I’ve been convicted lately of my poor habits in the realm of time management. I find it incredibly easy to waste many hours reading blogs, watching television, movies, etc. and so very hard to discipline myself to spend considerable time in study, prayer, and meditation. I think the value of time is paradoxical in this microwave generation. We are too impatient to wait a few minutes for our food at a restaurant, we get bent out of shape if we’re stuck behind a slow driver, we expect web pages to load in nano-seconds, and the list could go on and on. And yet, in spite of this apparent understanding of the preciousness of time, we are content to waste hours upon hours “surfing” the web or sitting in front of the television. What if we got a proper understanding of the preciousness of time and actually began “redeeming” it? Listen to these words from Charles Bridges’ Christian Ministry:
“The secret of this efficiency seems to have much consisted in a deep sense of the value of that most precious of all talents—time; and of an economical distribution of the minutest particles for specific purposes. Mr. Alleine would often say, ‘Give me a Christian, that counts his time more precious than gold.’ Mr. Cotton would express his regret after the departure of a visitor—‘I had rather have given this man a handful of money, than have been kept thus long out of my study.’ … But here we should be, like the miser with his money—saving it with care, and spending it with caution. It is well to have a book for every spare hour, to improve what Boyle calls the ‘parenthesis or interludes of time: which, coming between more important engagements, are wont to be lost by most men for want of a value for them: and even by good men, for want of skill to preserve them. And since goldsmiths and refiners are wont all year long to save the very sweepings of their shops, because they may contain in them some filings or dust of those richer metals, gold and silver; I see not, why a Christian may not be as careful, not to lose the fragments and lesser intervals of a thing incomparably more precious than any metal—time…’”
This section really made me ask, “Am I treasuring my time? Am I using it wisely? Am I focusing on things that have eternal value?”
How does one focus on things that have eternal value? Well, it means that you spend more time reading Scripture than you do watching television! It means you spend more time reading books on Theology or Apologetics, or at least Pastoral Ministry than you do watching movies! I’m not saying that we can’t spend any time being entertained or relaxing with our families and friends. But, I don’t think many Americans have any trouble budgeting in time for entertainment. So what will you sacrifice? Well, you probably won’t be up to speed on the latest news. You probably won’t be as knowledgeable about your favorite sport team as you could be. You won’t be able to follow the storyline of the latest season of your favorite television program. But, you will gain eternal rewards in heaven! You will have a deeper understanding of Scripture and God. You will be better able to give an account when someone asks of you. You will be better able to shepherd the flock of your family. You will be better equipped to minister to the saints in your local church. Sure you may give up some “Social Currency,” but I submit that it is worth it, and you won’t regret it.
Showing posts with label Reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading. Show all posts
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Friday, September 19, 2008
Quote of the Day
"When you see that you are dependent, not self-determined, then--and then alone--can you appreciate Who God is and who you are. God is the Creator of all things Who made you for His pleasure; He does not exist to please you. He is not some cosmic vending machine that will give you whatever you want when you insert the proper prayer coins. You were made to glorify Him either as a vessel of mercy or as a vessel of wrath. It is not incumbent upon God to glorify you. That He has chosen to save you, Christian, should not merely please you; it should astonish you."
- Jay Adams, The Grand Demonstration, p. 49-50.
- Jay Adams, The Grand Demonstration, p. 49-50.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
"Whole" Salvation or "Soul" Salvation?
As I mentioned previously, I've been working my way through N. T. Wright's newest book: Surprised By Hope. In the final third of this book he is discussing the implications of life after life after death for the local church and the lives of believers; how do we live out the consequences of the resurrection here and now? The first way in which Wright suggests that we ought to change our thinking and practices is in the area of salvation. He states that believers need to seriously rethink what salvation means in light of the fact that heaven is not our "final resting place" or our ultimate goal, as many Christians mistakenly believe. He makes some good points and raises some good questions. One that has particularly got me thinking is his question of whole salvation versus soul salvation. Whole salvation, he contends, is the salvation of the entire person, soul, mind, body, life, etc. Soul salvation is simply being saved from sin and to heaven, or something along those lines.
I applaud Wright for calling people to realize that you can't just get someone "saved" and then leave them in the exact condition in which you found them. The church I am a member of here in Raleigh, Treasuring Christ Church, emphasizes this point frequently. People need to hear the gospel, but they may also need help financially to get them out of a life of bondage to poverty, or counsel to help them get on track to get free from debt, or an education to free them from the slavery of illiteracy and ignorance, and the list could go on and on. So, I definitely understand what Wright means when he says we need to recapture a theology of whole salvation. However, I had a problem with his exegesis to get to this point. His main text was Mark 5 and the parallel passage in Matthew 9, which tell the story of the healing the woman with the issue of blood. My great trouble with Wright's exegesis was his translation, and subsequent interpretation, of Mark 5:34 and Matt 9:22. In Greek, both of these passages use the word sozo, which is commonly translated "to save." However, no major English version translates Mark 5:34 or Matt 9:22 as "saved." They all opt for another meaning of sozo; "healed," or "made well." Herein lies my main disagreement with Wright. It seems as if from his translation and exegesis of these passages that he believes this woman experienced whole salvation that day, obviously Jesus had no problem saying that she was "saved," and this ought to be our model for understanding salvation. I just don't see that in these passages. I do not believe that Jesus was making a pronouncement on this woman's spiritual condition, but rather her fleshly one: she was saved from her illness. After all, the text of Mark does go on to say "Go in peace and be healed (hugies) of your affliction." This leads me to my next problem with Wright's exegesis. By using these passages, which are devoid of any mention of the spiritual or forgiveness of sin or anything of that nature, Wright seems to forget these elements in his whole salvation paradigm. In short, he emphasizes the physical to the detriment of the spiritual.
I believe that he is on to something in his whole salvation theology. However, it seems to me that he has largely forgotten the spiritual aspect of salvation. If that is left out, there is little value in the rest of the equation. We must never put the salvation of souls in the back seat to social justice or meeting physical needs. This was the mistake of 20th century liberalism and it may very well make a reappearance in our time as well. We cannot rely on any organization, be it the government, civic clubs, or even the church, if all they are seeking to do is treat felt needs in order to somehow "save" individuals. Rather than embracing this distorted view of whole salvation, we need to embrace a real whole salvation; one that addresses the spiritual and the physical. We also must realize that just because we make efforts towards social justice and meeting the physical needs of new believers does not mean that God's purpose for all people is a comfortable, pain free existence. God may keep an individual right where he is, in poverty, or in physical illness in order to bring Himself most glory. And hold on, 'cause here comes a doozy, God may even call the wealthy and affluent to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow Him to the darkest corner of the globe! Thus, the question isn't "whole" salvation or "soul" salvation, that is too obvious. The real question is what does whole salvation really entail and how can we be a part of God's purposes to save sinners.
Please let me know what you think about this, I'm definitely looking for feedback as I continue to wrestle through these issues, especially how we can see the needs of people met in the context of the local church.
I applaud Wright for calling people to realize that you can't just get someone "saved" and then leave them in the exact condition in which you found them. The church I am a member of here in Raleigh, Treasuring Christ Church, emphasizes this point frequently. People need to hear the gospel, but they may also need help financially to get them out of a life of bondage to poverty, or counsel to help them get on track to get free from debt, or an education to free them from the slavery of illiteracy and ignorance, and the list could go on and on. So, I definitely understand what Wright means when he says we need to recapture a theology of whole salvation. However, I had a problem with his exegesis to get to this point. His main text was Mark 5 and the parallel passage in Matthew 9, which tell the story of the healing the woman with the issue of blood. My great trouble with Wright's exegesis was his translation, and subsequent interpretation, of Mark 5:34 and Matt 9:22. In Greek, both of these passages use the word sozo, which is commonly translated "to save." However, no major English version translates Mark 5:34 or Matt 9:22 as "saved." They all opt for another meaning of sozo; "healed," or "made well." Herein lies my main disagreement with Wright. It seems as if from his translation and exegesis of these passages that he believes this woman experienced whole salvation that day, obviously Jesus had no problem saying that she was "saved," and this ought to be our model for understanding salvation. I just don't see that in these passages. I do not believe that Jesus was making a pronouncement on this woman's spiritual condition, but rather her fleshly one: she was saved from her illness. After all, the text of Mark does go on to say "Go in peace and be healed (hugies) of your affliction." This leads me to my next problem with Wright's exegesis. By using these passages, which are devoid of any mention of the spiritual or forgiveness of sin or anything of that nature, Wright seems to forget these elements in his whole salvation paradigm. In short, he emphasizes the physical to the detriment of the spiritual.
I believe that he is on to something in his whole salvation theology. However, it seems to me that he has largely forgotten the spiritual aspect of salvation. If that is left out, there is little value in the rest of the equation. We must never put the salvation of souls in the back seat to social justice or meeting physical needs. This was the mistake of 20th century liberalism and it may very well make a reappearance in our time as well. We cannot rely on any organization, be it the government, civic clubs, or even the church, if all they are seeking to do is treat felt needs in order to somehow "save" individuals. Rather than embracing this distorted view of whole salvation, we need to embrace a real whole salvation; one that addresses the spiritual and the physical. We also must realize that just because we make efforts towards social justice and meeting the physical needs of new believers does not mean that God's purpose for all people is a comfortable, pain free existence. God may keep an individual right where he is, in poverty, or in physical illness in order to bring Himself most glory. And hold on, 'cause here comes a doozy, God may even call the wealthy and affluent to sell all they have, give it to the poor, and follow Him to the darkest corner of the globe! Thus, the question isn't "whole" salvation or "soul" salvation, that is too obvious. The real question is what does whole salvation really entail and how can we be a part of God's purposes to save sinners.
Please let me know what you think about this, I'm definitely looking for feedback as I continue to wrestle through these issues, especially how we can see the needs of people met in the context of the local church.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
How Committed am I to the Bible?
I've been thinking a lot lately about how committed am I to the truth of the gospel and other biblical doctrines which I am firmly convinced of. A good bit of this introspection is the result of a semester with Dr. Black in New Testament 2. In that class we were constantly pushed to go back to the New Testament and discern what it had to say about sundry matters. I've also been thinking a lot about the priority of the local church in body-life. The seminary, and so many other para-church organizations, has come in and completely taken over much of what biblical local churches are responsible for. I'm growing to believe that the most commonly held paradigm for training and hiring elders is almost totally unbiblical. As I sit through classes at SEBTS and listen in on conversations around campus, it's truly amazing to me that some people think they're on the road to biblical eldership. They might not use the term "elder" or even hold to an ecclesiology that allows for elders, but it makes no difference: it's the only paradigm the NT knows.
In the past few days I've been reading John Hammett's new book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, and I suppose that has a bit to do with getting the ol' wheels in my head a turnin'. In this book Hammett is seeking to define what a church is, who a church is, how a church is governed, what the church does, and where the church is going. I'm a little bit over half way through the book. The first two sections are good, it's hard to be a conservative baptist and not have a good definition of what and who a church is. Regenerate church membership is one of his strongest arguments in this section, however, as he continues to flesh out the implications of regenerate church membership in his section on how a church is governed, things start to unravel. His arguments for congregationalism are almost entirely pragmatic. He even admits in several places that congregationalism is a pragmatic conclusion. At one point he goes so far as to say the following, I was shocked:
"In the end, they [the congregation] are the ones who must give financially to support the ministry he [the pastor] envisions; they must act if the church is to love and reach and disciple people as he desires. They are far likelier to give and act on plans they have had a part in developing. And, if the members are maturing spiritually, why would a church or its pastors want to cut themselves off from the wisdom they may contribute?" (p.211)
I've digressed into the subject matter of the book instead of going where I had intended with this post, so if you don't mind, I'm going to get back on track and not comment on that quote. I don't think I can handle it right now...
So, like I was saying, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to the Bible and it's principles. As you may be able to tell already, I'm specifically concerning with church polity and my role in the local church. Here are some things that I'm struggling with:
1. What is the role of para-church organizations in the life of the local church?
2. What is my personal conviction concerning my responsibility to act on what I believe to be biblical?
3. Where should I be focusing my energies at this point in my life?
4. Is pursuing a career in a Bible-college or seminary setting right for me?
5. Where are my priorities? Am I more concerned with earning a degree and getting a job or with 1 Tim. 3:1-13?
For as much as I dislike Hammett's pragmatism, I see so much of it in myself. I'm afraid that I may be paralyzed by the thought of having to start from scratch to get into a career of any other sort than the one that I'm currently pursuing.
When I was at NGU, loving the Bible and theology and the things of God seemed to me to be a clear pointer to further studies in order to one day be able to teach those things to others. Now I believe that loving the Bible, God, theology, etc. is something that every Christian ought to aspire to, not just the seminarians. Like a good friend of mine pointed out the other day, the qualifications in 1 Tim 3 are not reserved for elders and deacons, they are necessary for all believers. It's not the elders who are barred from drunkenness and immorality, it's every Christian: thus, every Christian male should either be aspiring to be an elder or a deacon. I don't know if I'm ready to say every, but I think probably most, and if they're not aspiring to the office, they should at least be serving in those ways unofficially.
I apologize for the sporadic nature of this post, all this is compounding in my mind and heart, and has spilled over here. I simply desire to be true to the Bible and it's teachings. Any thoughts or suggestions?
In the past few days I've been reading John Hammett's new book, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology, and I suppose that has a bit to do with getting the ol' wheels in my head a turnin'. In this book Hammett is seeking to define what a church is, who a church is, how a church is governed, what the church does, and where the church is going. I'm a little bit over half way through the book. The first two sections are good, it's hard to be a conservative baptist and not have a good definition of what and who a church is. Regenerate church membership is one of his strongest arguments in this section, however, as he continues to flesh out the implications of regenerate church membership in his section on how a church is governed, things start to unravel. His arguments for congregationalism are almost entirely pragmatic. He even admits in several places that congregationalism is a pragmatic conclusion. At one point he goes so far as to say the following, I was shocked:
"In the end, they [the congregation] are the ones who must give financially to support the ministry he [the pastor] envisions; they must act if the church is to love and reach and disciple people as he desires. They are far likelier to give and act on plans they have had a part in developing. And, if the members are maturing spiritually, why would a church or its pastors want to cut themselves off from the wisdom they may contribute?" (p.211)
I've digressed into the subject matter of the book instead of going where I had intended with this post, so if you don't mind, I'm going to get back on track and not comment on that quote. I don't think I can handle it right now...
So, like I was saying, I've been thinking a lot about my commitment to the Bible and it's principles. As you may be able to tell already, I'm specifically concerning with church polity and my role in the local church. Here are some things that I'm struggling with:
1. What is the role of para-church organizations in the life of the local church?
2. What is my personal conviction concerning my responsibility to act on what I believe to be biblical?
3. Where should I be focusing my energies at this point in my life?
4. Is pursuing a career in a Bible-college or seminary setting right for me?
5. Where are my priorities? Am I more concerned with earning a degree and getting a job or with 1 Tim. 3:1-13?
For as much as I dislike Hammett's pragmatism, I see so much of it in myself. I'm afraid that I may be paralyzed by the thought of having to start from scratch to get into a career of any other sort than the one that I'm currently pursuing.
When I was at NGU, loving the Bible and theology and the things of God seemed to me to be a clear pointer to further studies in order to one day be able to teach those things to others. Now I believe that loving the Bible, God, theology, etc. is something that every Christian ought to aspire to, not just the seminarians. Like a good friend of mine pointed out the other day, the qualifications in 1 Tim 3 are not reserved for elders and deacons, they are necessary for all believers. It's not the elders who are barred from drunkenness and immorality, it's every Christian: thus, every Christian male should either be aspiring to be an elder or a deacon. I don't know if I'm ready to say every, but I think probably most, and if they're not aspiring to the office, they should at least be serving in those ways unofficially.
I apologize for the sporadic nature of this post, all this is compounding in my mind and heart, and has spilled over here. I simply desire to be true to the Bible and it's teachings. Any thoughts or suggestions?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The Word of God
The past few weeks have been very beneficial for my soul. I highly recommend that you download and listen to the messages from the New Attitude 2008 conference. I didn't attend the conference, but I have listened to the messages and they are fantastic. The topic this year was the Word of God and as such all the messages are geared toward making much of God's word. These messages really encouraged me to get off my (spiritually) lazy butt and read diligently. I have a summer reading goal of 3 books, which are listed below. However, I've not gotten very far in the second book; I've been too busy reading the Bible.
As some of you may know, I work in the library at SEBTS. This allows me a bit of time to read during work (especially now that we're in summer sessions). Instead of bringing several books to browse and/or study while I'm at work, I've started only bringing my Bible. In the past couple of days I've read through Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. On top of that I'm reading through Bible using M'Cheyne's schedule; right now I'm going through Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, and Revelation. I'm not writing any of this to boast in my holiness or ability or anything of the sort. On the contrary, just a few weeks ago I was struggling to get through the reading for M'Cheyne and had little desire to do so. I'm writing this to encourage you to overcome whatever it is that's causing you to neglect your daily Bible reading. Nothing really comes close to sitting down and reading through an epistle in one sitting. By reading these entire books in the past few days I've been immensely encouraged to love Jesus more and to love others more, especially my wife and my brothers and sisters in Christ.
One other thing that pertains to this subject of Bible reading. I was encouraged by Dave Black's blog, especially his post from Thursday, May 22, @ 6:32 am (unfortunately you can't link to specific posts, so you'll just have to do some scrolling), to begin marking in my Bible. This might sound strange to some of you, but I was a Bible page purist. I loved the look of the untainted page. My hand isn't steady enough to make a good underlining, and I abhor a thick black snake of ink running through the text. So, with PENCIL in hand, I've begun to carefully mark and make notes in my Bible. I know that some of you are probably thinking "wow, big deal." But, it is a big deal for me, and if there's anyone else out there who secretly, or openly, is too cautious to mar the pages of his beloved Bible, let me just say that there can be some benefits from doing so. Though a part of me still likes the look of the clean page. Hopefully the benefits of recalling and finding specific verses and/or thoughts will outweigh the OCD impulses I feel.
As some of you may know, I work in the library at SEBTS. This allows me a bit of time to read during work (especially now that we're in summer sessions). Instead of bringing several books to browse and/or study while I'm at work, I've started only bringing my Bible. In the past couple of days I've read through Hebrews, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians. On top of that I'm reading through Bible using M'Cheyne's schedule; right now I'm going through Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah, and Revelation. I'm not writing any of this to boast in my holiness or ability or anything of the sort. On the contrary, just a few weeks ago I was struggling to get through the reading for M'Cheyne and had little desire to do so. I'm writing this to encourage you to overcome whatever it is that's causing you to neglect your daily Bible reading. Nothing really comes close to sitting down and reading through an epistle in one sitting. By reading these entire books in the past few days I've been immensely encouraged to love Jesus more and to love others more, especially my wife and my brothers and sisters in Christ.
One other thing that pertains to this subject of Bible reading. I was encouraged by Dave Black's blog, especially his post from Thursday, May 22, @ 6:32 am (unfortunately you can't link to specific posts, so you'll just have to do some scrolling), to begin marking in my Bible. This might sound strange to some of you, but I was a Bible page purist. I loved the look of the untainted page. My hand isn't steady enough to make a good underlining, and I abhor a thick black snake of ink running through the text. So, with PENCIL in hand, I've begun to carefully mark and make notes in my Bible. I know that some of you are probably thinking "wow, big deal." But, it is a big deal for me, and if there's anyone else out there who secretly, or openly, is too cautious to mar the pages of his beloved Bible, let me just say that there can be some benefits from doing so. Though a part of me still likes the look of the clean page. Hopefully the benefits of recalling and finding specific verses and/or thoughts will outweigh the OCD impulses I feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
