Category Archives: Discipleship

Sarah, Here’s Your Letter to Sign Up for the Selective Service.

by

It’s a letter with which every 18-year-old young man is familiar. It’s almost like a right of passage. It comes as a measure of your age, not necessarily your maturity. Uncle Sam sends this letter to every young man reminding him of his responsibility to sign up for the selective service. While the United States hasn’t had a military draft since the early 1970s, the selective sewomen in combatrvice registration requirement allows the government to populate a list of eligible young men should a future military draft be necessary.

While there are individuals who are devout pacifists, the selective service requirement for young men is largely a non-issue in our culture. But now there is talk from top military leaders that young women ought to be required to sign up for selective service as well.

This is outrageous, but we didn’t get into this situation overnight.

Feminism has long championed the cause that a woman can do any job that a man can do. They’ve argued that there isn’t any difference between men and women. And this anti-biblical logic ultimately led to the announcement on December 3, 2015, by Defense Secretary Ash Carter that women are now eligible for all front line combat roles.

What kind of society sends their mothers and daughters to the front lines to fight their wars? A broken society!

Now, you might argue that these women are all volunteers and they’ve sought ought these front line roles. While this may be true for the time being, it doesn’t make it right. But what’s equally important is this. If women want full equality with respect to roles, then full equality is exactly what they’ll get. This is why top military leaders are talking about requiring women to sign up for selective service. And if there really isn’t a difference between men and women as the feminists insist, then women should be required to sign up for the selective service.

But, oh, by the way . . . if the draft is re-instituted and your daughter or your wife’s number is called, she won’t get her choice of “non-combative” assignments. She will be sent to the front lines along like the men. And why? Because we’ve denied the obvious differences in creation and claimed that there isn’t any difference between men and women.

Friends, this is ludicrous. Anybody with a simple basic anatomy knowledge knows that there are inherent differences between men and women. This isn’t to say that one gender is superior to the other gender. Neither gender is superior to the other. They simply are different.

In the Christian community this discussion centers around two poles, egalitarianism and complementarianism.

Egalitarians argue that men and women are equally created in the image of God. They argue that men and women have equal worth before God and before our fellow human beings. And they argue that it is inherently wrong to insist that men and women aren’t capable of fulfilling the same roles.

Complementarians also argue that men and women are equally created in the image of God. They also argue that men and women have equal worth before God and before our fellow human beings. But complementarians recognize that God has created men and women differently and with diversity, not because one is “better than” the other, but so that they can “complement” each other.

I, for one, don’t want to live in a society in which we send our mothers, sisters, and daughters to the front lines to kill or be killed. I would much prefer to live in a society in which the men cared for and protected women and treated them with gentleness and respect. Not because women aren’t “tough” or that they somehow can’t take care of themselves, but because a man’s God-given role is to provide safety and shelter.

I want to see men care for women and treat them with respect because I believe this honors God.

No, women aren’t yet required to sign up for the selective service, but if things keep going in the direction in which they’re heading, it won’t be long until you need to call your daughter and say, “Sarah, here’s your letter to sign up for the selective service.”

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

The Church

by

From the beginning God has meant the church to be distinct. The New Testament word for church, ecclesia, literally means, “those whochurch building are called out.” In one sense this word refers to the universal church. Wayne Grudem defines the universal church as “the community of all true believers for all time.”[1] But in another sense the word refers to the local church. In fact, the vast majority of the time when this word is used, it is used to refer to the local church.[2]

What a church is not. If you are a Christian, the church is not:

  • a physical building;
  • a denomination;
  • a club;
  • a voluntary organization where membership is optional to you;
  • a friendly group of people who share an interest in religious things; or
  • a service provider where the customer has all authority.

So, then, what is a church? A church “is a group of Christians who regularly gather in Christ’s name to officially affirm and oversee one another’s membership in Jesus Christ and his kingdom through gospel preaching and gospel ordinances.”[3]

Jesus has given authority to the church to affirm and give shape to my Christian life and yours. In other words, the church is the place where life-on-life discipleship is to take place. Jonathan Leeman writes, “Just as the Bible establishes the government of your nation as your highest authority on earth when it comes to your citizenship in that nation, so the Bible establishes the local church as your highest authority on earth when it comes to your discipleship to Christ and your citizenship in Christ’s present and promised nation.” [4]

What then does it mean to be a member of a local church? Again, Leeman is helpful when he writes, “A church member is a person who has been officially and publicly recognized as a Christian before the nations, as well as someone who shares in the same authority of officially affirming and overseeing other Christians in his or her church.”[5] Once a person has made a credible profession of faith in Christ, he or she should be baptized and become a member of a local church.

To become a member of a church is to covenant with like-minded believers in pursuing Christ and growing into maturity in Christ. A covenant is more than a commitment to another group of believers although keeping covenants do require commitment. Covenants result in a fundamental change of identity. When a man enters into a marriage covenant with a woman, his fundamental identity is changed. He is now the husband of this woman. Now, a church covenant is not the same as a marriage covenant, but they do have similarities. Both involve “a commitment of the whole person in such a dramatic fashion that it bends our very identity.”[6]

[1] Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 853.

[2] For the purposes of this document, the word “church” will always refer to the local church unless otherwise specified.

[3] Jonathan Leeman, Church Membership: How the World Knows Who Represents Jesus. Building Healthy Churches (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 52.

[4] Ibid., 25.

[5] Ibid., 29.

[6] Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 249.

The Lord’s Supper

by

Different names are used, the Eucharist, Communion, the Table, or the Lord’s Supper, but all of these names point to the same reality. It is one of two ordinances that Christ left for his church.[1] And as there are many names for this ordinance, there are multiple times as many questions about it. For example,

Who is allowed to administer the Lord’s Supper?
How often should Christians take the Lord’s Supper?
Lords SupperIs the Lord’s Supper open only to church members or are all Christians invited to the table?
What is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper?
Why do we celebrate the Lord’s Supper?

And the list could go on and on. But this article will focus on one question.

When and where is the Lord’s Supper to be received? Is it for individual Christians to receive and celebrate or is a godly husband permitted to lead his family to take the Supper or is the Supper intended to be received and celebrated only when the church is gathered? In other words, is it an individualistic Christian ordinance or is it a corporate Christian ordinance?

To help answer this question, we will turn to the Scriptures. The longest sustained teaching on the Lord’s Supper is found in 1 Corinthians 11:17–34.

1 Corinthians 11:17–34
            17 But in the following instructions I do not commend you, because when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. 20 When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat. 21 For in eating, each one goes ahead with his own meal. One goes hungry, another gets drunk. 22 What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.
23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. 27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
33 So then, my brothers, when you come together to eat, wait for one another—34 if anyone is hungry, let him eat at home—so that when you come together it will not be for judgment. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

So, what may we conclude from this passage about the individualistic or corporate nature of the Lord’s Supper?

[Note: Epistemological integrity would demand that dogmatic conclusions not be reached. In other words, there are no “slam dunk” arguments about this question that can be made from this passage (or any other passage). There are, however, implications that strongly suggest the Lord’s Supper should be viewed as a corporate celebration and not as an individualistic celebration.

Argument

We will consider seven lines of argument from this passage that suggest that the Lord’s Supper is a corporate ordinance. These arguments are not listed in any particular order of importance. My arguments will be brief. This blog isn’t intended to be a treatise on this topic.

First, we must ask to whom this letter (1 Corinthians) was written. First Corinthians 1:2 clearly shows us that the letter was written to the whole church. If the letter was written to the whole church then those who “come together” (11:17, 18, 20, etc.) to celebrate the Supper are the church.

Second, the pronoun “you” in this passage is always in the plural. In this sense Greek is a more precise language than English. In English it isn’t always clear whether “you” is referring to an individual or a group of individuals. This isn’t the case in Greek. There are different words for a singular “you” and a plural “you.” In South Carolina we distinguish this by saying y’all when we mean plural—but I digress.

Third, five times in this passage the phrase “when you come together” is used in this passage and one time “when you come together as a church.” A honest reading of the text tells us that Paul here is speaking of the church gathering together corporately.

Fourth, Paul admonishes the Corinthians because he has received word of divisions existing among the believers and these divisions have surfaced around the Lord’s Table. Divisions can only exist in community, not individually.

Fifth, the Corinthians were taking the Supper in a way that promoted individualism rather than unity so Paul asked the question, “Or do you despise the church of God?” Again, this seems to suggest that the Supper is for the church.

Sixth, Paul asks another question, “Do you not have houses to eat and drink in?” This question implies that the Supper is for our corporate gathering. If you’re just hungry do that at home.

Seventh, there is a self-examination that is done in conjunction with the Supper, but even that examination is not individualistic but it is done in conjunction with the corporate gathering. The church body helps to affirm that we are indeed walking in the faith.

Application

Given the teaching that the Lord’s Supper is to be taken as a church, what points of application may we deduce? Let me suggest two.

We ought not to take the Lord’s Supper as a Sunday school class or home group or biological family to the neglect of the church gathered. The Lord’s Supper is an ordinance given to the church for the church. We shouldn’t celebrate it on our own. While this author is unsure of whether celebrating apart from the church should be considered sin, it surely is unwise to celebrate it on one’s own.

But what about faithful church members who are “shut-in” due to age or infirmity—would it be proper to serve the Supper to them in their homes (or nursing homes)? First, we must be careful to teach these shut-ins that there isn’t anything salvific in the Supper. In other words, taking the Lord’s Supper doesn’t guarantee one’s salvation and not taking the Supper doesn’t guarantee someone’s perdition. The Supper is a time to remember and celebrate what Christ has accomplished on our behalf.

But for these faithful Christians who are no longer able to attend, they, by nature of their infirmity, are no longer able to participate in this celebration. It would seem prudent and loving to allow the Lord’s Supper to be served to these saints under the following two conditions. First, again, the shut-ins (and the church) should understand that the Supper isn’t salvific. Second, the gathered church should be publicly informed and invited to participate as the Supper is served to these shut-ins.

Conclusion

In the Supper the Lord has given us a wonderful visual picture of gospel. As Christians we should not only rejoice in the gospel, but we should rejoice when we gather together to see dozens or hundreds or perhaps even thousands of others all confessing the same gospel as they take the Supper.

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

[1] The two ordinances are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Some refer to these ordinances as “sacraments.” For a helpful discussion on the use of the terms “sacrament” and “ordinance,” see John S. Hammett, 40 Questions about Baptism and the Lord’s Supper,” (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2015), 19–24.

Raising a Little Pharisee

by

Pharisee. The average evangelical Christian almost cringes at the very sound of the word. No one likes to be called a Pharisee. Why is that?

Pharisees were known to keep the Law of God fastidiously. While the Phariseeaverage Christian hasn’t even read the entire Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Pharisees would have had the entire Pentateuch committed to memory—word-for-word!

But because they were so careful to keep the Law and because they were so interested in outward expressions of holiness, the Pharisees would often look down on those who weren’t quite as “spiritual” as they were. Consider the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18,

“The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’”
Luke 18:11–12

Jesus had some harsh words for Pharisees (see, for example, his seven “woes” in Matthew 23). The Pharisees were often hypocrites. They thought they were better than others because they were so meticulous in keeping the Law. But they were themselves spiritually blind. They didn’t see that even they, like everyone else, were in desperate need of God’s grace.

While the institution of “official” Pharisee-ism no longer exists, the church is nevertheless full of many modern day Pharisees. So, how did the church get so many modern day Pharisees? In large part, the church culture has done a good job of raising them.

So, how does one go about raising a modern day Pharisee? Let me suggest four ways in which you can encourage your children to grow up to be Pharisees.

First, many Christian parents focus on externals rather than internals. We raise our children not to act like those “other children” who “have no manners or upbringing.” In so doing we focus our attention as parents on controlling the external behaviors of our children rather than focusing on our child’s heart—which is what ultimately controls our behavior.

This works fairly well as long as our children are in our homes and under our thumbs, but when our children leave the nest, their true heart begins to show. Paul Tripp writes of the “principle of inescapable influence: Whatever rules the heart will exercise inescapable influence over the person’s life and behavior” [Paul David Tripp, Instruments in the Redeemer’s Hands: People in Need of Change Helping People in Need of Change (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002), 68, italics in original].

Tripp writes,

“This is what happens to the teenager who goes through the teen years fairly well under the careful love, instruction, and oversight of Christian parents, only to go off to college and completely forsake his faith. I would suggest that in most cases he has not forsaken his faith. In reality, his faith was the faith of his parents; he simply lived within its limits while he was still at home. When he went away to school and those restraints were removed, his true heart was revealed. He had not internalized the faith. He had not entrusted himself to Christ in a life-transforming way. He did the ‘Christian’ things he was required to do at home, but his actions did not flow from a heart of worship. In the college culture, he had nothing to anchor him, and the true thoughts and motives of his heart led him away from God. College was not the cause of the problem. It was simply the place where his true heart was revealed. The real problem was that faith never took root in his heart. As a result, his words, choices, and actions did not reveal a heart for God. Good behavior lasted for a while, but it proved to be temporary because it was not rooted in the heart.”
(Tripp, Instruments, 64)

A failure to trust in Christ in a life-transforming way can cause a child to abandon the faith of their childhood, as Tripp writes here, but it can also cause them to hold on to merely the externals of the faith (i.e., external behaviors) with having a true heart change. This latter problem is characteristic of the Pharisee.

If we want to avoid raising little Pharisees, we need to focus our attention on our child’s heart.

Second, some Christian parents also find their identity in their children and in how their children behave. This point is closely related to the first, but it is different. Here the parent desires to be considered a “good parent.” The parent either wittingly or unwittingly is seeking the parenting approval of others. Instead of finding her identity in Christ, she finds it in how her children are judged by those around her.

“My, my, aren’t Mrs. Smith’s children so well-behaved?”

“You’re children are so precious. They are always so well-behaved.”

These comments feed her sense of self-worth and so she focuses all the more to make sure her child is well-behaved. The parenting emphasis is increasingly on the external behaviors and never on the heart.

It’s not on the heart because heart attitudes are so much harder to see. The dad who receives his self-worth from how well he parents rarely hears, “Your child’s heart attitude is so Christ-like.” So, he focuses on the externals and he raises a little Pharisee.

If we want to avoid raising little Pharisees, parents need to find their identity in Christ, not in how well their children perform.

Third, parents often teach their children to compare themselves to other children. This is done in any number of ways—through athletic prowess, through academic achievement, through moral obedience.

“At least my child doesn’t drink and do drugs . . .” (see previous post). And so children are taught to look down on those children who have made “significant” moral failures. Some sins are counted as worse than other sins.

Remember the prayer of the Pharisee in Luke 18? “I thank you that I am not like other men . . .”

And so drinking, drugs, and sexual promiscuity are “worse” than ungratefulness, selfishness, and pride. Pharisee-ism is so insidious that we even teach our children to be “proud” that they aren’t like those other children. And then somehow we are shocked that we’ve raised a little Pharisee.

If we teach our children that some sins are “worse” than other sins, we’ve taken a large step in raising a little Pharisee.

Finally, some parents actually teach their children to become Pharisees by withholding love and affection from children whose behavior doesn’t measure up to mom’s or dad’s (often Pharisaical) standards.

It doesn’t take little Megan long to learn, “Dad only shows me affection when I’m a good little girl.” Megan, in turn, begins to perceive her self-worth from her external behavior and a little Pharisee has been born.

Being a parent isn’t for cowards. It’s hard work and sleepless nights. But we don’t want to raise “little Pharisees” who do the right things but whose hearts are far from the Lord. So, find your identity in Christ and focus on your heart and your child’s heart and you’ll go a long way toward stunting the Pharisee in your child.

To His Glory,

Brian

At Least My Kids Don’t . . .

by

Have you ever had a conversation with a Christian parent whose child has gone somewhat astray? In an apparent attempt to assuage the guilt for feeling bad about the child’s otherwikids drinking smokingse nefarious choices, the parent will sometimes say, “At least my child doesn’t do drugs,” or “At least my child doesn’t sleep around,” “At least my child doesn’t smoke or drink,” or something to that effect.

 But that always leaves me scratching my head a bit. At what point did the measure of successful Christian parenting become, “At least my child doesn’t do drugs”? When did we lower our standards?

As the father of four (ages 10, 12, 16, & 18) I am well aware of the difficulties of parenting—parenting isn’t for cowards! It is hard work. I am grateful for a godly wife who has been enormously influential in the raising of our children.

I am also aware that we don’t get to pick our children and that otherwise godly parents can still sometimes have children who go wayward. We must remember that “train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6 ESV) is a proverb and not a universal promise.

But, as a culture, we’ve lost our way. We’ve lowered our standards. How have we lowered our standards? Let me suggest three closely related items.

First, we’ve lowered our standards when we feel it’s more important to our child’s friend than it is to be our child’s parent. This is all too common in our culture. Parents who evidently want to re-live their “glory days” do whatever is necessary so that their 15-year-old will think they’re cool—or at least so that their 15-year-old’s friends will think they’re cool!

Let’s be honest. It’s important to have a good relationship with your children, and I hope that your child(ren)’s friends feel comfortable coming over to your home. But this doesn’t mean that you have to get a fresh tattoo and a body piercing so that a 15-year-old will think that you’re hip!

Your children have enough friends. What they need from you is for you to be their parent. They need you to love them unconditionally—even during the awkward years of adolescence as they learn to find their own voice in this world. They need you to be an example of what it is to follow Christ. They need to hear and see from you, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1 ESV).

Second, we sacrifice our children on a variety of pagan altars. Let me suggest two such altars—work and materialism.

Work is good. Work existed prior to the Fall, and it’s good for a child to see her dad work hard to earn an income to support the family. But workaholism isn’t a good thing. Workaholism is idolatry. Workaholism is idolatry because we either find our identity in our work—instead of in Christ—or because we feel it’s necessary to work to provide the results we desire instead of trusting God to provide the results he desires. This isn’t an argument to be slothful. No, we should work and we should work hard, but we needn’t sacrifice our families on the altar of the workplace.

When was the last time you took time to rest from work? The Sabbath principle of rest was instituted for our sakes (Mark 2:27).

And to what end do we work? We work so that our children can have more “stuff” than we had. This is bowing at the altar of materialism. Yes, this is also an idol. We work to afford fancy vacations. We work to live a certain lifestyle. We work so that our 8-year-old can have a smart phone! Really?! What 8-year-old needs a smart phone?! Why don’t we work at being parents? Our children need their parents more than they need stuff.

Third, we’ve lowered our standards when we forget what the primary role of a parent is. The primary role of the parent is to “bring [our children] up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph 6:4).

We’ve become so caught up in being our child’s friend that we’ve forgotten that our primary job is to disciple our children in the faith. Your child’s discipleship is your primary responsibility. It isn’t the primary responsibility of the pastor or youth pastor or children’s pastor. Mom and Dad, it’s your job.

The church is there to aide you in this process. The church should help you in this process, but the church can’t do it for you. You have a far greater impact on your child than any youth pastor will ever have, and your children will learn from your example—whether good or bad.

If you only attend church when you feel like it, then don’t be surprised when your child only attends church when he feels like—if at all!

If you disrespect your church leaders by “having them for lunch” (I’m speaking metaphorically here), then don’t be surprised when your child has no respect for the church or its leaders.

If you use foul language and watch promiscuous movies . . . I’m sure you’re getting the idea by now.

It’s the job of mom and dad to point their children to Jesus. It’s the job of mom and dad to point their children to the gospel. This is where we find our hope. We ultimately only “point” our children to the God who loved us all enough to send his only Son. And when we point our children to God, we allow him to shape their hearts and to draw them to himself.

Join me next time when we ask the question, “Have we raised a good, little Pharisee?”

For his glory,
Pastor Brian

“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise.”
Deuteronomy 6:4–7

What Is the “Book of Jashar”?

by

Second Samuel begiBook of Jasharns with David learning of the deaths of King Saul and King Saul’s son, Jonathan. As David was lamenting their deaths, David quoted a lengthy poem from the “Book of Jashar” (2 Samuel 1:18–27). This mysterious book is also mentioned in Joshua 10:12–13. What is this “Book of Jashar”? And, should this book be included in the Bible?

What is the Book of Jashar?

We ought not to think about Jashar as a proper name. The word “Jashar” means “upright one,” so the Book of Jashar is sometimes referred to as the Book of the Upright One.

The Book of Jashar is thought to have been a book of poems and songs about various heroes of the faith. It is ultimately an unknown book, although some claim to have an accurate copy of the book. The book has been used by various cults and sects such as Mormonism and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Should the Book of Jashar be included in the Bible?

If the Bible quotes the Book of Jashar, why isn’t it in the Bible? Just because a work of antiquity is quoted in the Bible, it does not follow that the work is on par with the Bible. In other words, in order for a book to be included in the canon of scripture, it must have been understood to have been inspired by God. The Book of Jashar simply does not reach that threshold.

There are indeed a number of extra-biblical sources that are quoted in the Bible that are not included in the Bible. One author wrote,

“There are other Hebrew works that are mentioned in the Bible that God directed the authors to use. Some of these include the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14), the Book of Samuel the Seer, the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and the Book of Gad the Seer (1 Chronicles 29:29). Also, there are the Acts of Rehoboam and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 14:29). We also know that Solomon composed more than a thousand songs (1 Kings 4:32), yet only two are preserved in the book of Psalms (72 and 127). Writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, Paul included a quotation from the Cretan poet Epimenides (Titus 1:12) and quoted from the poets Epimenides and Aratus in his speech at Athens (Acts 17:28).”

We can know that everything included in the Bible is inspired by God and therefore truthful and without error, but this inspiration does not necessarily transfer to the remainder of the works quoted.

By way of analogy, we may write a brief essay that is without error and totally truthful. In the process of writing our brief essay, we may even quote from other sources. Even though our essay is without error and totally truthful, it would not necessarily follow that the sources from which we quoted were also completely without error and totally truthful.

In his sovereign wisdom, God guided the thoughts of those who wrote scripture and he protected them from error so that the Bible is completely trustworthy and it is completely without error. God may have inspired these authors to quote from additional sources, but that does not mean that these additional sources are in any way equal to scripture.

2 Peter 1:19–21
19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,
20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

2 Timothy 3:16–17
16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

For His Glory,
Pastor Brian

Book Reviews

by

As a part of my job, I have the great pleasure of reading good books about living the Christian life. I want to provide a brief review of two such books here.InvitationToAJourneyARoa30576_f

Mulholland, Jr., M. Robert. Invitation to a Journey: A Road Map for Spiritual Formation. IVP Books, 1993. 173pp.

As the title suggests, Mulholland’s book is about the Christian journey toward “spiritual wholeness.” He defines spiritual formation as “a process of being conformed to the image of Christ for the sake of others” (12). The book is divided into four sections.

In the first section Mulholland dissects his definition of spiritual formation into four parts. The first part of spiritual formation is to recognize that spiritual formation is a process, not an event. Second, it is a process of “being conformed.” In other words, this is not something we do to ourselves. He writes, “The difference between conforming ourselves and being conformed is the vital issue of control” (25). Third, it is being conformed into the image of Christ. Mulholland argues that the image of Christ is the “fulfillment of the deepest dynamics of our being” (33). Finally, being conformed to the image of Christ is ultimately for the sake of others.

In the second section of the book Mulholland relies heavily of Carl Jung and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality test. He argues that each person has a unique personality type and understanding one’s personality type helps one grow in holistic spirituality.

Mulholland deals directly with various spiritual disciplines in the third section. He describes the classical Christian pilgrimage as “awakening, purgation, illumination, and union.” He discusses the spiritual disciplines of prayer, spiritual reading, and liturgy. He helpfully shows how God works in the Christian life to wage war against death and bring life (120-34).

In the final section Mulholland underscores the importance of the faith community for spiritual formation.

Mulholland writes from a Wesleyan theological perspective. This, in itself, is not an issue, but because he is writing from this perspective, he makes some rather elementary exegetical fallacies so that his exegetical conclusions fit his theological perspective. I’ll highlight just one such fallacy. His exegesis of Ephesians 1:3-6 is flawed by a simple word study fallacy. Mulholland argues that the Greek word (eklegomai) which means and is translated “chose” (Eph 1:4) by every major English translation really means “spoke forth” since it is a compound word with the respective parts of the compound meaning “forth” (ek) and “speak” (lego). This is a rather elementary fallacy since compound words do not necessarily have the meaning of the sum of each part. For example, we all know that a pineapple is not a special type of apple that grows on pine trees!

Without question the strongest part of Mulholland’s book is his attention to the fact that spiritual formation does not happen in isolation. We are created as communal creatures and God has designed us to live and flourish in community. Mulholland argues that not only is the end result of spiritual formation “for the sake of others” (see definition above), but even the process of spiritual formation is in the context of others. One quote will suffice even though this theme is beaten like a drum throughout the book. He writes, “There is no holistic spirituality for the individual outside of the community of faith” (50).

Recommendation

I would recommend this book for the discerning Christian reader who is interested in spiritual formation.

 

Thornborough, Tim, and Richard Perkins, eds. The Big Fight: Christian Men 51qBC3ibWELvs The World, Flesh & Devil. The Good Book Company, 2012. 107pp.

A total of 10 contributors come together to write this very helpful book for men who are pursuing holiness. Each contributor wrote one chapter of particular interest to men (although it must be stated that these are not solely men’s issues).

The “G” key on the keyboard got stuck in the naming of the chapters: Guilt, Gold, Gossip, Glare, Grumbling, Gospelling, Girls, Gifts, Grog, and Games. A preacher must have come up with the titles for each chapter!

The book is written so that it could be used for a small men’s group or one-on-one, or it could be read and used by a single individual.

None of the chapters are written to be particularly deep theologically, but every chapter is immensely practical. This is certainly by design and it does not detract from the book in any way. Every chapter includes discussion questions and recommendations of further resources for reading.

Recommendation

I would gladly recommend this book to a man or a men’s group.