against God (Ac. 5:39).'"

These words by the respected, but non-believing Jewish teacher Gamaliel (Paul's very own instructor) are strangely prophetic in that they summarize Jesus' statement to Peter "on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Mt. 16:18 nkjv)."

God's plan's of redemption, both for Israel and the Church, cannot and will not be hindered, though Satan, nations, and even you and I fight against Him.

If God's will cannot be undermined, and His ways will come to pass, then the question remains, "will you trust Him, even when it means giving up your control?"

boldness

In the life of the apostles, there seems three motivators to a life of boldly preaching the Word of God and the Gospel it contains:

First, understanding the truth of Jesus' death and resurrection as the only way of salvation (Ac 4:5-12),

Second, knowing this Jesus so personally that our experience with Him goes beyond mere intellectual assent and fear of man (Ac 4:13-22), and

Third, living out this faith to the extent of praying that the Word of God may be spread with boldness and power (Ac 23-31).

The questions for us to wrestle with today in response to Peter and John's testimony are quite simple - If we are not boldly preaching the Word of God, then do we not know His salvation offer? Do we not know Him personally? Do we not pray for boldness?

"And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness (Ac 4:31)."

joy

It is surprising that in today's churches believers continue to look to strategic planning, relevant programs, dynamic preaching and engaging worship music to fabricate joy, when the answer to this desired value is quite simply found in the words of holy scripture:

I have set the LORD always before me; Because He is at my right hand I shall not be moved.
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest in hope.
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
11 You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore (Ps 16:8-11 nkjv)."

When Peter quoted this in Acts chapter 2, he clearly understood this Psalm of David to be a prophetic declaration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that this truth is sufficient to bring believers gladness and joy.

What a blessing that will take place if we too begin to understand where the true source of joy should lie!