Giving Thanks to God for You: Sermon Prep on 1 Thess 1

Is it wrong to motivate a congregation toward holy living by holding up the Thessalonians as an example to imitate? No, I don’t think so, because Paul indicates that the Thessalonians were an example for the Macedonians and Achaians (1 Thess 1:7). Good enough. If they were examples for the people in the surrounding regions, then they can be examples for us. However, we must be careful to make clear who or what the ground of their ability to be an example is. Can this be found in the text? I think so; the ground of their becoming imitators was in the receiving of the word in tribulation and in the Holy Spirit. This is God wrought imitation, isn’t it? (Do 1 Thess 1:6-7 form a bilateral? Only if the hōste acts as a therefore. Otherwise, it might indicate the result of the action previously described.) Also, the content of Paul’s thanksgiving (1 Thess 1:2-3) is all about their work, labor, and perseverance, which are in turn respectively produced by faith, hope, and love. So then, as I am seeing it right now, faith, hope, and love, are central to the Thessalonians ability to live as examples. And their faith, hope, and love are all rooted in Jesus Christ himself (tou kyriou hēmōn Iēsou Christou).

Impudence!

The other night we read Luke 11:1-13 as a family. Now, to be perfectly honest this passage of Scripture has always eluded me. For those of you who get this text right away, forgive my thick-head. Even still, I didn’t get it. Fortunately, I have children who think better than I do. “Daddy, what does impudence mean?” My thought was that it meant being a jerk, or disrespectful, or insubordinate. So much for my vocabulary skills. I grabbed my trusty iPod Touch and ran the Dictionary app. Impudence means “the quality or state of being impudent.” Not so helpful. With a little more searching I found the following definitions: lack of modesty, shamelessness, characterized by impertinence or effrontery, barefaced audacity.

Now we were getting somewhere. So, the friend that came to the door at midnight and knocked was not being insubordinate, or even simply disrespectful. Instead, he was acting with barefaced audacity. He was shameless in his knocking at midnight. He was causing a scene, and seemed willing to risk anger and embarrassment in order to get what he wanted.

Jesus draws the conclusion in Luke 11:9, “And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” In other words, it seems that Jesus is telling his disciples that they should pray with impudence. They should pray with barefaced audacity.

The implications from this are shocking. We are sinners. We are creatures. God is creator. And we are to pray to our creator with boldfaced audacity. Stunning! Similar passages that come to mind are the persistent woman (Luke 18:1-8) and entering the throne room with boldness (Heb 4:16).

What should the disciples (and by extension us) pray for? Luke 11:13 gives us a clue. The Father will freely give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him. Our salvation and intimacy with God himself will be freely given to those who pray with impudence.

Augustin: The Typeface not the Man

I have a friend (here and here) who has introduced me to the world of typography. I am a total neophyte, but hopefully I am learning. I ran across this new typeface today, which I really like. Maybe those with a more discerning eye would disagree, but I like it and would love to print my next exegetical paper in Augustin.

Millennial Views in a Statement of Faith: Sin.

Justin Taylor quotes Mark Dever saying that having a millennial view written into a church's statement of faith is sin. Having experienced this sort of thing first hand, I find Dever's quote refreshing. I agree with Dever and believe that a long-term consequence of this sin is a severe danger to the health of the church, since it breeds an "us vs. them" mentality. It certainly divides more than it unifies.

I think that millennial views need not be among those doctrines that divide us. . . . I am suggesting that what you believe about the millennium—how you interpret these thousand years—is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order to have a congregation together. The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one. Of course all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us. Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians (whether near-ly in a congregation, or more at length in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself. Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ—to divide the body that he prayed would be united. Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture. So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.

Read Justin's entire post to find links to sermons by Mark Dever and Tom Schreiner, as well as an article by Sam Storms on the problems with the Premillennial view.

If sin made sense, it wouldn't be sin.

Douglas Wilson writes,

But people act the way they do because of sin. And if sin made sense, it wouldn't be sin. This is the mystery of lawlessness. A man can engage in behavior that is self-destructive, knowing full well that it is self-destructive, and do it anyway, with his eyes wide open. Wisdom says in Proverbs that all who hate her love death (Prov. 8:36). When you are trying to set the paths of life before a man who loves death, and you are assuming that he is doing what he does because he actually doesn't love death, this is going to result in a very clear, cogent, and impotent teacher. The law can't save.

Read the whole thing if you want, but this paragraph was really all I wanted to post on. In other words, Wilson's original post is well worth reading, but my point is to acknowledge the irrationality of sin, namely that "A man can engage in behavior that is self-destructive, knowing full well that it is self-destructive, and do it anyway, with his eyes wide open."

I know this from first-hand experience, and I expect, with a little honesty, that you do too. So, what is the solution? The gospel, of course. The teacher, whoever that might be, must be able to preach a good-ol' come to Jesus sermon—to the dead.

Happy Anniversary, My Love

Today is the 19th anniversary of being married to my best friend, lover, and partner in everything. She has had to put up with a lot of crap in the last 19 years. She is God's greatest physical embodiment of mercy, grace, forgiveness, love, joy, partnership, and perseverance to me. I can more easily believe that God is real and good by looking at the gift of my wife. I hope I have not turned her into an idol, but have loved her as God's gift to me. I exalt him and thank him for her, all the while striving (not so well) to love her like Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25-33).

Happy Anniversary, my love.

By dipping them in myth we see them more clearly.

The value of the myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by 'the veil of familiarity'. The child enjoys his cold meat (otherwise dull to him) by pretending it is buffalo, just killed with his own bow and arrow. And the child is wise. The real meat comes back to him more savoury for having been dipped in a story; you might say that only then is it the real meat. If you are tired of the real landscape, look at it in a mirror. By putting bread, gold, horse, apple, or the very roads into a myth, we do not retreat from reality: we rediscover it. As long as the story lingers in our mind, the real things are more themselves. This book [The Lord of the Rings] applies the treatment not only to bread or apple but to good and evil, to our endless perils, our anguish, and our joys. By dipping them in myth we see them more clearly. I do not think he [Tolkien] could have done it any other way.

—C. S. Lewis, "Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings," On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, p. 90.

The wine of life was drawn long since.

But in the Tolkienian world you can hardly put your foot down anywhere from Esgaroth to Forlindon or between Ered Mithrin and Khand, without stirring the dust of history. Our own world, except at certain rare moments, hardly seems so heavy with its past. This is one element in the anguish which the characters bear. But with the anguish there comes also a strange exaltation. They are at once stricken and upheld by the memory of vanished civilisations and lost splendour. They have outlived the second and third Ages; the wine of life was drawn long since. As we read we find ourselves sharing their burden; when we have finished, we return to our own life not relaxed but fortified.

—C. S. Lewis, "Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings," On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, p. 86.

Let there be wicked kings and beheadings...

Since it is so likely that they [children growing up in this world] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. Nor do most of us find that violence and bloodshed, in a story, produce any haunting dread in the minds of children. As far as that goes, I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer. Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end of the book. Nothing will persuade me that this causes an ordinary child any degree of fear beyond what it wants, and needs, to feel. For, of course, it wants to be a little frightened.

—C. S. Lewis, "On Three Ways of Writing for Children," On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, pp. 39-40.

No apology for good kid's books

It is usual to speak in a playfully apologetic tone about one's adult enjoyment of what are called 'children's books'. I think the convention a silly one. No book is really worth reading at the age of ten which is not equally (and often far more) worth reading at the age of fifty—except, of course, books of information. The only imaginative works we ought to grow out of are those which it would have been better not to have read at all. A mature palate will probably not much care for creme de methe: but it ought still to enjoy bread and butter and honey.

—C. S. Lewis, "On Stories," On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, p. 14.

A splintered fragment of true light

Until, that is, he came under the altogether benign influence of a fellow don at Oxford, Professor J. R. R. Tolkien. Not only was Tolkien a Christian, but, as Lewis explained in a letter to Greeves, one of the human carriers of the Faith to him. The actual event took place on the evening of the 19th September 1931, when Lewis, Tolkien, and another friend, Hugo Dyson, were up all night discussing 'myth' and its relation to the revelation of God in Christ. Tolkien, like Lewis, had long feasted on ancient myths, particularly those of Norse origin. The difference between them was that while Lewis defined myths as 'lies breathed through silver', Tolkien—already at work on his vast invented world of Middle Earth—believed in the inherent truth of mythology. 'Just as speech is invention about objects and ideas', he said to Lewis that same evening, 'so myth is invention about truth. We have come from God, and inevitably the myths woven by us, though they contain error, will also reflect a splintered fragment of true light, the eternal truth that is with God. Indeed only by myth-making, only by becoming a "sub-creator" and inventing stories, can Man ascribe to the state of perfection that he knew before the Fall.'*

*Humphrey Carpenter, J. R. R. Tolkien: A Biography (1977), ch. IV.

—Walter Hooper, Preface, On Stories and Other Essays on Literature, by C. S. Lewis, pp. xiii–xiv

That boy's not all cotton fluff, is he?

"You know," Henry said. He was talking more to himself than the faerie, trying to believe something. "A man once told me that sometimes winning a fight isn't as important as standing in the right place, facing what needs to be faced. And sometimes standing in the right place means you end up dead. And that's better than not standing at all." Henry twisted around and looked into the fat faerie's dark eyes.

"Oh," Frank said. "That's a dark bit of philosophy for a lad. Think that way, and all you'll ever get is your name written on a bit of stone. What I say is, don't go playing unless you can win. Only sit down to chess with idiots, only kick a dog what's dead already, and don't love a lady unless she loves you first. That's Franklin Fat-Faerie's—"

Henry was gone.

Frank puffed out his cheeks and pulled a thread from his pocket. "Well, Franklin, that boy's not all cotton fluff, is he?" He began tying the thread around one of the supporting sticks. "He's got it pretty well figured, and you know it. We're all going to get ourselves dead, and only the gulls will want our after-bits. But," he added, tugging gently on the thread, "I'll do my dying standing on the right spot, beside the son of Mordecai, even if he is a bit of a nunce."

—N. D. Wilson, Dandelion Fire, pp. 371–375

Because it is right to do so

Ron was silent for a moment. Then he spoke. "Sometimes standing against evil is more important than defeating it. The greatest heroes stand because it is right to do so, not because they believe they will walk away with their lives. Such selfless courage is a victory in itself."

—N. D. Wilson, Dandelion Fire, pp. 172–173

Baseball was a Magic He Could Run Around in

Henry successfully kept his mind on the game, which might seem strange for a boy who slept beside a wall of magic. But baseball was as magical to him as a green, mossy mountain covered in ancient trees. What's more, baseball was a magic he could run around in and laugh about. While the magic of the cupboards was not necessarily good, the smell of leather mixed with dusty sweat and spitting and running through sparse grass after a small ball couldn't be anything else.

—N. D. Wilson, 100 Cupboards, pp. 155-156

Regarding secret, hidden sin...

Douglas Wilson writes,

Three solutions present themselves—two of them false and one true. The first false solution is to continue to hide the sin, on one's own terms, and in one's own way. But Moses' words should follow all who seek this way out—"be sure your sin will find you out." The second seeks to combine biblical truths with pragmatic solutions. "I confessed it to God. What else . . .?" Sometimes there is nothing else but to receive forgiveness. But in other situations, much remains to be done. Stolen goods must still be restored, slandered brothers and sisters must be asked for forgiveness, and broken covenants must be put right. And so the third way, the only effective way, is to want God's mercy so much that you are willing do exactly what He says when you apply to Him for it.

Read the whole thing.

Backhanded Apple Marketing

Windows Secrets, a popular online newsletter for Windows users, had the following lead-in to their top story, written by Woody Leonhard:

If you've ever wondered why it's so difficult to manage and share files in Windows, you'll be delighted with two significant new features in Windows 7.

These new capabilities, called Libraries and Homegroups, make finding files and connecting with resources on other PCs so easy you'll think you're using a Mac!

Hah! Why not just use a Mac and avoid all the MS hassle?

Great game, then dessert!

Chase's team was down 8 to 0. Yes, the big fat zero. Chase was up to bat. Two strikes. One ball. Lined one into the outfield for a double. Stole third. Third baseman let it go between his legs. Stole home. Game hero. Reward below.

No, Mr. President

(HT: Desiring God)

True Freedom

"True freedom before God is the freedom to do what is right as God defines what is right."

This quote is from Doug Wilson when discussing Augustine's definition of freedom and free market systems. It is an excellent quote quite apart from that.

I have an old tape where R.C. Sproul called this Royal Freedom.

I find it very interesting when people argue against the sovereignty of God over the salvation of men by saying that God is somehow restricting their freedom. What kind of freedom do you want, for goodness' sake? Freedom to sin, or true freedom?

Lust, Temptation, and Sin

Often times, when men talk about lust, they put the onus on the word lust. I lusted yesterday. While this is true, I think the word has taken on a milder connotation than it should have in these scenarios—almost as if it is a respectable sin. Or, at least, it seems to have lost some of its teeth. The idea really should be I committed adultery yesterday. Ouch. That puts a tougher spin on it, doesn’t it?

Some times, when men are dealing with this sin, they try to draw a line between what constitutes lust and what does not. Making this distinction is important to determine whether sin is really happening or not. For instance, it is sometimes said in evangelical circles, "The first look is free, but if you look again, you have sinned." In other words, one might see an attractive woman and look away, because the first look is not sin, but if he looks again, then that is sin. This, of course, is a rather legalistic way of understanding the problem and can lead to long, lingering, first looks. Talking about lust in this way is really like walking up to a wolf and placing sheep’s clothing around its shoulders.

The important distinction needed is to cut past the soft-talk and deal directly with sin and temptation. The biblical reality is that temptation is going to happen. The issue is not that we look long or twice or at all, the issue is whether we sin. So, what constitutes sin? Does a long look constitute sin? Does a second look constitute sin? Both of these are the wrong question. What constitutes sin is the response in our heart. Do we want what we see? Sin is the wrong response to the temptation.

“No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor 10:13). Temptation is going to happen. Beautiful women will walk in front of you. The question is not whether you look long or twice. The issue at hand is how you respond to the temptation. According to Paul, God himself will not let you be tempted more than you are able. That seems to imply that you don’t have to sin, not only in this situation, but in any temptation. You don’t have to respond to the temptation with sin. So, how should we respond? Look to Jesus.

Verse 14 begins with therefore. Since no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man, therefore, flee from idolatry. How to do you flee from idolatry? “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:14-16) We look to Christ. We partake in his blood and in his body. We look to him as the serpent being lifted up. He became a curse for us and was hung on a tree, so that we do not have to sin any more, so that we may find the way of escape from temptation and may be able to endure it.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for all men who believe, both Jew and Greek. The gospel of Jesus, crucified and risen, is the power of God unto salvation, both in the eternal sense and from sin. What a glorious truth!

So, it is wise and helpful to make sure you don’t look long and don’t look twice. But, don’t think that these acts save you or keep you from sin, because even a nanosecond look is long enough to sin, for sin is a heart response to the temptation. Instead look to Christ and his gospel. Pray to Christ as your way out of temptation. How you respond to the temptation is a heart issue, not an issue merely of the eyes.