Mark Driscoll's latest blog post on Silence is great. We talked about this at a recent Element small group, so I found it timely.

A taste:

It was a very normal day until I realized that I was actively destroying my own soul.

The day began with my alarm jolting me awake. I immediately turned on my BlackBerry to hear it chime for each voicemail and email that had been left while I slept. I stepped into the shower where I listened to my waterproof radio. I then turned on the television to catch some news while I dressed. Driving to work I tuned in to some talk-radio banter.

Throughout the day the chime on my laptop kept ringing as email arrived, and my cell phone continued to vibrate and ring on my hip. Before long, I needed a break, and I put on my iPod to go for a walk.

On the drive home, I again listened to the radio in an effort to drown out the blaring horns of frustrated fellow commuters. After eating dinner and tucking my five children into bed, I turned on the television to watch shows I had recorded on my Tivo.

As I drifted off to sleep, it dawned on me that I had not had one minute of silence during my entire day. It was possible, I realized, that I could live the rest of my life without ever again experiencing silence.

In that moment, God deeply convicted me that I was addicted to the false trinity of our day, the gods known as Noise, Hurry, and Crowds. I remembered the words of missionary martyr Jim Elliot, who said, “I think the devil has made it his business to monopolize on three elements: noise, hurry, crowds . . . Satan is quite aware of the power of silence.”

Read the whole thing.

Saturday morning I told my girls that I would take them to see Bolt at the theater that afternoon.
They played sweetly together most of the morning, but midway through the day they just kept getting on each other's nerves, and after several warnings to stop didn't prevent them from aggravating each other, I finally employed the nuclear option. "Never mind on the movie," I said and explained why.

An hour or so later, I was giving them a bath in preparation for errands. I had decided that I would spring the movie on them as a surprise and use my changed mind as a way to explain grace to them (which Becky and I do a lot).

During the bath, Grace said, "I've gotta get my neck clean because I can't take dirt on my neck into the movie theater."

"Why do you think you're going to a movie?" I asked. "I told you we weren't."

She looked at me unfazed and said, "Yeah, but I prayed to God and said I'd be sweet and I know he'll give me a second chance."

Turns out after I left the room after taking the movie plan away, both girls decided to pray to God to apologize for not being sweet and to ask for another chance.

Isn't it awesome that we worship the God of second (and third and fourth and fifth . . .) chances?

It was also weird and fun to have been the unwitting answer to my daughters' prayer!

(We're still working on the concept of being sweet not to avoid consequences or to have consequences rescinded but because it's the right thing to do. :-)

Been listening to Francis Chan's "The End of the World" series. It's great stuff.

In one message he was talking about God pre-Creation, and how He had no lack. He says something like:

"In the beginning, you weren't there. And it was okay. Everything was fine. You weren't needed. You didn't fix anything by showing up."

I seriously LOL'd on that comment.
But it's awesome and makes a great point.

We don't complete God, and life isn't about us.

"We are all ministers of the Gospel. Some of us just happen to be clergymen."

-- Martin Luther

All week long at GDC, leading up to this Reformation Day, I have been posting 19 theses a day on the reformation of the American Church. Today I thought I'd nail them to the Thinklings front door in their entirety.
This is also serves as our entry in Tim Challies' 3rd Annual Reformation Day Symposium. Check his site today for more reflections and commentary on Reformation Day by some of the best bloggers in the 'sphere.
---

95 Theses on the Reformation of the Evangelical Church

Read the rest of this entry . . .

My latest at SearchWarp:

20 Ways to Smoke Cigars to the Glory of God

My latest piece at SearchWarp:

The Sovereignty of God and the Washing of Dishes

An excerpt:

Jesus is Christ is lord over my heart, and he is lord over my hands, and he is lord over what I do with those hands, and he is lord over what I say in my heart while I'm doing it. In submitting to the lordship of Christ, then, I do not treat washing dishes as wasting time I could be spending doing something "meaningful," but rather as a service to those who eat in my home, as a service to those who would have to wash the dishes if I did not, as an offering of thanksgiving to God that I have food to eat, dishes to eat it on, and running water inside my home to clean with.

To paraphrase C.S. Lewis (I think), there is not a square inch of our lives that is not claimed by God and counterclaimed by ourselves. If we believe God is sovereign, however, we will see all of life as mission and be led to submit the square inches we otherwise hold so tightly to the Maker of inches and hands.

I've posted my first "vlog" at Gospel-Driven Church. You can watch it here.

It's longer and rougher than I'd like (I recorded it at one a.m. this morning after much feasting and merriment with friends, and it was pretty much all off the top of my head), but I'll probably start trying to do one a week over there, hopefully improving on the pithiness and quality. :-)

Let me know what you think!

TULSA, Okla. - A once prominent leader in the charismatic movement has been forced to shut down his church in the wake of a radical change in his theological beliefs.

Eight years ago, Bishop Carlton Pearson's Higher Dimensions Church had about 6,000 members. He served as a guest host on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, was a member of the Oral Roberts University board of trustees, and was among group of black religious leaders who advised President-elect George W. Bush after the 2000 election.

But Pearson then began preaching that everyone goes to heaven, a theology he calls "the gospel of inclusion." Not long after, evangelical leaders rejected Pearson, the membership in his church fell to a few hundred, and the church's property was lost in foreclosure. Its few remaining members have now been merged into a Unitarian congregation.

Pearson now believes that literally everyone goes to heaven. He believes that the blood of Christ pays for everyone's sins. Everyone's. There is no hell in the afterlife. He believes that hell is the suffering that people experience on earth.

Here he is being profiled on ABC News:


Here's Part 2.

And here's the print version of the same story.

Yes, I noticed Ted Haggard on there, and the irony isn't lost on me. I'm not sure about the timeline, but apparently this video was filmed a few years ago, but the church just officially folded this month.

What's interesting to me is that the media seems to be noticing that doctrine matters to Christians. (Shocking, but true.)

"I couldn't reconcile a God whose mercy endures forever, and this torture chamber that's customized for unbelievers," Pearson said.

And he often agonized over the fate of his non-Christian family members. According to his faith, they were doomed to hell.

"How can you really love a god who's torturing your grandmother? And that's what I went through for years."

The more he studied, the more Pearson saw the Bible not as the literal word of God but a book by men about God -- primitive men prone to mistranslations, political agendas and human emotions. And one night, as he watched Peter Jennings' report on the parade of suffering in Rwanda, he had a revelation.

"I remember thinking that these were probably Muslims because God wouldn't let that happen to Christians," he said. "Unbelieving Muslims, little starving babies and that they were going to die and go to hell."

"And that's when I said, 'God, how could you, how could you call yourself a loving God and a living God, and just let them suffer like that, then to suck them into hell?'" he continued. "And that's when I thought I heard an inner voice say, 'Is that what you think we're doing?' I said, 'That's what I've been taught. You're sucking them into hell.' And that voice said, 'Can't you see they're already there? That's hell. You created that.'"

Pearson believed that God was telling him hell is the creation of man on earth.

Another interesting thought - Pearson believes that God told him there is no hell. I wonder if this is an example of how a theology that practices and preaches that "God told me" can lead to doctrinal aberration?

From 2003-

TULSA, Okla. - Bishop Carlton Pearson, the nationally prominent evangelical preacher, has already stirred one controversy for preaching the doctrine of inclusion - that everyone is saved no matter what they do.

He’s about to light another fuse.

Pearson, founder and pastor of Tulsa’s Higher Dimensions Family Church, now says he believes “it is reasonable” that Satan himself will go to heaven. It’s possible, he says, that God could have made a mistake in condemning Satan to eternity in hell.

“Is God not big enough to change the devil?” Pearson said in an interview. “I can conceive of the devil bowing down and repenting to God, saying, ‘I competed with You, but I was wrong. I’m sorry.’ “

Asked if that “confession” would be enough for God to forgive Satan and allow him into heaven, Pearson replied, “He (the devil) came from heaven.”

This is not intended to be a "let's blast Carlton Pearson" post, and please don't let the comments become that. Rather I am interested in the wrongness of his thinking, and the subsequent response of other Christians.

Personally, I see him as a victim of a theology that teaches that "God speaks new revelation" and him allowing circumstances and personal human reason to trump the Word of God.

Grace (5): How old is God?

Dada: He doesn't have an age. He existed before the world was made and anyone was ever born.

Grace: So he's 100 years old?

Dada: No, he's infinite. He's been around since forever, but he doesn't age like we do.

Macy (7): He's God.

Grace: I know that!

Dada: He's not a person.

Grace: Yes he is. He is a person.

Dada: Well, he's a Person, but not like us. He's not a human being.

(long pause)

Grace: I'm not a bean.

Macy: BEE-ing! Not bean.

Grace: I'm not a bee either.

Macy: That's not what I said!

Grace: I'm glad I'm not a bean or a bee 'cause I'd get eaten up or I'd get stung and then I'd die.

Macy: A BEING!

Grace: What's a bing?

This week at SearchWarp I've outlined Five Ways to Feel Scripture.

A taste:

We like to keep Scripture short and manageable, and that's understandable. It's certainly more convenient that way. But we will not be mastered by Scripture if we don't occasionally allow it to overwhelm us, intimidate us, and force us to wrestle with it.

The peculiar thing about If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person is that the authors -- Philip Gulley and James Mulholland -- quote the Bible generously in order to buttress their Universalist ideas, but flatly deny so much scripture and orthodox Christian doctrine that they shouldn't even be considered to be on the fringe of Christianity. Quite simply, they're heretics.



I don't know if I've ever read a "Christian" book and then, when finished, labeled the author a heretic, but with these guys it's a no-brainer.

Gulley and Mulholland make a few theological blunders (to put it mildly) and those errors turn out to be a poor foundation on which to build their view of God. For example, Gulley and Mulholland deny the authority of the entirety of Scripture:

If you are unwilling to question the Bible, neither my experiences nor my arguments will carry much weight. (Pg. 49)

Weighing Scripture allows for the possibility that some descriptions of God and his behavior are inaccurate. (Pg. 52)

With regard to biblical authority, Gulley and Mulholland make use of a popular St. Augustine quotation: "There are very many who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." While using that quotation to bolster their position, they flatly deny entire portions of the Bible that do not coincide with their Universalist ideas. The end result is a couple of writers who do in fact deny Holy Scriptures, while not believing in endless torments.

The authors also argue for a theology based on feelings and experiences, with God "whispering in my ear." (By the way, apparently to avoid confusion, the authors write the book in one voice.)

If all of that isn't enough, Gulley and Mulholland sidestep the necessity of the deity of Christ, and His sole efficacy in salvation:

I believe Jesus had a special relationship with God and an important role in human history, though I'm no longer persuaded this required his divinity. I'm committed to living the way of Jesus, though I no longer insist "there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Pg. 125)

Finally, the authors deny a host of other Christian dogmas:

When I became convinced that God would save every person, I tried to hold on to traditional Christian formulas -- the trinity, the incarnation, and atonement theology. I wanted to pour this new wine into old wineskins. I quickly realised why Jesus recommended against this: the old wineskins always burst. . . . My mind enlarged, I had to abandon the formulas I'd been taught, had preached, and had defended. (Pg. 126)

I don't think reading the book was a complete waste of my time. Gulley and Mulholland have something to say about paradoxes within Scripture, the love of God, the mercy of God, and the teachings of JESUS. Their conclusions, though, are erroneous and dangerous -- they undermine the faith.

... but I'm not sure about this book's premise.

I posted this a couple of days on my personal blog. Since then I've read about half of this book, and I've got mixed feelings about it so far. But more on that later ...



Most folks, myself included, tend to gravitate toward one theology or way of thinking without really exploring alternative ideas. Sometimes the lack of exploration is because one is so firmly rooted in their way of thinking, and its truthfulness, that they feel (perhaps rightly) that there's simply no reason to waste time reading about different views. Other times, though, it can be simple apathy, laziness, and even arrogance. When I look back on my time on earth, I hope to say that my reasons for not boldly searching out other positions were not arrogance or laziness.

When I was about 16 I walked into a Christian bookstore and bought a copy of a slick new book called The Sign by Robert Van Kampen. The book outlined Van Kampen's Pre-Wrath Rapture theology. After devouring the tome I promptly dropped my Pre-Tribulation beliefs in favor of what I thought was the more logical and scripturally sound Pre-Wrath position. (For the record, I still think the Pre-Wrath position is more logical and scripturally sound than the Pre-Tribulation position.) Much to the chagrin of certain relatives (for example, one of my aunts), I became an outspoken advocate of my new position, defending it against the popular Pre-Tribulation notion whenever I was given a chance.

While I'm not a student of pop-eschatology anymore, I think my initial willingness to abandon my then denominational distinctive (Pre-Tribulation theology) in favor of what I believed was a position more true to Scripture, helped solidify a willingness in my mind to, well, change my mind about theological distinctives. I'm not talking about the essential tenets of the faith, so I move forward, and pray that the Spirit guides me.

Furthermore, I think it's sad that too often someone does something like dismissing Calvinism without having ever listened to a teaching on Calvinism or read a book about the theology of monergism and its various streams. The same can be said for Arminianism.

I said all that to say I'm dipping my toe a bit further into the pool of Christian Universalism with my latest borrowed book (thank the Lord of inter-library loan!): If Grace is True: Why God Will Save Every Person by Philip Gulley and James Mulholland. I'm sure the read will be, at least, interesting.

Grace (5): Why do I always have to do what you say?

Dada: 'Cause I'm the dad, that's why.

Grace: You're not just my dad, you're my brother.

Dada: I'm not your brother.

Grace: You're my brother in Christ.

(When I was able to stop laughing, I complimented her on her theology. And then reminded her that she still had to do what I say, even if I am her brother in Christ.)

ChurchRelevance combed through a Carlos Whitaker survey on people's gripes about worship leaders and compiled the Top Ten Worship Leader Pet Peeves.

1. Asking the Congregation to do Something (21 responses)
>> Makes us shake hands with the people around us.
>> When a worship leader tells you to lift up your hands, it takes a meaningful personal action and turns it into a obligatory command.
>> Talks like they’re at a high school pep rally, “Let me hear ya!”
>> Asks how everyone is doing. We’re not at a concert, so we’re not going to scream.
>> Tells you what to do and how to worship… to the point where it makes you feel guilty if you don’t conform yourself to her/his understanding of what worship is.
>> I hate it when worship leaders script the worship too much by telling people what to do. I’ve had worship leaders completely distract me from God when they start telling me what to do.

2. Mini-Sermons & Talking (20 responses)
>> Talks between every song.
>> I am distracted when worship leaders start talking about anything that is not directions on what we are about to do.
>> When they repeat the same catch-phrases every week.
>> Breathy speaking between songs.
>> Sermonettes are annoying if too long or common
>> You can tell a mile away when a worship leader is “sharing” because he feels obligated to. It’s always a cheesy or over emotional blurb. When God’s really laid something on a worship leader’s heart, it’s cool. But even then, say it in less than 45 seconds! Don’t meander on for 3 minutes.

3. Not Focusing on God (17 responses)
>> Forget that the audience of worship is God and start making it a performance for those sitting in front of them.
>> When they perform rather than worship themselves.
>> Showing zero emotion, standing still, focusing too much on perfection.
>> Worship leaders who seem really wrapped up in being “cool.”
>> Sometimes you can tell they’re being fake and/or showy.
>> I hate it when the music guy/gal asks the crowd to praise God but soaks it up like they are Bono and the crowd is really praising them.
>> I hate it when worship leaders don’t lead people.

4. Unprofessional (14 responses)
>> Starts service late.
>> Typos on the screen.
>> Talks to the praise band while leading worship instead of using hand signals to tell them what to do.
>> When the leader changes the key of the song and does not tell the rest of the team.
>> Goes out of order or adds another song in the middle of the set
>> When the leader and/or band member turns away from the people to mess with their gear.
>> When the production team on stage are laughing, joking, and gesturing behind the worship leader to the soundboard guys in the transition between worship and the message.

5. Singing (11 responses)
>> Can’t sing very well.
>> Doesn’t know the lyrics.
>> When worship leaders run words together.
>> When they put their own little spin on simple, common words.
>> Repeating the same line in a song 3.6 million times. There’s the Spirit’s leading and then there’s just plain losing people.
>> Our old church’s leader would sing so high that no one could sing along. She provided no harmony for us to pick up. It was to showcase her own voice.

6. Appearance (9 responses)
>> Sing with their eyes closed.
>> When singers act like they are really bored up there.
>> Wears crotch hugging jeans.
>> Looks or sounds seductive.
>> One of our young worship leaders had a really big hicky on his neck a couple of weeks ago.

7. Prayer (8 responses)
>> Inauthentic prayer – too scripted or so random that it doesn’t make sense, or rushed/dragged out to make the prayer fit the interlude.
>> Prays the words of the songs.
>> When they can’t talk or pray appropriately between songs.

8. Bad Transitions (5 responses)
>> Transitions between songs take long time.
>> Allows uncomfortable dead time between songs.
>> When they pray essentially the same prayer at a transition moment.
>> Using the song name as an introduction/transition - “You know I was thinking about how much God has done for me…it really is ‘Amazing Grace’ isn’t it?”

9. Lifestyle (4 responses)
>> When he’s obviously ungodly during practice and throughout life, but turns into a saint on Sunday morning.
>> I hate to see a person who is suppose to be leading worship acting like a jerk before service and then getting up on stage acting like nothing ever happened.
>> As a Pastor, I hate it when the music guy/gal is lazy apart from their 30 minute set on Sundays.

10. Catering to the Congregation (4 responses)
>> When they hold back because they are obviously conscious of what the congregation and/or pastor will think.
>> I hate it when worship leaders/pastors play to people who think the worship somehow revolves around what they like and what makes them feel good when it has absolutely nothing to do with our preferences or likes.
>> Has to risk being a cheerleader because the people that claim to love God exhibit no sense of joy when singing about Him.

What do you think? Agree, disagree?

I've offered my Tips for Worship Leaders previously at GDC.

I have a new post up at SearchWarp:

Subverting Suburbia

We recently began a study of John's Gospel at PRAXIS, Element's "third place" small group, and something really awesome jumped out at me from this passage this week. Check out John 1:35-51:

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"

The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them, "What are you seeking?"
And they said to him, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"
He said to them, "Come and you will see."
So they came and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour.

One of the two who heard John speak and followed Jesus was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first found his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, "Follow me."
Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"
Philip said to him, "Come and see."

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"
Nathanael said to him, "How do you know me?"
Jesus answered him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!" Jesus answered him, "Because I said to you, 'I saw you under the fig tree,' do you believe? You will see greater things than these." And he said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man."

This is John's account of Jesus' calling some of his first disciples. The thing that struck me the more I looked at this passage is the changing titles ascribed to Jesus. There are at least 7 titles/descriptors given to Jesus here:

1. The Lamb of God, ultimately referring to his atoning sacrifice
2. Rabbi, ascribing to him the place of teaching and wisdom
3. Messiah (the Christ), acknowledging him as the answer to Israel's expectation
4. Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, which reminds us of his incarnate humanity
5. Son of God, referring to his deity
6. King, which is pretty self-explanatory
7. Son of Man, an earthy title which actually belies its prophetic and apocalyptic meaning, in v.51 connected to his exaltation

Seven titles, seven facets of Jesus' identity. Seven angles at his all-surpassing awesomeness.
In just 17 short verses, in just one short narrative recounting Jesus calling men into the radical life of following him, we see a big picture of all that Jesus is.

And it occurs to me that this is not just a great picture of this call to discipleship, but that it's a wonderful picture of our call to discipleship. We tag along and Jesus asks, "What do you want?" and so many of us answer with a piddlin' amount of expectation compared to the all-satisfying goodness he is actually drawing us into.

In our study last Monday night we talked about the mentors we chose when we first entered young adulthood, and what we would have said if they had asked us, "What do you want out of this relationship?" Our answers varied: guidance, information, affirmation of gifts, encouragement.

And we go to Jesus asking for those slices of wholeness, as well. We saw our needs expressed in these different titles -- he is the Rabbi for those needing wisdom, he is the Messiah for those needing fulfillment, he is the Lamb for those needing forgiveness -- but the truth is we need all that Christ is, and the truth is that in becoming his disciples we actually receive all that Christ is!

We settle too easily. As C.S. Lewis says, "We are far too easily pleased." We want and expect Jesus the information desk, Jesus the ATM, Jesus the boyfriend, Jesus the socially conscious vegetarian, Jesus the culture warrior, Jesus the chest-thumping ultimate fighter, Jesus the tea drinking beatnik, and he is none of that (but perhaps all of that). He is all of God, and he is all of life.

There are two instances of "evangelism" in this account, also. The Baptizer's disciples ask Jesus where he's staying and Jesus responds, "Come along and see what's happening." Philip doesn't just tell Nathanael about Jesus; he says to him, "Come and see."

Clearly it is one thing to impart information about the goodness of Jesus, but the real affect, the real impact upon those desperate for life, occurs when someone "sees" the fullness of Christ in action. If discipleship means embracing the fullness of Christ, the community of disciples should radiate the wonder and worship life in the fullness of Christ really evokes.

We worship an amazing God who supplies all our needs according to his riches in King Jesus.

(Cross-posted at The Gospel-Driven Church)

I've been using Ray Ortlund's meditations on Romans, A Passion for God, for my daily devotional reading, and I thought I'd share the prayer from yesterday's reading. It is a great spotlight on the gospel, and it both stirred and challenged my heart.

You, O Lord Christ, are the great theme of the gospel. You are the King. You are the Messiah. You burst forth from the grave to receive the name that is above every name. You ascended to glorious sovereignty at the Father's right hand. You rule and reign from heaven, omnipotent to save. And that puts you, living Christ, at the center of the gospel message. O Lord Jesus Christ, I own you as my Sovereign. I lay my life at your feet. Be exalted in my life, be exalted in my heart right now, and bring me by your merits into your everlasting kingdom, where I yearn to be. In your holy name. Amen.

Here's my theological question for the day:

Is there a canon within the canon? In other words, do some books of the Bible take precedence over other books of the Bible? Or at least are there books -- or a set of books within the Bible -- that could be construed as primus inter pares (first among equals) when compared to other biblical texts?

My new friend and mentor Ray Ortlund, Jr. gave me a copy of his book, A Passion for God: Prayers and Meditations on the Book of Romans, which I began savoring yesterday. I'd like to share the Afterword from the book with you, because it is as prophetic and powerful an evangelical manifesto for gospel reform as I've ever read.

It's a little long (for a blog post) but is definitely worth your time.
Read the rest of this entry . . .