Reflections on Reading the Old Testament in Twelve Weeks

Last weekend I finished up a goal I made 3 months earlier: To read through the Old Testament in 12 weeks.

The parameters were originally set as a means of testing the viability of such a reading plan for a Sunday School class for one quarter on a Survey of the Old Testament.

I quickly realized there was no way that that would fly (if we ever do a class like that, it will be at least two quarters of the year, not one), but having extra time in the final quarter of 2017 (or so I thought at the time), I decided to take the time to do the reading anyway for my own benefit.

It was not exactly the easiest Bible reading plan I've ever attempted. Depending on the week, I averaged somewhere around 10-15 chapters of reading per day. Amazingly, I managed to keep up with it and finished it on time to the day of my schedule (despite missing a few days along the way).

Since this kind of reading plan is a bit unusual, I thought I would write out a few thoughts that going through this 12-week plan brought to my mind.

• 1. Counter-intuitively, reading longer amounts of Scripture made me more likely to read carefully

Maybe most Christians aren't like me, but I find that I tend to rush through devotions too often. There are a lot of days where I read 2-4 chapters, but because I'm in a rush I take little benefit out of it.

Reading a longer section didn't make me less likely to rush - and there were definitely some days where I was guilty of this still - but I found that because it would take at least thirty minutes to read through a section like this I was more likely to stop, remind myself to slow down and read carefully, and then continue the reading.

The end result is that I found myself actually at times reading more carefully than I do normally on many occasions, despite reading quite a bit more than what is typical for me.

• 2. Having a clear schedule and a tight goal made reading a priority for me

I'll be honest, I haven't really used Bible reading plans much in recent years. I tend to just read through different books of the Bible over a week in addition to whatever books I'm studying at the moment.

But since I do read the Bible every day as part of my normal weekly study, it can be easy to miss days or use that as an excuse to put off separate devotional reading since my schedule from day to day tends to be somewhat irregular.

However, having this kind of goal and schedule set down for the first time in quite a while, I found that it helped me make the reading a priority - much more so than it is normally - even if that meant I ended up finishing all or most of it in bed at night.

As I noticed that, it made me wonder if I've been doing myself a disservice in recent years by not using a schedule or reading plan.

I can't say for sure how much other people have in common with me on that point, but I would suggest that if you find it difficult to 'find time' to read, the answer may be simply to make it a priority.

A lot of times, I think we can worry about whether we're reading the Bible just to fill an arbitrary quota rather than out of love for God and a desire to pursue him.

Honestly, though, I think that misses the point. We don't love God or delight in Christ at random times (okay, sometimes we do, but that isn't the lesson to get here), we love and delight in him because we give him our time regularly as we pursue him, just as we do anything else we love or delight in.

How do we feel love for God? By pursuing him. How do we pursue him? Through listening for his voice. How do we listen for his voice? By dumping all the pop-Christianity books whose authors claim God speaks to them and instead reading the only actual book that contains God's voice: The Bible.

I didn't fall in love with my wife by saying, "You know, I'm not sure I feel in love with Emily today - I think I'll wait till I feel like it to spend time with her." That would be utterly insane, but that is how we can tend to treat our relationship with God.

We don't pursue God necessarily because we always feel love for him, nor do we do so exclusively because we think we're supposed to; rather, we pursue God for the purpose that we may grow in love for him because he is the only One in this life who is truly worthy of being pursued and delighted in.

I don't pretend to know what anyone else's schedule looks like, but I would suspect that most look quite a bit different than mine. Find what works for you, but make sure that however it happens time in the Scripture is a priority for you. Ultimately, we find time for whatever it is we most value.

• 3. Reading large amounts of Scripture can be just as beneficial as reading small amounts

Much of modern Christianity, in my observance, has sort of lost sight of how to read the Bible. A lot of the blame goes to the heavy focus on individual verses, whether through bookmarks, Scripture memory, or whatever else.

I'm not saying that those things are bad (many of them are very good), but unfortunately they have inadvertantly or otherwise led many believers into a way of reading the Bible that stunts our ability to read the Bible with any kind of depth.

The Bible is a book like most books: of words, written with mostly normal rules of grammar, syntax, etc. And yet, too often, we read the whole Bible like we read Proverbs: as a book of mostly unrelated verses that we can tear out of their context without damaged.

It is true that there is a spiritual dimension to reading the Bible, but that misses the point that the Bible is still largely understood the way we understand any other form of verbal communication.

The meaning of the Scripture is the Scripture. You cannot divorce what the Bible meant when it was written from what it means to you. The former must necessarily precede the latter or else the Bible has no meaning at all.

What am I getting at? Namely this: While there is much benefit to be gained from poring over a single verse in the Bible, the best way to study the Bible is through the natural thought/paragraph separations in each book.

Studying one verse is to zero in on one fragment of those thought sections. We can see more detail this way, but it can also be easy to lose sight of how it fits into the whole - and that is where the danger lies.

A verse cut from it's context and interpreted without consider the whole of Scripture more often than not leads to one of many false understandings of the Bible, such as moralism, legalism, anti-nomianism, etc. to varying degrees.

Conversely, while the problem of studying a very small section of Scripture has the benefit of giving more detail but the consequence of potentially losing sight of the whole into which it fits, pulling back and viewing a larger section - e.g. a chapter or a book of the Bible - has different benefits and potential pitfalls.

Reading a chapter, or especially a whole book, over a short amount of time, gives a very different - and often missed - perspective on that passage. It helps us to see how all the little details fit into the whole.

To understand the Bible, we must understand the message of the Bible as a whole. Likewise, to understand any of the books in the Bible, we must first understand why they are in the Bible. Secondly, in order to understand fully what we see in that individual book of the Bible, we need to grasp what the content of that individual book is.

While we often do Bible studies of small sections of Scripture, I think there is much benefit to be gained from reading entire books in one sitting (or as few as possible) before studying it more closely.

This is a benefit that, in my experience, is too often missed because we're so focused on the glory of the leaf or the tree that we miss the glory of the forest.

These are a few of the thoughts that came to my mind as I worked my way through the last twelve weeks of reading. Lord willing, I intend to read through the New Testament in six weeks, starting in January after taking two weeks off.

Studying with Study Bibles

This may seem an odd way to break my blogging extended break, but I've been thinking about a couple of posts I'd like to write up over the next few weeks.

I'm just finishing a Bible reading plan in which I am reading the entire Old Testament over the course of twelve weeks. It was originally an idea for a Sunday School class (sort of an Old Testament Survey), but I quickly decided it was unfeasible to try to do the entire OT in one quarter. But the process has gotten some extended thoughts on the Bible onto my mind.

After I finish my reading of the OT (after next week), I'll write up some thoughts afterward as I have time regarding what I learned from that process.

However, during the process of reading over the Bible that quickly, it occurred to me that there is a lot in the Old Testament that isn't necessary clear on first reading, either to the average believer or even, often enough, to those of us who teach the Bible.

There are any number of reasons for this, from the fact that much of the OT was written to an entirely different audience as us, we don't always have strong familiarity with the background of each book, and we're immersed in a culture that encourages us to take bite-size segments out of context without much thought of how it relates to what is written around it. But that's a problem for another day.

Frankly, most pastors (including me) don't spend a lot of time teaching on some of the more difficult sections of the OT - such as the law and much of the prophets. This isn't entirely a problem, except that we encourage church members to read the Bible through every year without necessarily equipping people with the means to understand a fair bit of what they're reading.

Enter Study Bibles. This is a resource that can be quite valuable when used properly. My first Study Bible, properly speaking, was a MacArthur Student Bible. I've enjoyed and been blessed by many of them ever since.

While I personally don't use Study Bibles while doing my normal Bible reading or listening to sermons, that is more of a personal decision. Basically, I find them too distracting because I spend too much time reading the notes.

My personal use of Study Bibles comes in two primary ways: 1) When I come across a passage in which the meaning of a particular verse or paragraph isn't entirely clear to me; 2) When I want to understand the main thrust of a given book of the Bible (most Study Bibles will give a summary of the content of each book, as well as other helpful information, at the beginning of each book).

Now, given that there are different kinds of Study Bibles and varying types of content contained in each, it struck me it might be helpful to write up a post on some of my favorites as well encouraging people to get (as you are able to) and use Study Bibles.

With the rest of the post, I'd like to list the four Study Bibles I use most often and what I especially like about them. In no particular order:

The Reformation Heritage King James Study Bible

If you know me well, you know I don't really use the KJV all that much. My primary version is the ESV, but I can still appreciate the history, richness, and gravitas of the King James. Besides which, if you can afford it, I think most people would benefit from owning a King James Bible, even if it isn't your primary version.

If you're one of those who stick primarily to the KJV, you may have noticed there aren't a lot of good Study Bibles out there for you. A lot of the best ones - such as the MacArthur Study Bible - haven't been adapted to the KJV. Good news: The Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible (General Editor, Joel Beeke) is a great resource.

In addition to the standard Study Bible features such as including introductions to each book and regular notes in each chapter, the RH Study Bible has some really excellent additions that set it apart and make it a regular resource that I turn to.

First, at the end of most chapters, the RHSB includes usually 2-3 devotional thoughts on the content of the chapter. While studying, my focus begins with understanding the meaning of the text, and it can be easy to quickly pass over practical and devotional considerations. I consider this inclusion to be worth the cost of the RHSB by itself.

Additionally, in the back of the Bible, the RHSB has a number of resources, such as:

- Three dozen articles (a page each) on 'How to Live as a Christian', with such subjects as: Humility, Fleeing Worldliness, Family Worship, and Godly Contentment
- A one page summary of each century in Christian history from the 1st century till today
- Nine creeds and confessions of the church, such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster Confession and Shorter and Longer Catechism - even for Christians who don't attend a confessional church (such as myself), it is helpful to understand what the Church at large has agreed are key and foundational biblical positions over the past two-thousand years.

This is a beautiful merging of theological and practical resources. Whether you use the KJV or not, this is a great resource and one I turn to regularly.

The one disclaimer I would give (as a Baptist): Since the notes reflect the Reformation and Puritan age of the Church, the study notes are slanted more in the Presbyterian/Covenantal direction. But this is the case with most Study Bibles - the notes reflect the theological positions of the author(s). That will be the case with virtually any form of teaching - including any of the Bibles listed below.

The New English Translation Study Bible

Called the NET Bible because it was released initially on the internet, this is one of the newer Bible versions out there today.

I will say right at the beginning that, while I really enjoy this Study Bible, it is not for everyone. The project was created under the premise that, in the pursuit of accuracy, the translation itself would not be as focused on word-for-word translation as some versions today.

Just to explain briefly: When translating from the original languages to English, decisions have to made regarding how literally to translate the language. While many often argue that we need the most literal translation we can get, this is not actually practical.

If you've ever looked at an interlinear Bible, it becomes quickly obvious that, at the least, the grammar needs to be re-worded at times to make the translation clear. Also, decisions need to be made as far as idioms that simply don't carry over from one language to another - do we retain the idiom word for word, despite the loss of clarity, or do we try to capture the sense of the idiom as we might say it in English?

The difference between the views are often labeled as Formal Equivalence (translations that lean more towards a literal word-for-word translation at the expense of clarity) and Dynamic Equivalence (translations that lean more towards a less literal thought-for-thought translation at the expense of accuracy). The range can be demonstrated on a graph such as the one below:

Obviously this is not a precise science, but it gives a rough sense for how the versions line up. On the far end of the left side is an interlinear Bible. Basically, this just takes the Greek and translates it rigidly into English, including the word order. On the far right we find paraphrases - these translations aren't particularly concerned about fidelity to the Greek, their primary concern is readability.

While there's a place for both extremes, the ideal Bible for normal reading and study will be something in between, which is where you see most versions lining up. The NET is not listed, but would probably be around the NIV area.

There is no 'perfect' place on the line between readability and accuracy, however. At the end of the day, they're all translations of some kind, it really comes down to what each person is looking for in a translation.

One thing that is interesting about the NET, however: The study notes section includes 3 types of notes.

1) TC - Text-critical

The Text Critical (TC) notes are a really good resource for anyone who is interested in textual criticism, regardless of what side you fall on in the textual debates. They're not exhaustive, but they cover most variants worth mentioning.

The Translation Notes (TN) are surprisingly interesting as well, though. I noted before that the NET focuses more on readability than accuracy. The intent is that the study notes will explain what the text literally says where they make a significant departure from the Greek or Hebrew. While I primarily got the NET SB for the TC notes, I found the TN notes to be a fascinating addition, and one that I go back to quite a bit.

The Study Notes (SN) were probably the most surprising to me. These notes explain statements and practices that might not be clear to us do the culture gaps between today and Bible times.

In the back, the NET SB has a number of maps - there are some traditional maps like you'd find in most Bibles, but it also includes satellite images of the holy land that are quite stunning. They aren't what you get this Bible for, but they're a nice extra.

Also in the back, there's a number of information on textual criticism related to papyri, codex's, etc. It's the kind of stuff I enjoy reading about, but it provides a good primer on the subject to any who know little or nothing on it but enjoy that type of study.

All in all, the NET SB is not a Bible I'd recommend to just anyone like I would the RHSB above, but to any who found the contents intriguing, you might enjoy this one. And while the NET isn't my top choice for a translation, I use it a lot for comparison purposes.

The MacArthur Study Bible

The benefits of this one are pretty straightforward. If you're familiar with John MacArthur, you know you're getting notes that come from deep, serious study. While I don't agree on everything with Dr. MacArthur, what I love about this Bible is that it's a quick reference work and it includes extensive Old Testament notes that you can't get elsewhere since his commentaries only cover the New Testament.

An added benefit is that the MacArthur SB is available in four versions, which offers a nice flexibility: NKJV, NASB, NIV, and ESV.

While it doesn't have a lot of the extra, fancy stuff that the previous two did, what it does have is good, solid notes that you can feel a reasonable degree of confidence in using to explain the text to you.

Obviously, MacArthur is not perfect (no one is, after all), but as a general rule, his work is as good as anyone else out there. I'd probably recommend this one to just about anyone as a good one-volume commentary that is accessible on a fairly basic level.

The ESV Study Bible

It goes without saying that this is an ESV only SB. It's also a bit bulky with notes. It isn't necessarily one you want to carry around with you. I spend a fair bit of time referencing in this one, however, because of how extensive the notes are. The editors do a good job of explaining the different views on controversial subjects like eschatology and the ordinances, etc.

Whether you use the ESV or not, this still functions as a nice one-volume commentary, reference book. I enjoy it and it remains one of my go-to choices.

----

Basically, the important thing for believers to be immersed in the word. Psalm 119, for instance, makes clear what the attitude of one who is united to Christ by faith will be in regards to the message of God. True believers delight in God's word and spend a great deal of our time reading it, thinking about it, and studying it, to whatever degree they are able.

The blessing, then, of Study Bibles, is clear: Wherever something is unclear - and let's be honest, there's a fair bit of this for all of us - it is helpful to have a resource(s) we can use to shed light on the text.

Even if you don't end up agreeing with the position in the Study Bible you use, you'll at least see a position on the passage that at least has a history of acceptance in the Church (which is more than we can say for our limited perspective on the text).

The more I study into the history of God's people, the more humbled I am at the gift we possess today in the riches of resources available to bring the word to us. If we love God, we should take advantage of it.

Fizzling Night Lights

In many ways, this has been the best year of my life. There are other aspects of this year, however, that I wish I could forget, or outright erase from existence.

The prostitution of many conservatives and, sad to say, far too many evangelicals (including some prominent evangelical voices) at the altar of Donald Trump, has been a discouraging one to witness.

It is nothing new, sadly, to see Scripture misused and ripped mercilessly from its context with neither second thoughts or even awareness of what has been done, whether by prominent evangelicals, or the average churchgoer. But to see such things done to prop up a man who is so immoral that most evangelicals wouldn’t want him as a next-door neighbor or an employee is simultaneously heartbreaking and maddening.

I genuinely can’t remember when I have last seen so much Scripture misapplied (in this case in defense of voting for Trump) so shamelessly. It is an embarrassment of epic proportions that the Church of Christ should not only watch idly as these things happen but take part in them.

We ought to be ashamed and nauseated by the filth which our Lord’s name has been dragged through. Instead, too often we look with approval or applause upon it, showing how little discernment or right-thinking on Biblical things there really is in the modern church.

In our ‘post-modern era’, we can take pride in our advances in technology and freedom, yet we in the church today are far more ignorant today of what is true than they were hundreds of years ago. The Reformers and Puritans may not have had 10 Bible versions and translations of every work they could possibly want to reference in their own language and at their fingertips, but at least they knew evil when they saw it, and they called it out.

In the 1970’s, as a candidate for president of the United States, Jimmy Carter was reviled by those who valued morality in a candidate simply for doing an interview with Playboy magazine. Today, we are debating whether or not Trump’s ‘locker-room’, ‘bad-boy talk’ was just idle bragging or an accurate record of his actions. We don’t consider his appearance in Playboy videos an issue. His own book openly admits (and glories in) his tawdry character. Never have we in the history of our nation had two more disqualified candidates for president. Less than fifty years and Satan already has lured us into the mire of defending loose morality.

Even NBC – dismissed by many evangelical conservatives as liberal headquarters – even they recognize that Trump’s comments were so vile that they fired their employee who was chuckling over this with Trump. If even unbelievers see this behavior as beyond common decency, how can we pretend that this is not disqualifying, to say nothing of Donald Trump’s boasts over his adulterous ‘conquests’?

‘But of course these things are bad!’ some protest; ‘we’re not voting for Trump – we’re voting against Hillary! We’re voting for saving babies and the Supreme Court!” On a biblical level, this argument is inappropriate, because it is only barely removed from Satan’s propositions to Christ in the wilderness: the adversary came offering good things in the wrong time and in the wrong way. If we are unwilling to make the hard choice and refuse, we accept his deal.

The argument for ‘voting against Hillary’ really doesn’t improve on historical grounds: In 1973, a case of some significance was decided by the Supreme Court. The judgment went 7-2. Those seven justices in question were nominated by presidents, Nixon (x3), Eisenhower (x2), Roosevelt and Johnson (one apiece). And, thus, Roe v. Wade became case law in America. The two dissenting justices? William Rehnquist, nominated by Richard Nixon, and Byron White, nominated by John F. Kennedy.

One of the most significant court cases in the minds of evangelicals (and rightly so!) was decided by 5 justices nominated by Republicans, and 2 nominated by Democrats. Of the two dissenters, one was nominated by a Democrat. But that was then, we might say, times are different now. Well, let’s see, as far as decisions go, John Roberts (nominated by Bush II) has been a real winner for conservatives, hasn’t he? Anthony Kennedy (nominated by Reagan) is even worse. So, are we really going to seriously suggest that Trump is going to do a better job picking justices than Reagan or Bush?

Understand: I don’t personally even consider the Supreme Court a relevant question – not that I don’t care about it, but because, let’s face it: the court goes as the country goes, and the country is becoming progressively more ungodly. Regardless of who wins this election, the Supreme Court will be gone in a generation without an act of God – I only bring this up because others seem to think this matters.

Even on the abortion question – one that is very near and dear to my heart; an issue that has always been a prime concern that drives how I vote – let’s remember how long Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land: 43 years. God had the power to prevent Roe v. Wade from ever taking effect, and he has had the power to remove it at any time since then, yet he has chosen not to. Are we going to prioritize the results of the election over doing what is right when the results of such that God has sovereignly allowed them to remain?

‘But we have to vote for one of them!” We say. Do we? Where in the Bible does it say that we are required to vote for a winning candidate? In fact, where does it even say that we must vote at all? Voting is a privilege, and one that I am grateful for – and I plan to exercise it in voting for other people and measures on the ballot on November 8^th – but it is not a divine calling on believers.

There is no Scriptural mandate that requires us to vote. Ultimately, we are called by God to be good citizens and to do what is right, which can and should involve voting. If voting as a good citizen contradicts my call from God to do what is right, then happily will I give that up.

So what does matter then? What is relevant, and what should believers be looking at in regards to the question of whether we can vote at all for a mainline candidate?

Any evangelical from a Bible-believing church ought to be able to recite at least the first question and answer from the Westminster Catechism, even if they can’t remember a word of the rest:

“Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?

A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” (Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:31).

This should be remembered because it is so foundational that nothing – even evangelism – can be prioritized over it. So how do we glorify God? One significant way can be found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew 5:13-16: “¹³ “You are the salt of the earth, but if salt has lost its taste, how shall its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people's feet.

¹⁴ “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.¹⁵ Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. ¹⁶ In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.”

What does it mean to be salt and light? Well, for one thing, it might be helpful to remember the history of God’s people. Back in the Old Testament, Israel was going through their worst and most unfaithful period as a nation under God. The Lord spoke then to Ezekiel, his prophet, regarding what had been and what was to come.

Ezekiel 36:22-23: “²² “Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came. ²³ And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Lord God, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.”

Israel was set apart as a nation for God. They were given laws that reflected his character and were given to draw others from the nations to God, if Israel had been faithful. But Israel was not only unfaithful, they, in many ways, became worse than the nations around them.

Whether the church today is as bad as Israel was then is not the point; we are in danger of committing the same mistake that they did: This is what it means to be salt and light. We have a God-mandated responsibility to demonstrate the character of God in our lives and bring glory to him by doing what is right and godly.

Voting for a man who even unbelievers rightly see as a chronic liar, a serial adulterer, and a bigot with no control over his mouth or emotions, diminishes the glory of God and our witness for him, because even if you see your action as ‘only a vote’, that is not how many unbelievers will see it, and they will link the church to Donald Trump because of ‘our’ (believers’) support of him.

Is there any place for pragmatism in voting then? Of course; there must be to some degree. After all, no one is perfect – no pastor or elder, and no candidate for president or any other office or occupation. So should we vote for flawed candidates? Of course, and we must. But think about it: We use basic morality as a baseline for any occupation. Employees can be fired these days for what they post carelessly about on Facebook. How can we say it does not matter for the president?

Having said that, let me be clear: I subscribe wholeheartedly to the principle of Romans 14:23: “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” We must act consistently with our conscience – but it is well to remember that our conscience is not always a perfect judge of what is right; it must be sharpened and informed by God’s Word. There is too little of that sharpening going around of late. 

If you disagree with me on my arguments from Scripture and feel you can in good conscience vote Donald Trump, I cannot stop you. But let me at least try to suggest why I believe voting for Donald Trump is a choice that morally is not good.

So why not vote for Trump? Because, as should be obvious to all, he is morally disqualified. Unbelievers can see that, the church of the past generation would have seen that (in spite of everything they got wrong), and if you cannot see that, it is difficult to imagine what you might consider to be morally disqualified.

Think about that: Trump is one of the few people running for president with as loose a relationship to truth as Hillary Clinton. If even a small percentage of the stories that have been coming out about Trump are true, or if his own words are to be taken as fact, he makes Bill Clinton’s adultery look comparatively righteous.

If you feel the need to defend Trump’s moral character, then I must assume that you either don’t read any news outside of far-right conservative media (which is a problem on its own, frankly) or you are intentionally blind to anything that might disqualify him because you’re unwilling to let this election go. Even unbiased, irreligious conservatives admit that Trump’s morality is a problem.

But let’s make sure we understand what is really going on: This isn’t about whether Trump is qualified or not to be president – indeed, even if Trump was qualified outside of his morality (he’s not, but that’s a debate for another time), the responsibility of believers would not change. So what is this about? Fear.

We are afraid of what will happen if Hillary Clinton becomes president, and I can certainly understand that. But the direction that that fear is driving us is unbecoming of Christians. Not only are we failing to trust God – if you deny this, I genuinely believe you are self-deceived – but we are compounding the problem by enabling evil candidates and telling the world that doing what is right only matters so long as the circumstances are right.

Sadly, I recently heard Dr. Ben Carson say in an interview that morality matters, but we need to wait on that conversation until after the election – there is too much at stake in this election to trifle about such things right now, he suggested. Too many believers seem to agree with this perspective. How pitiful and pathetic that Christians should be among the most vocal proponents of situational ethics.

Truly, it seems that the visible church in America is simply mirroring the downgrade that took place in revivals and evangelism in recent decades: Churches and evangelists watered-down the gospel in order to get people in the pews. They were so desperate to be successful that they lost sight of what evangelistic success looks like: Glorifying God and discipling those whom he has called to himself through the call and grace of the Holy Spirit.

This tunnel vision is eerily similar to what we are seeing in political discussions now. We are so afraid to lose the election that we’re willing to sacrifice anything to win – even our witness for God. 

If we are willing to degrade ourselves (and our Lord) so far by voting for someone so abysmally unqualified by grasping at straws to defend our support for him, then the church is in a truly frightening place.

What should we do? Live as good citizens – including voting – so far as we are able to consistent with God’s character and without destroying our testimony for God – in these circumstances,  I strongly believe that that means we should reject both of the two major candidates for president – and trust God for the results. And remember the words of Paul:

Philippians 1:29: “²⁹ For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,”

Exegetically, these two things – belief and suffering – are linked in how we receive them from God. Just as our belief is a gift from God (Ephesians 2:9), so also is suffering. We have lived a life of ease too long as believers that now we are afraid to go through suffering. Suffering is in fact a gift from God because it is an assurance to us of salvation and it is a gracious means of spiritual growth.  Do not waste this gift or reject it, calling it a rock or serpent (Matthew 7:9-10).  

What should believers do then to glorify God and be lights for him in the world? Do what is right, regardless of the circumstances or what it will cost; fear no man; trust in the Lord; and, especially, pray for our nation and the church. 

A Case for Secession...err...Cessationism

Last week, John MacArthur and Grace to You had a conference called, "Strange Fire" to address the problems in the "Charismatic Movement".

I'd thought about writing a short blog series addressing the Biblical issues involved, but after listening to one of the audio messages, I have a better option.

I haven't heard all the sessions yet, but in my opinion, Tom Pennington's session on the 7 Biblical Reasons for Cessationism is something all believers should hear. Those who believe the sign gifts still exist today are far more numerous in the world than Mormons (500 Million vs. 14 million, if I'm remembering the statistics right).

It is important that we know what the Bible teaches, particularly regarding gifts of Prophecy, Tongues, and Miracles. Are there still Christians today who are gifted with the ability to work these signs? I agree with Tom Pennington in affirming that the Bible does not support the Charismatics in any way.

Note. Saying we believe that the sign gifts have ceased does not mean that we believe God is not capable of acting miraculously anymore. As one pastor put it: The miraculous gifts of the New Testament's existence today would be equivalent to it snowing on the Sahara desert - obviously God could do it; but don't expect it.

The session is a few minutes over an hour, but it would time well spent.

http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/TM13-7/a-case-for-cessationism-tom-pennington

Other sessions if you have time and interest can be found here:

http://www.tmstrangefire.org/media#.UmrdbXBJNkk

9-15-13 - Two Messages for Drew...or anyone else who wants to hear them.

This last Sunday (9-15-13), Drew texted me, telling me he couldn't make it to church. As it happened, I was doing a presentation for Sunday School that morning, and he sounded so disappointed to be missing it that I had both that Sunday School message and the evening sermon from John 16:25-33 recorded. So here they are now, Drew, just for you...I don't usually post sermon audios online, so this is one of your few chances to listen (oddly enough, it is also one of your few chances to ignore the message, too...so, there's that).

Sunday School Presentation on the Canon of the New Testament

and

Evening message on John 16:25-33

Consider this a late Birthday present, Drew, since I neglected to get one for you this year. :)

The "Holy Father" Needs to Review the Holy Scriptures

As admirable as some aspects of Pope Francis I's example are - forgoing much of the pomp and and self-exaltation of the office he holds: washing feet, living a poor life like aesthetically prior to becoming pope, taking public transportation - he is still guilty of the rank heresy approved by the Roman Catholic Church. 

Even worse, Francis has recently demonstrated a lack of understanding on Scripture in relation to salvation. 

In a conversation with Eugenio Scalfari, founder of the newspaper, La Repubblica, Francis had this to say:

"“You ask me if the God of the Christians forgives those who don’t believe and who don’t seek the faith. I start by saying – and this is the fundamental thing – that God’s mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere and contrite heart. The issue for those who do not believe in God is to obey their conscience. Sin, even for those who have no faith, exists when people disobey their conscience.” (Emphasis mine).

He would do well to read the book of Hebrews again:

Hebrews 11:6: " 6 And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

Or,

John 14:6: "6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Story on Francis' quotes: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-assures-atheists-you-dont-have-to-believe-in-god-to-go-to-heaven-8810062.html

Tim Tebow, Worldviews, and the Cult of Celebrity

I like Tim Tebow.

I rooted for the Gators when Tebow played there, despite having zero interest in Florida football before or after Tebow.

I rooted for Denver when Tebow played there, although, admittedly I had more ties to the Broncos than I did to Florida.

I've supported Tebow throughout his career, but recently things have turned up related to him and his football decisions that bother me. (No, this isn't a belated, 'Why did Tebow sign with the Patriots?' post).

Tim Tebow has long been an icon for Christians who like football. He unapologetically wears his faith on his sleeve. He works hard to be the best player he can be. These are all things to admire.

Here's what concerns me: Over the last few weeks, since Tebow signed with the Patriots, the question came up as to whether Tebow would switch positions and no longer play quarterback. That's understandable. Tom Brady is the quarterback in New England and there is even less chance that he gets benched for Tebow than there was in New York or Denver - basically, zero. With the Patriots losing Rob Gronkowski to injury for the first third of the season and Aaron Hernandez to prison for a long time (presumably), Tebow could theoretically slot in as a tight end. This did not happen, however, and Tebow was finally cut from the roster.

Following his departure from the Patriots, Tebow released a statement on twitter thanking the Patriots for the opportunity. Near the end of the of the statement, he wrote:

"I will remain in relentless pursuit of continuing my lifelong dream of being an NFL quarterback."

Since then (August 31), word has eked out that Tebow has received offers from NFL teams to join them as a potential roster player - but not as a quarterback. Honestly, I'm in no way an expert. I haven't a clue how well suited Tebow would be to other positions in football at the professional level that he has never played before.

Here's the thing, though: At least some people (allegedly) think he's got a shot of remaking his career at a new position. He has opportunities. But he's turning them down because he has a particular dream, and those alternate suggestions do not fit his dream.

Now, I'm not a pastor, and I don't know Tim, but if I was his pastor, there's some things I'd want to suggest to him.

1. It doesn't matter how hard you work, not all dreams are going to come true.

As one analyst said, Tebow was an incredible college football quarterback, but he's not a very good professional quarterback. This is not a knock on Tebow or an attack on his faith, it is simply a fact. The chances at this point in time are almost nil that he will become an NFL quarterback - and you know what? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Psycho-quacks can blather all they want to about how you can be anything you want to be, but they are still wrong. There is a ceiling to everyone's ability in a given area, and Tebow has almost certainly hit his.

2. God's plan for your life is more important than your dream.

For believers, as Tim has repeatedly professed himself to be, our lives are not our own - we have been bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:19-20). Our goal is to seek out God's will for our lives. With Tim, perhaps God is taking him away from professional football. Or perhaps God wants him to turn the page to something new...for the glory of God.

Honestly, Tebow might have been given this opportunity in order to glorify God in a new position, whether in football as a receiver or a rusher, or in ministry.

3. Be careful to avoid pride.

There is much that Tebow might reasonably be expected to feel pride in. He was an outstanding college football quarterback, and nobody can take that away from him. For however much credit is due to him, and opinions vary, he took the Broncos to the second round of the playoffs.

But those words he chose in his statement: Relentless pursuit; my lifelong dream - That smacks of pride and self-interest. To be fair, Tebow is young, and he's had to shoulder a lot of attention. And for what it's worth, he has overall done a remarkable job of it. I can't imagine I would do as well in the same position, and I admire how he has stayed strong in the face of difficulties, despite many rooting for him to fail.


Perhaps this is reading too much into a few reports and a brief statement on twitter - but the simple fact is that I'm reading the same thing everyone else is. And whether or not Tebow is demonstrating pride here, and whether or not we're holding him to too high of a standard, it remains: People are watching.

He is a role-model. And there are young people who will seek to emulate him, both in his strengths and in his shortcomings. Unfortunately, the latter represent a much easier target, and they represent a target that most might not even realize is wrong - because Tebow does it.

So if I had the opportunity to speak to Tim, I would tell him that as a role-model for countless young believers, he might want to consider showing humility by trying a different position. It would no more be giving up than Jesus gave up by washing his disciples' feet in John 13. And it would be a solid lesson to those watching that sometimes God has another plan for us than what we might have wanted.