This may sound shocking, coming from a cessationist. But at the outset, I should probably confess that I have spoken in tongues. In fact, I do it every day.
I not only speak in tongues. I read and write in tongues. I sing in tongues. I even pray in tongues, and I wish I did so more.
(Pause for dramatic effect.)
So … what tongues do I employ? Continue Reading…
(In the comments of today’s initial post, I was asked whether or not there are two types of tongues in the New Testament. My response was too long for the comment thread, so I’m posting it here instead.)
* The following comes from a lecture I gave on this topic. The audio can be accessed here.
I want to respond to the idea that the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 is somehow qualitatively different than in Acts or even than in 1 Corinthians 12.
* * * * * Continue Reading…
The following leadership principles are “little sermons” I’ve been re-preaching to myself over twenty years of ministry. Most of them have been learned the hard way – personal failure, stubbornness and the unwillingness to listen to the counsel of other godly men. As I’ve reviewed my own mistakes (and pay attention to the mistakes of others), I’m always amazed at how often a lack of common sense was (is) to blame. We so often over-spiritualize leadership in the church (like assuming everything will turn out wonderfully if we simply preach “great” sermons) we forget to use our brains. It seems the vast majority of troubles could have been avoided had we simply used common sense. Other times, no matter how hard we try, or pray, it seems we can’t help but cut the wrong wire.
I know there are people out there laughing at the fact that I am offering counsel on leadership. Specifically, those who’ve suffered under my impulsive mistakes. To these innocent bystanders of my stupidity I would say, “I laugh along with you and please forgive me.” For certain, Community Bible Church is filled with gracious and patient people. I realize me handing out counsel on leadership is like that shop class teacher you had who was missing three fingers on that one hand.
Also, as I offer this post, I’m well aware there are more experienced voices out there – prolific in the art of leadership principles for ministry and church. I too depend on the works of these men and their ministries. Obviously, their “benches” are much deeper than mine. My choice of comments overlooks innumerable issues that pastors face. You’d be well advised to keep those ministries in your “favorites” as I do. Lastly, I don’t want this post to come across as condescending (which means speaking down to people) or presumptuous. I also realize there are faithful pastors and elders in the trenches whose wisdom far exceeds my own. In fact, I’d love to learn from you. Post your own insights and I’ll add them to my list. Continue Reading…
Elsewhere (here and here), I’ve made the argument that the Bible does not command churches to engage in social transformation projects, and that the church has as its mission evangelism, not lowering the world’s poverty rate. Others have helpfully given lists of verses that describe the call for individual Christians to love their neighbors and enemies(which raises the question of what true love looks like, but that will have to wait). But today I want to address another question:
Are the commands to do good for the poor in the world given to individuals or to corporate churches? To me, this is a distinction that should not have to be made. But it becomes an issue when people redefine the church’s mission away from evangelism, and add social justice or meeting the material needs of the world’s poor to the mandate of the church.
The main post today (above, or click here) is an attempt to argue that the New Testament commands individuals to love the poor in the world, but that social action and meeting physical needs of the world’s poor is NOT a mission given to the church. In short, I am arguing for a individual/corporate distinction in how I understand some biblical ethics. But I anticipate that making a distinction between the two might be met with skepticism. So this post is here to explain why it is helpful to see a difference between what the church is called to do, and what individual Christians are called to do.
Generally speaking, NT commands fit into one of two categories: individual or corporate (church body). While this may seem like an artificial distinction, authors from Grudem to Keller have called it a helpful one, and specifically in reference to mercy ministry. Simply put, not everything commanded of an individual is likewise commanded of a church, and vice versa.
The pop icon with the most remarkable lip-to-face ratio, Mick Jagger, encapsulated the sine qua non of Ecclesiastes with the characteristic pithiness of enduring poetry: “I can’t get no [obligatory guitar lead interlude] satisfaction.” And in one of the most elastically generous half-rhymes in the Presley corpus, “A little less conversation, a little more action / All this aggravation ain’t satisfaction in me.” I am half way through preaching Solomon’s pensive, apparently cynical magnum opus, and I’m resolute in my determination to not slit my wrists. Last night’s sermon was the mid-term review—chapter 6 of 12. Basically our emo author is waxing glumly about life, the universe, and everything and how nothing in this sunburned existence brings happiness or fulfillment.
The whole thing is reminiscent of my undergrad studies in existentialism. If you asked Ernest Hemingway why the chicken crosses the
road, he’d reply starkly, “To die. In the rain. Alone.” Then he’d turn a shotgun on himself. If you asked Jean-Paul Sartre, he’d offer, “The chicken is attempting to escape the company he finds himself in, and will try this ad nauseum until he resigns himself to the inevitable truism that hell is other chickens.” And then he’d outrun the specter of a giant lobster hallucination he spent most of his paranoid twilight years avoiding before offing himself too. It seems that suicide is de rigueur among existentialists, and you can see why. Who wants to live in a purposeless world? But Solomon’s incipient existentialism is the result of neither dithering senility nor morbid pessimism. He knows where joy can be located, and it’s not in this life.
Ecclesiastes unearths this insight: God (the Giver) lays a trail of breadcrumbs (his gifts) to lead us to the joy to be found only in him. We spend our lives frustrated that the breadcrumbs don’t fill us, while we miss the point; they are leading us to a banquet of satisfaction in God alone. I know this sounds very Piper-esque, “We are most satisfied in God when he is most glorified in us.” But Piper confessed to nabbing that gem from Jonathan Edwards who boosted it from the Apostle Paul who apparently picked it dexterously from Solomon’s pocket. It passed through Augustine’s hands at some point too, “Thou hast made us for Thyself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless til they find their rest in Thee.” Now every youth pastor does the bit about a God-shaped hole in our hearts, and we all act like this insight is passé. But think about it. It is only Christians who have access to this insight through faith. If you don’t believe in God, you have no banquet, just a trail of crumbs. Unbelievers imbibe their fill of saltwater but their thirst burns unabated.
