The CIA and Bible Interpretation

Some weeks ago I came across a humbling video over at Dan Phillips’ blog.



It stunningly demonstrates how a person can miss something in plain sight. Dan went on to apply the principle to pitfalls in Bible interpretation. Ever since, I have wondered about strategies to avoid missing what a particular passage of scripture is really about. I preach through books of the Bible passage by passage, and highly desire to communicate to my congregation the precise meaning and application of the text in view.

Well, along comes Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost with a link to a CIA publication, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis that I believe is helpful toward this end.

The helpful public servants over at the nation’s intelligence agency provide a number of helps to analytical thinking. The first few chapters describe the difficulties humans face in correctly interpreting data, while Chapter Four and onward provide methods for improving one’s ability to do good analysis.

Here are some examples:

Thinking Backwards: One technique for exploring new ground is thinking backwards. As an intellectual exercise, start with an assumption that some event you did not expect has actually occurred. Then, put yourself into the future, looking back to explain how this could have happened.

Crystal Ball: The crystal ball approach works in much the same way as thinking backwards. Imagine that a "perfect" intelligence source (such as a crystal ball) has told you a certain assumption is wrong. You must then develop a scenario to explain how this could be true.

Role playing: Role playing is commonly used to overcome constraints and inhibitions that limit the range of one's thinking. Playing a role changes "where you sit." It also gives one license to think and act differently. Simply trying to imagine how another leader or country will think and react, which analysts do frequently, is not role playing. One must actually act out the role and become, in a sense, the person whose role is assumed. It is only "living" the role that breaks an analyst's normal mental set and permits him or her to relate facts and ideas to each other in ways that differ from habitual patterns.

Devil's Advocate: A devil's advocate is someone who defends a minority point of view. He or she may not necessarily agree with that view, but may choose or be assigned to represent it as strenuously as possible. The goal is to expose conflicting interpretations and show how alternative assumptions and images make the world look different. It often requires time, energy, and commitment to see how the world looks from a different perspective

Decomposition: Breaking a problem down into its component parts. That is, indeed, the essence of analysis. Webster's Dictionary defines analysis as division of a complex whole into its parts or elements. The spirit of decision analysis is to divide and conquer: Decompose a complex problem into simpler problems, get one's thinking straight in these simpler problems, paste these analyses together with a logical glue

Externalization: Getting the decomposed problem out of one's head and down on paper or on a computer screen in some simplified form that shows the main variables, parameters, or elements of the problem and how they relate to each other. Writing down the multiplication problem, 46 times 78, is a very simple example of externalizing an analytical problem.

It's a long read, but fascinating in its own context for understanding the challenges faced by intelligence analysts. I'm looking forward to applying some of the techniques in the interest of becoming a more faithful preacher of God's word.

(Perhaps it is wise to note that I consider these methods only supplementary to careful, prayerful study into the contextual, grammatical, literary and historical understanding of the passage.)

Fun and thoughtful find

I don’t know if this counts under Joe Carter’s encouragement to link to material that others haven’t, because a quick look at Technorati reveals that it has become quite popular, but this evening I stumbled on to some of the best writing I have come across in the Christian blogosphere. Not only does Prodigal Jon write beautifully, but his posts are a delightful blend of humor and serious reflection. The site is called Stuff Christians Like and the post below, “Church names that sound like clothing stores” made me laugh out loud. This is #24 out of 197 he’s written so far.

My cousin goes to church at a place called "Warehouse 242." There's another church in his area that recently started called, "Elevation." Across town from my dad's church is a place simply called "The Summit." I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point we started naming our churches after stores that sell designer jeans. And I'm cool with that. I don't think you have to name something the "Back to the Bible Holiness Church" which is outside of Atlanta in case you want to attend. And more than that, it opens up some good conversations with people. Imagine you're at work on Monday and someone says, "What'd you do this weekend?" You can reply "I hung out at Elevation." Your friend will then say, "Is that the new salsa/techno/hip hop/Southern Cambodian traditional dance club? I've heard the girls in that place are ridiculous." At which point you can then say, "No, it's a church" and then proceed to share the entire gospel with him. OK, maybe you shouldn't do that, but at the bare minimum, saying you went to "Elevation" is going to at least keep the conversation rolling where if you said, "I went to 'God is Awesome, Praise Sweet Baby Jesus Cathedral' over the weekend," your friend is going to throw an imaginary smoke bomb and climb out of a window to get out of the conversation. So maybe interesting names are a good thing.

Here’s another great one, #159 The Pray if You Feel Led Prayer. This one hit especially close to home because it’s a regular part of our worship service. Check Jon out.

Finding what others aren't reading

Joe Carter points out that “linkers” (which describes mostly what I do on this blog) are valuable because they “provide the value-added services of sifting through dozens or even hundred of blog posts, news updates, and magazine articles and sharing the handful that are worthy of attention.” He then goes on to suggest ways linkers can increase the worth of what they do, one of which is to “Read outside the circle” and “find what other people aren’t reading.”

I think Joe’s points are well taken, and in the spirit of trying to be helpful, here’s information concerning material I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere else.

Previous to this week I had never heard of Norm Wakefield, or his ministry, Spirit of Elijah. A friend from church commented how much he had benefited from a series from Norm’s newsletter, titled Curse of the Standard Bearer.

I have to admit that at first I was thrown off by the series title, Curse of the Standard Bearer—it sounded like something from the more imaginative side of the charismatic movement. Not only that, but standard bearer sounds like such a positive concept—how could a curse be attached?

Following the link my friend sent me, I discovered, however, a fine series about what is more commonly called moralism, legalism or Pharisaism. None of those terms exactly describe, though, what Wakefield is getting at. His premise is that instead of relying on the grace of God to transform us, we let our identity be formed by the concept of being a “Standard Bearer”. The curse part of the title refers to the fallout created in our lives and the lives of our children.

To enrich your understanding of the all-too-human tendency to spurn grace for rule keeping, check out The Chariot. The five uppermost links on the page point to this series.

T4G and Radical Brain Reorientation

Together for the Gospel was last week, but I still haven’t recovered. Not from jet-lag, travel, catching up with work or anything like that, but rather from brain detonation. The teaching was so powerful as to disallow normal thinking for some time to come.

Reflection on the conference is now everywhere on the Christian blogosphere. As Tim Challies helpfully suggests, check out what a Google Blogsearch reveals.

To save you some time wading through all the comments, however, allow me to recommend just one thing. Do yourself a huge favor and listen to R. C. Sproul’s message, The Curse Motif of the Atonement. Not one of the messages at the conference was anything less than stellar, but R. C.’s message was off the charts important, edifying, and transformative.

At the outset of his talk he notes that he has been reading and reflecting on the meaning of the cross for over 50 years without fully plumbing its depth of meaning. I think this talk represents a pinnacle of explanation and understanding from one our generation’s finest thinkers and explainers of theology. And not only is the content of the highest caliber, his delivery is as compelling as I've ever heard from him.

If listening to this doesn’t make you love Jesus more, check your pulse.

On the road to Together For The Gospel

This past week I attended one of the best conferences I’ve ever experienced, Together For The Gospel. The Lord willing, I will post on it when I get another free moment.

Driving from Richmond, VA to Louisville, KY you experience what seems like endless views of spectacular scenery. I especially enjoyed the mountain cuts between Beckley and Charleston, WV, having never traveled that stretch of highway before. A close second in appeal were beautiful agrarian vistas consisting of everything from small farms nestled in mountain hollows to expansive fields of bluegrass around Lexington and toward Louisville proper. (Note to self: next time bring camera. Build in time to stop and wonder.)

Present in all the scenery was the constant juxtaposition of God’s handiwork and man’s. Undulating roadbeds dissected massive and lofty mountains. Bridges vaulted tumbling waters at strategic intervals. Marvels of ingenuity and engineering were somehow set in the midst the created beauty of the natural landscape without too much damage to either.

All of this caused me to glory in our creation in God’s image and our reception of the mandate to have dominion over the earth. Created, we are creators. I stand in awe of the creativity of God and its reflection in men.

So much web...

In a comment to my last post, Boyd Moore wrote, “So much web...so little time....”

Somebody say Amen.

One of the purposes for this blog (as if the world needs another blog) is to help me focus on matters consistent with the apostle Paul's admonition in Philippians 4:8: Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (ESV)

One such commendable thing is from a series on C. J. Mahaney’s blog where he interviews Sinclair Ferguson. (Hat tip: Justin Childers)

In one exchange, C. J. Mahaney asks,

“So without in any way minimizing the doctrine of sin—because you opened by saying it’s only by seeing our sin we come to see the need and the wonder of grace—how can we effectively expose sin and yet ultimately unveil and apply grace?”

Sinclair Ferguson replies,

“At least for myself it’s returning to a principle with me: Make sure you have gone back to basics. Make sure that you think back from first principles.

Part of the first principles of the gospel are these categories, sin and grace. I think the thing that I am trying to get at here is the correlation between my ability to grasp the grace, grace of grace and my grasping the sin, sin of sin (what Ralph Venning calls the “exceeding sinfulness of sin”). The sin is mine and therefore natural for me to see. It’s grace that isn’t natural to me and therefore difficult to see. Therefore I am going to struggle to bring the sin I am so familiar with to the grace I am unfamiliar with. And therefore I need to find ways given to me in Scripture of discovering the graciousness of God.”

As they say, read the whole thing.

Ouch!

Today I was rooting around Phil Johnson’s Bookmarks, a great resource for theological writings and came across this gem at DrBarrick.org:

Dr. Barrick cites 3 John:9: "I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, does not receive us" (NKJV).

Then he makes the following observations--

The Greek philoproteuo refers to love of being leader, dominant, preeminent, or first. Such an individual is self-absorbed, egocentric, and controlling--he loves to micromanage others. It is good to stop and examine oneself in this regard. Am I a Diotrephes? How do I come across to others? Do those with whom I serve in the church or with whom I work in my place of employment think of me as controlling? Through a grueling session of self-examination I asked the following questions about myself, in order to find out whether I sometimes behave like Diotrephes:

• Do I dominate conversations? Do I make certain that at least my viewpoint is heard on every matter, even if others are not? Speaking out in every occasion could be a clue that I think pretty highly of my opinion and desire that others hear it--even if it means that others might not be given the opportunity to be heard. Do I especially bring attention to myself when a significant visitor has joined a meeting by asking questions of him/her and inserting myself into the conversation? If I do so, then I am a Diotrephes.
  
• Do I dominate discussions at Bible studies? Do I help to promote myself as "the answer man" by making certain that I speak in every forum on every issue? If so, I am a Diotrephes.
  
• Do I take over communicating with everyone else about an event? Do I take actions as though I am in charge of an event following a mere general announcement, just because I feel like someone needs to take charge, settle arrangements, and organize it "properly"? Such action might reveal that I think that no one else can do it the way I do and that no one else can really do it right. If so, I am a Diotrephes.

Here’s the link where you can read the whole thing: Am I a Diotrephes? Warning: conviction may follow. (Well it did for me. Maybe you’re not a Diotrephes.)

The Reason for God

It has now been just one month since the Valentine's Day release of Tim Keller’s “The Reason for God”, and it is already #40 on Amazon’s list of most-sold books, and #6 in their Spirituality category—and this without an endorsement from Oprah. A Google search of the title this evening returns 202,000 results, with a blog search revealing 10,272 entries.

This demonstrates that the book hardly needs my help to publicize. On the off chance, however, that someone reads this obscure blog and hasn’t yet heard about it, or is on the fence about reading it, I want to say, “get thee to a bookstore.” In my opinion, this is one of the most significant books of our generation. Keller set out to produce something like C. S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” for our age, with special consideration for the hip, skeptical New Yorker he regularly meets in Manhattan where his church is located. Though I’m in no position to fully understand that particular mindset, I think he has accomplished his goal and more.

In an interview in First Things, Keller tells of being hospitalized with thyroid cancer and having time to read all eight hundred pages of N.T. Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God. He remarks, "As I was reading it, I realized I was coming to greater certainty, and that when I closed the book, I said, at a time when it was very important to me to feel this way, I said, “He really really really did rise from the dead.” And I said, “Well, didn’t I believe that before?” Of course I believed it before—I defended it, and I think before I certainly would have died for that belief." Well, reading "The Reason for God" had that exact effect on me. I already believed, and passionately at that, but reading Keller's defense and explanation of the faith served to provide even more substance to my existing convictions.

Not only does he provide a lucid defense of the Christian faith, but in the Epilogue, titled, Where Do We Go From Here, he provides a winsome schematic by which the reader who has had his skepticism reduced can take actual steps toward becoming a Christian—something I don’t recall Lewis attempting.

If for some reason you need more prodding, or just don’t have time to read the book right this minute, an excellent summary can be found at Tony Stiff’s blog Sets ‘n’ Service. (Hat-tip: David Wayne the “Jolly Blogger”.) Don't stop there, though. Buy it and read it. I suspect you'll know more than one person you've been praying for to receive Christ who you'll want to give this book to.

A Sign Which Is, and One Which Is Not

The further I get into The Religious Affections, the more it occurs to me that Jonathan Edwards must have personally known and been greatly concerned about individuals who claimed to be Christians but who gave him reason to doubt the genuineness of their conversion. My suspicions about this were first aroused by the sheer quantity of detail that Edwards puts into describing what are not in his opinion genuine marks of a true Christian experience. As I noted in my last post on the book, even when his section heading is titled “Showing What Are Distinguishing Signs of Truly Gracious and Holy Affections”, he repeatedly dwells on those which are not. When midway through the book he finally does dig into the positive signs of a genuine conversion, the shadow of false signs doesn’t depart. In fact, when he moves on to describing a second affirmative sign, he immediately brings up its doubtful counterpart. This second genuine trait that he points out, is that the true Christian possesses a powerful love for God, a love that,

“…is seen intuitively: the saint sees and feels plainly the union between his soul and God; it is so strong and lively that he cannot doubt of it.” (p. 164; The Religious Affections; The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.)

Then, on the following page, he makes this observation:

“Many have been the mischiefs that have arisen from that false and delusive notion of the witness of the Spirit, that it is a kind of inward voice, suggestion, or declaration from God to man that he is beloved of Him, and pardoned, elected, or the like, sometimes with and sometimes without a text of Scripture; and many have been the false and vain (though very high) affections that have arisen from hence. And it is to be feared that multitudes of souls have been eternally undone by it.”

Perhaps it was a feature of Edward’s time that being a Christian was so normative, with so much pressure to be considered one, that non-believers not only claimed to believe, but also felt it necessary to testify to the internal reasoning for their assertion. I’m not sure where else Edwards would have gotten his material (and concern) apart from people he actually had contact with.

To be sure, some of this goes on today among church folk, but in most circles there is so little upside to being considered a Christian that not much need exists to make up something in order to be thought one. And maybe that’s not such a bad thing.

Religious Affections Entry #1
Religious Affections Entry #2
Religious Affections Entry #3
Religious Affections Entry #4
Religious Affections Entry #5
Religious Affections Entry #6

Great Resource

Every time I visit Pure Church, the blog of Thabiti Anyabwile, I discover something thought provoking and encouraging. Not only are his personal writings exceptionally well thought out, his links to materials by others are stellar. One such example is this excerpt from Jerry Bridge’s book The Crisis of Caring. Great material on how we should approach the Christian life. If you aren’t familiar with Thabiti, you owe it to yourself to check him out.

At last! Sure evidence of God's saving work in a person's life.

I was beginning to feel terrible about not having posted since Thanksgiving, until I realized that I have at least written more recently than the Blue Raja. And then I discovered that no less a personage than uberposter David Wayne, the JollyBlogger has also gotten bogged down when working through The Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards. There now, having stood on the shoulders of two of my betters, I feel better. Well not really. It’s pretty sad seeking justification through comparisons with others.

Kvetching out of the way, I have finally reached the place in The Religious Affections where Edwards begins to describe those affections which are “truly gracious and holy.” Oddly, (to me at least) this unveiling of the book’s central premise doesn’t occur until the middle of the book, pg. 160 in the Banner of Truth paperback version I’m utilizing. And not only does this significant matter finally apppear in the middle of the book, it turns up in the middle of a section head. One never knows what to expect from those wild and crazy Puritan writers.

I will say, though, it is worth the work to get there, much like a view you achieve only when reaching a mountain peak after an arduous climb. In this case, the material that precedes supports the conclusions and makes the arguments all the more compelling. Edwards has gone to such great care to demonstrate what are not sure evidences of a genuine conversion, that when he moves into the positive territory of what are true marks of God’s presence in a believer’s life, you are well equipped to quickly grasp the differences.

He begins his treatment of these positive indications of God’s saving work in a person’s life with the observation that a truly regenerate believer has received the Holy Spirit into their life, and notes that the Bible describes this employing the separate metaphors of a seal and a deposit. With his typical incisive reasoning, Edwards demonstrates that these two metaphors are functionally equivalent in that they both depict the same phenomenon, the reception of the Holy Spirit of God by the believer. Here’s how Edwards puts it:

“When God sets his seal on a man’s heart by his Spirit, there is some holy stamp, some image impressed, and left upon the heart by the Spirit, as by the seal upon the wax. And this holy stamp, or impressed image, exhibiting clear evidence to the conscience, that the subject of it is the child of God, is the very thing which in Scripture is called the seal of the Spirit, and the witness or evidence of the Spirit. And this mark enstamped by the Spirit on God’s children, is his own image. That is the evidence by which they are known to be God’s children; they have the image of their Father stamped upon their hearts by the Spirit of adoption.” (pg. 160; The Religious Affections; The Banner of Truth Trust,2004.)

Thus, the person who has truly become a Christian will have present within them something of the very nature of God. This indwelling of the Spirit will reveal itself in ways that are exclusive of any other cause. He goes on to point out that because this deposit/seal of the Spirit is a conveyance of God’s own nature, it is therefore impossible to be counterfeited by either man or demon. In Edwards own words,

“This is truly an effect that is spiritual, supernatural, and divine. This is in itself of a holy nature, being a communication of the divine nature and beauty. That kind of influence of the Spirit which gives and leaves this stamp upon the heart, is such that no natural man can be the subject of anything of the like nature with it. This is the highest sort of witness of the Spirit which it is possible the soul should be the subject of: if there were any such thing as a witness of the Spirit by immediate suggestion or revelation, this would be vastly more noble and excellent, and much above it as the heaven is above the earth. This the devil cannot imitate.” (p. 161; The Religious Affections; The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.)

Aside from the concern about how to determine who is a truly regenerate soul, this truth about the Holy Spirit transferring to the believer something of the creator’s divine essence is wonderful to contemplate on its own. To think that when I placed my faith in Jesus, the Spirit transmitted to me something of God’s own nature, is wonderfully comforting, humbling and encouraging. What an incredible thought—Christ in us, the hope of glory.

Religious Affections Entry #1
Religious Affections Entry #2
Religious Affections Entry #3
Religious Affections Entry #4
Religious Affections Entry #5

Thanksgiving in Romans 1:18-32

The holiday known in America as Thanksgiving is in my opinion one of the most significant opportunities we have each year for getting ourselves right with God and for showing others the way.

In Romans 1 starting at verse 18, the apostle Paul explains that we are not naturally right with with God; in fact, we are facing his wrath because "... although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Romans 1:21, NIV) He then goes on to describe the downward spiral that results from this alienation from God.

I wondered what it would look like to express these ideas in the positive, that is, to show what would result if we were to properly thank and glorify God. With that in mind, here is my "positive paraphrase" of Romans 1:18-32:

"The blessing of God is being poured out upon all the righteous who exalt the truth by their obedience.

Because they truly know God they Glorify Him and give thanks to Him, their thinking becomes meaningful and their hearts filled with light. As a result of humbling themselves, they became wise, scorning dead and powerless idols and instead embracing and trusting in the immortal God.

Therefore, God increasingly filled them with desires for that which is noble and good, allowing them to experience pure and satisfying intimacy. They embraced the truth of God and rightly honored and served the Creator—who is forever praised.

As a result, God filled them even more with a hunger for righteousness. Men and women alike experienced such deep satisfaction from holy relationships that they became passionate for true spiritual intimacy, inviting Christ into all their relationships, and thereby receiving great blessing, honor and reward for their integrity.

On top of all this, because they so valued knowledge of God, he transformed their thinking so they could please God with their actions. They were then filled with every kind of goodness, decency, satisfaction and wholesomeness, overflowing with contentment, peacefulness, mercy and kindness. They are trustworthy— encouragers, God-lovers, teachable, modest, humble—always looking for new ways to do good. They even obey their parents! They are full of wisdom, faithfulness compassion and grace. Because they know God’s righteous character and his reward of eternal life for those who seek him, they not only strive to live righteously, they passionately encourage and applaud those who join with them in holy conduct.

Finally learning what are true signs of Holy Affections. Well, almost.

Having arrived at Part III of The Religious Affections, I was anxious to hear Edward’s thoughts on what are indeed true evidences of God’s work in a person’s life.

Section I dealt with definitions and establishing his premises, Section II was filled with descriptions of things which may, but may not be, signs of God at work, so after 119 pages of Edwards’ weighty prose, the title of Section III “Showing What Are Distinguishing Signs Of Truly Gracious and Holy Affections” had me fully primed to learn what these certain signs were. Alas, after another 35 pages, such was not to be. (Now I know 35 pages doesn’t sound like much, but it took me less time to get through 1000 plus pages of Atlas Shrugged.)

Now this is not to say that this portion wasn’t helpful, it’s just not what I was expecting. Edwards begins this section by observing that while principles of discernment are found in the scripture, no absolutely certain techniques exist for distinguishing false characteristics of saving grace from true ones. He points out how difficult it is for an individual to be certain of God’s true working in his own life, and concludes that an outside observer has even less expectation for making a determination about that person’s spiritual state.

He then goes on to note, however, that the Bible does present a category for describing the state of person who is a true saint. These persons, he observes, are always described by the term spiritual, while those who are not are described by the terms natural, carnal or unspiritual. (I had to remember he’s citing King James language.) As evidence, he references numerous scriptures, such as 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 and Romans 7:14-8:13.

I have to confess I never would have noticed this classification in scripture, but now aware of it, I realize how wonderfully helpful it is to describe the differences between the person who is being sanctified and someone who isn’t.

Edwards goes on to make the conclusion that the effects of God’s working arise from the constitution of completely different nature, not simply the improvement or modification of the natural state. Thus, whenever evidences exist of a true work of grace, they are divine in origin, and do not arise from ordinary causes. He then uses this observation as a springboard to examine more of what are not sure evidences of “gracious affections.” For example, he points out that everyone apprehends ideas in the mind. This is an ordinary function of human experience. Thus, just because an idea suddenly appears in the mind, though it may even have a basis in Bible truth, it is no sign of a true work of God. Because Satan can create pictures or ideas that appear in the mind, there is no assurance that merely because an idea suddenly arises in a person’s thinking it therefore has its origin in God. Here’s how Edwards puts it:

"And there is not only nothing in the nature of external ideas or imaginations of outward appearances, from whence we can infer that they are above the power of the devil; but it is certain also that the devil can excite, and often hath excited, such ideas."

He then cites as illustration Satan’s ability to create impressions even in the mind of Jesus, as when he showed him “all the kingdoms of the world, with glory of them, when those kingdoms were not really in sight.”

He carries this basic idea further, noting that even Bible promises can be projected into the mind without guarantee that they have their origin from God. The practical upshot of all this? I’ll let Edwards speak directly:

"Many have been the mischiefs that have arisen from that false and delusive notion of the witness of the Spirit, that it is a kind of inward voice, suggestion, or declaration from God to man that he is beloved of Him, and pardoned, elected, or the like, sometimes with and sometimes without a text of Scripture; and many have been the false and vain (though very high) affections that have arisen from hence. And it is to be feared that multitudes of souls have been eternally undone by it."

Sober words indeed.

Religious Affections Entry #1
Religious Affections Entry #2
Religious Affections Entry #3
Religious Affections Entry #4

Edward's Religious Affections Entry 4: A Venti-sized catalog of what may or may not be God at work.

Jonathan Edwards is nothing if not meticulous. Wrestling to define what true religious affections are, he first covers an enormous range of possibilities as to what may or may not be evidence of a genuine working of God in a person's life. He points out that the following may or may not be indications of true religious affections: voluminous display of physical and emotional phenomena; the fervor with which feelings are expressed; that such displays are accompanied by quoting of scripture; that they are accompanied by expressions of love; that they are varied in their presentation; that joy results; that religious experiences occur in a certain order; that religious experiences don’t occur in a certain order; zealous religious behavior; attention to religious duty; expression of praise; confidence; and finally, affecting testimonies.

Any of the above, he asserts, may accompany true religious affections, or they may not. In other words they are none of them determinative. I found this section tough going, because in each instance, as these markers were dismissed as being possibly, but not certainly indicative of a real work of God in a person’s life, I felt as if I was gaining no ground toward the understanding of what a true work of grace would look like. Looking back, however, I realize there is great practical benefit in knowing that these various manifestations are not conclusive evidence of God at work, but remain possible indicators. As a pastor working at helping people toward maturity in their Christian faith, I frequently find it necessary to first ascertain if the person I am dealing with is in fact a Christian in the first place. Though I don’t think it possible to make a certain determination, it is helpful to have a plausible assumption in order to fashion a place at which to begin. This is where Edward’s parsing should prove helpful. This section of The Religious Affections provides a matrix by which an initial evaluation of an individual’s spiritual standing can be formed. Though I may not achieve certainty in my assessment, getting within the ballpark is a step in the right direction toward becoming truly helpful.

Upon further reflection, I also realize Edward's observations have value as a checklist for the condition of my own heart. Am I considering some of the above mentioned behaviors as evidence for my own standing in Christ? As Edward's might say, these affections are no certain signs of having within me the nature of true religion.

Religious Affections Entry #1
Religious Affections Entry #2
Religious Affections Entry #3

Cleaning one another's feet

This morning I was listening to a popular Bible teacher on the radio, and he used the story of Jesus washing the disciple’s feet in John 13 as an illustration for a message on Christian service. Now I’ve heard this passage taught that way many times, and I have no desire to disparage the particular teacher I was listening to (lest someone Google the date and topic and somehow figure out who I’m talking about.) However, I wonder if we’re missing a very particular point Jesus was making in this passage. Was Jesus simply teaching his disciples the necessity of serving one another—which is certainly true—or was he teaching them a very specific act of service using the washing of feet as a metaphor?

To me, it’s almost certain his purpose was not merely teaching his disciples to clean each other’s feet. Throughout John’s gospel, when Jesus does a physical act, such as give sight to the blind, or raise someone from the dead, his material acts represent spiritual truths. Sight to the blind, for example, represents spiritual illumination (John 9:41) and raising the dead (John 11) represents Jesus’ power to give eternal life. So what does washing the feet represent?

I think the major clue is when Peter asks that Jesus go ahead and wash his head and hands as well, Jesus replies, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you." (John 13:10, NASB) When Jesus says, “you are clean” is he referring to bodily hygiene? No, I think he’s referring to their spiritual state. Looking at it this way makes sense then of the comparison between Judas (“not every one of you”) and the others. Surely Judas wasn’t unique because he hadn’t bathed.

If he’s equating physical cleaning with spiritual cleansing, then what are we to make of washing the feet versus washing the entire body? I believe he’s teaching the need for his followers to cleanse the everyday spiritual dirt—sin, that is—which regularly occurs in the life of the disciple. Our “whole body is clean” in the sense that Jesus performed the sacrifice that once and for all makes our scarlet sins white as snow. But as 1 John 1:8 tells us, “If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” So then, even though we have been entirely cleansed, each day we pick up spiritual grime that needs removal.

I was helped to see this because this very morning in my daily Bible reading I came to this passage: “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” (Galatians 6:1) I believe what Paul is teaching here is exactly what Jesus is illustrating by exhorting his disciples to wash each other’s feet.

Led by the Spirit

Thanks to Smart Christian, I was led to this exceptional post by Eric Jones who wields a vivid metaphor to describe how to be led by the Spirit. Not only does Eric have a site name that generates a little covetousness on my part, but he possesses insights and writing skills I can only pray for. Check him out.

Jonathan Edwards and Benny Hinn

Never thought you’d see those two names paired did you?

In The Religious Affections, Edwards anticipates by 250 years those like Hinn who emphasize display of physical phenomena as evidence of God’s working. Edwards reasons that such displays may or may not indicate a genuine work of God.

On the side of such things possibly indicating the presence of true grace, Edwards notes, “Some are ready to condemn all high affections: if persons appear to have their religious affections raised to an extraordinary pitch, they are prejudiced against them, and determine that they are delusions without further inquiry. But if it be, as has been proved, that true religion lies very much in religious affections, then it follows that, if there be a great deal of true religion, there will be great religious affections; if true religion in the hearts of men be raised to a great height, divine and holy affections will be raised to a great height.”* He then cites numerous passages from scripture that describe what he calls the “high exercises of affection”: “Rivers of waters run down mine eyes, because they keep not thy law.” (Psalm 119:136); “My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the LORD: my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.” (Psalm 84:2); and, “When I heard, my belly trembled; my lips quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in myself…” (Habbakuk 3:16)


He goes on to write, “Nor, on the other hand, do I know of any rule any have to determine that gracious and holy affections, when raised as high as any natural affections, and having equally strong and vigorous exercises, cannot have a great affect on the body.”** He even goes so far as to say he knows of no reason “why a being affected with a view of God’s glory should not cause the body to faint (!), as well as being affected with a view of Solomon’s glory.” *** (The exclamation point is mine. I’m wondering now, do those who experience being “slain in the spirit” appeal to Edwards for validation? (Bet you didn’t know that Hinn names Edwards and Whitfield as role models.)

On the other hand, Edwards argues that “great effects on the body certainly are no sure evidences that affections are spiritual; for we see that such effects oftentimes arise from great affections about temporal things, and when religion is no way concerned in them.” † He writes, “I cannot think God would commonly make use of things which are very alien from spiritual affections, and are shrewd marks of the hand of Satan, and smell strong of the bottomless pit, as beautiful figures to represent the high degree of holy affections.”†† And I appreciate this observation: “False affections, if they are equally strong, are much more forward to declare themselves than true: because it is the nature of false religion to affect show and observation, as it was with the Pharisees.”†††


So how can we discern when a public display is a work of God or not? I guess I’ll have to read on, because to this point, Edwards hasn’t yet tipped his hand as to what he will describe in part III of the book as “Distinguishing Signs of Truly Gracious and Holy Affections”. In the meantime, I’ll have to draw my own conclusions about some of the things that happen at Benny Hinn events.

Note: To illustrate what I’m talking about, I was going to post the video clip, “Benny Hinn: Let the Bodies Hit the Floor”, but discovered this notice on YouTube: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Pastor Benny Hinn and the World Healing Church d/b/a Benny Hinn Ministries.”

*Pg. 54, The Religious Affections; The Banner of Truth Trust,2004.
**Ibid. Pg. 60
*** Ibid. Pg. 60
† Ibid. Pg. 59
†† Ibid. Pg. 62
††† Ibid. Pg. 64

Blog Slacking

I know I've done a sorry job of maintaining this blog, but my intention is still to post my progress through Jonathan Edwards' The Religious Affections. It's been slow going not only due to the challenge of digesting Edward's weighty content and style, but in large part as a result of exceptional demands on my time from both pastoring and things personal.

Returning from hearing John Piper speak in Asheville in late July, I found myself immersed in Vacation Bible School, getting to know five families who have begun attending our church, planning two significant events, and moving out of and back into my house for the purpose of having our floors refinished. Oh, and this on top of my "normal" pastoral responsibilities.

Also, soon after returning home, I discovered that a staffer from Piper's ministry, Desiring God, had also taken notes for posting. Not only are the conference notes available online, you can listen as well. I don't at all regret the effort to capture the notes, but it did take the steam out of my desire to post them for the benefit of others. Perhaps I'll modify my goal to instead post some reflections on what was most significant for me. In the meantime, do yourself a favor and read or listen yourself.

John Piper at the Billy Graham Training Center

No living author has been as instrumental in my personal Christian growth as has John Piper. Some years ago, a friend passed on a copy of Let the Nations Be Glad, and my whole understanding of worship and missions was transformed. Prior to that book, I had no theology for either—I simply believed in doing them because the Bible said so. That slim volume explained to me the Biblical “why” of both worship and missions and their relationship to each other, and my faith life hasn’t been the same since. Thinking there might be more where those insights came from, several years ago I went to hear Piper speak at the Jonathan Edwards Institute Summer Conference and was exposed to Edward’s thinking on God’s “ultimate ends.” Again, my thinking about the Bible was deepened and transformed. Since then, I have made it a point to listen regularly to what Dr. Piper has to say on matters of faith and practice. I seldom read or listen to him that I don’t learn some new principle or gain some new insight.

This past weekend was no exception. My wife and I traveled with some wonderful friends down to The Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove in Asheville, NC, to hear Piper speak on Romans 12 and 13 under the title, The Mercies of God and the Transformed Christian Mind.

What follows are my notes of Session 1, and the Lord willing, I hope to post sessions two through five as well.

Dr. Piper began the session by noting that the majority of conferees are in their 50’s and 60’s. With that in mind, he called attention to Psalm 71 which he said has meant a lot to him for some time now. In vs. 17-18, it says, “O God, from my youth you have taught me, and I still proclaim your wondrous deeds. So even to old age and gray hairs, O God do not forsake me, until I proclaim your might to another generation, your power to all who come.”

He noted that at this stage in life, he has seen much of God’s power and grace, and he wants to finish like the Psalm, proclaiming God’s deeds. He expressed his desire that this time together to be surprising for those late in life’s journey for their remaining days. Some think these days might be the same and they won’t. He related that his mother was killed while on a trip to Israel, and his Father wounded. Everything changed for his father. The last years of his life were spent with a global ministry, ROGMA. He never knew such a thing would be. If you have a year left, it may be totally different than you think it may be.

We have before us Romans 12 and 13; preached 350 pages on these chapters—30 sermons; must condense into 5 hours. You will probably think I gave up because tonight we’ll cover ½ verse. Tonight will not get beyond verse 1, but will read verse 2. If you get verses 1 and 2, the rest will fall into place, so we will be heavy on verses one and two.

The most important word in this passage is therefore; what follows is built on something. If we don’t recognize this, we can become first class legalists.

Paul is moving from something to something. As an illustration, our church voted after years of praying and planning, to purchase a property and build an additional campus; after this, therefore, in a short time they purchased the property and began to build. But the action was built on years of prior work, prayer and consensus building.

Another illustration: a missionary in Brazil, Linda, gathered the women together and gave testimony that from the time she was a little girl she wanted to be a missionary. She married a man who didn’t, and ended up divorced, and at age 50 went on to doing street ministry in Rio de Janeiro. She told the story to the group, and the next morning the group gathered and the pastor’s wife explained that her husband always wanted to be a missionary and she resisted; after hearing the story, she therefore made the decision to no longer resist. And she and her husband became missionaries.

Everything in Chapter 12 and 13 built upon something. Paul is moving from doctrine to practice, from theology to ethics. It may seem obvious that Christian living grows out of something, but it is especially important to recognize this today. Quoted from an article by Herbert Hoefer on Hinduism: "The proper name of “Hinduism” is “Sanatana Dharma” or ‘the eternal way of life.’ You can have whatever beliefs you like, but you are expected to live out 'dharma'.” Paul’s worldview is totally different than this—his appeal is based upon something having happened. Why this kind of world? Why does God do it this way? Why does Paul say the universe exists in order to display God? To display the way he is, his attributes. Psalm 150 declares: “Praise God for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness.” The therefore is not there by accident, we live because God has designed the world in such a way that we are to live a certain way.

A practical word to parents: I’ve got kids from 36-11. At 61 never thought I would still be parenting. This therefore means that when you want your children to act a certain way, you have to give them something first. So many parents want their children to “just do it”; however, if that becomes the dominant motif, appealing only to authority, that child will not become a Christian. Their obedience is not built on anything. In parenting we live, sing, Romans 1-11. Didn’t sing together as a family for years, but began to sing—one of the reasons is wanting her life to flow out of worship.

An example from life—we were reading in Luke 11, it says "fear not". Wants his little girl to grow up being a fearless woman. Three times the text says “do not be afraid.” So we pray that God will take the fear out of life. Because of the therefore principle, I search the text for the reasons to not be afraid and found three. First, they can only kill you. (This didn’t really satisfy his daughter, so he explained further about God making all things right—if you belong to Jesus, they’ve done their worse.) Next, God knows the number of hairs on your head, and third, you are worth more than birds. I want this child to know therefore you can be fearless, the why.

Back to Romans 12, the next phrase, “by the mercies of God” is Paul’s shorthand summary of what came before in the book. Amazed at his choice—he’s talked about justification, sanctification, sovereignty, and election, and Paul chooses “the mercies of God”. Why would he choose to sum up using this phrase?

Three reasons:
1) The purpose of life is to glorify God for his mercy. Chapter 15:8-9, the purpose of God in sending his son is that the nations would be amazed at his mercy. The Gentiles are to live in such a way that people can only conclude that God’s mercy is glorious.

2) Mercy in your life towards the undeserving is the best way to make God’s mercy look great. Treating people better than they deserve is the best way to show that God’s mercy is great. Running through Chapter 12, this is repeated over and over. This chapter is saturated with mercy. Mercy flowing out from us must be rooted in mercy coming to us. The overarching theme is, God treats us better than we deserve. A lifestyle of mercy is the way to show God’s great mercy.

3) God’s mercy to us is the key to us living this way. Romans 11:36: “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.” From him we received mercy.

We talk about what God did so that Paul could say, therefore, live this way. It isn’t that Christ was simply an example of giving mercy—he was—saving us when we didn’t deserve. We need to see the importance of what he did.

Mercy implies two things: grace is treating people better than they deserve. Mercy is helping someone who is in pain. We need both—we are guilty and miserable. Romans 5:6: while we were still weak, Christ died for us. The mercy we need is in response to our weak and rebellious condition. Romans 3:9 describes the condition: under the power of sin. None righteous, no one seeks, no one does good. Down to v.19, “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.”

You will never meet anybody who is not accountable to God. You have never met anyone who had done enough good to deserve God’s goodness. If you don’t have a view of human depravity that includes nice people, you need to go to the Bible to see that depravity is ignoring God. Pharisees were squeaky clean and called vipers. If we don’t have a high view of sin, we won’t understand what Christ has done.

Romans 3:21, the best verse in the Bible perhaps, “But now the righteousness of God has been revealed.”

Romans 1:23 explains Romans 3:23, we’ve “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

By his grace, mercy, through Christ, we received justification, redemption propitiation. Three words; linger there, the center of the gospel, the center of the demonstration of his mercy.

Propitiation: to take away wrath. Our biggest problem is not bad people but a wrathful God. Galatians 3:13—God has cursed us, we’re under a curse, God’s wrath. No amount of doing good will help. And God puts forward Christ to absorb his wrath. Through Christ’s flesh, God condemned my sin. What’s the sin Christ was condemned for? Not his, ours. The gospel breaks pride. There will now never be a day from now on when God is wrathful towards us. He may spank, but it is in love.

Redemption: the word means deliverance at the cost of a price. Paul twice (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14) tells us what redemption is—the forgiveness of sin, the canceling of sin, guilt removed the weight removed, lifted.

Justification: to justify is to declare that you have fulfilled everything required of you. God the judge, contemplates you the sinner, you fly to Jesus, the righteousness provider, you embrace him and make your appeal to the judge to look at him and not me, and he counts us righteous. Romans 4:5,6: “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.” God, because of our union with Christ, counts us righteous, as having fulfilled everything required. This is more than forgiveness.

How can this be? Look at Romans 5:19: “by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.” By virtue of Christ having accomplishing everything, when we put our faith, trust in him, what he has done becomes ours.

What’s the implication of justification, redemption, and propitiation? Faith is a reaching out to receive what Christ has done. When that happens, we are secure, Romans 8:28, everything is then working for your good. Those whom he calls, he justifies. All the called are justified. The call creates belief. God spoke, when you thought Christianity was boring, God called. Because of wrath removed, sins forgiven, righteousness provided, therefore, live this way.

When did God become totally for me? You might answer, “in eternity past,” because he chose me before the foundation of the world. But Ephesians 2 says we were objects of wrath. When we believed God, he was from that moment for us. The obedience to the imperatives in Romans 12 and 13 does not make him more for us. It is not to get God on our side, but rather because he is already for us.

Jonathan Edwards is on to something

Still in the infant stages of working my way through Jonathan Edward’s The Religious Affections, (click here for entry #1) I’m discovering matters of high relevance both to my role as pastor and as a simple follower of Christ. In 1746 Edwards was exploring a vexing issue of pressing importance for the church today—the tendency (which I find in my own heart) to have more passion, focus and energy directed toward making our way in this world than investment in matters concerning the Kingdom of Heaven. Here’s how Edwards put it:

"And yet how common is it among mankind, that their affections are much more exercised and engaged in other matters than in religion! In things which concern men’s worldly interests, their outward delights, their honour and reputation, and their natural relations, they have their desires eager, their appetites vehement, their love warm and affectionate, their zeal ardent; in these things their hearts are tender and sensible, easily moved, deeply impressed, much concerned, very sensibly affected, and greatly engaged; much depressed with grief at losses, and highly raised with joy at worldly successes and prosperity. But how insensible and unmoved are most men about the great things of another world. "

(Page 51-52; The Religious Affections; The Banner of Truth Trust, 2004.)

I’m only to page 53, but this line of thinking has already made the book worthwhile to have worked through. I’m hoping Edwards goes on to propose some remedy for this state of affairs. In the meantime, I’m finding it valuable to simply meditate on this question: Why are most of us less interested and excited about what Christ has done (and is doing) for us than we are concerning the things of this world, which at best, provide meaning and satisfaction for but a season?