Marks of Revival

The Lakeland “Revival” did not measure up. –JB

Sinclair Ferguson on revival:

   In his Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God, Jonathan Edwards draws on 1 John 4 to show that all true works of God share several features:
   1. A high esteem for Christ.
   2. The overthrow of Satan’s Kingdom in our hearsts.
   3. A reverent view of, and close attention to, God’s Word in Scripture.
   4. The presence of the Spirit of truth convincing us of the reality of eternity and the depth of our sin and need.
   5. A deep love for both God and man.
   But what does this mean in real-life terms?

A Microcosmic View

. . . Many years ago, I witnessed revival in its most microcosmic form in a sudden, unexpected, and remarkable work of God’s Spirit on a friend. The work was so dramatic, the effect so radical, that news of it spread quickly to different parts of the country. . . . I [asked] my friend . . . What this remarkable experience had involved. The answer was illuminating. Five things seemed to have happened . . .
   1. A painful exposure of the particular sin of unbelief occurred. Listening to preaching was a staple of my friend’s spiritual diet, but what came with overpowering force was a sense that God’s Word had actually been despised inwardly. God’s own Word, preached in the power of the Spirit, stripped away the mask of inner pride and outward reputation for spirituality. There was a fearful exposure to sin.
   2. A powerful desire arose to be free from all sin. A new affection came, as if unbidden, into the heart. Indeed, a desire seemed to be given actually to have sin increasingly revealed and exposed in order that it might be confessed, pardoned, and cleansed. Disturbing though it was, there was a sweetness of grace in the pain.
   3. The love of Christ now seemed marvelous beyond measure. A love for Him flowed from a heart that could not get enough of Christ, ransacking Scripture to discover more and more about Him.
   4. A new love for God’s Word was born—for reading it, for hearing it expounded and applied, and especially for knowing every expression of God’s will, so that it might be obeyed.
   5. A compassionate love for others now flowed. It came from this double sense of sin and need on the one hand and grace and forgiveness on the other. Christian witness ceased to be a burdenand became the ecpression of Spirit-wrought and powerful new affections.
   It was thus for King David:

Have mercy upon me, O God . . . According to the multitude of Your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. For I acknowledge my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against You, You only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Your sight. . . . Purge me . . . Wash me. . . . Create in me a clean heart, O God. . . . My tongue shall sing aloud of your righteousness.

—Psalm 51:1–4, 7, 10, 14

—Sinclair Ferguson, In Christ Alone: Living the Gospel Centered Life (Reformation Trust, 2007), 103–104.

HT: The Thirsty Theologian

Set Apart for Holiness

Now, dear reader, the children of God are sanctified people, sanctified to offer spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ, and we have no right to do anything but serve God. “What,” you say, “am I not to attend to my business?” Yes, and you are to serve God in your business. “Am I not to look after my family?” Assuredly, you are, and you are to serve God in looking after your family, but still you are to be set apart.

You are not to wear the white robe nor the breastplate (see Exodus 28:4), but still you are to think of yourself as being as much a priest as if the breastplate were on your breast, and the white robe about your loins; for you are “priests unto God and his Father” (Rev. 1:6). He has made you a peculiar generation and a royal priesthood (see 1 Peter 2:9), and He has set you apart for Himself (Ps. 4:3).
- Charles Spurgeon, The Key to Holiness

Modern American Christianity

Paul Washer could be called a “weeping prophet.” He speaks from a wealth of experience and Biblical knowledge. What he has to say is not always pleasant, but it needs to be said. –JB

To Inundate the World

Another great post from Douglas Wilson:

To Inundate the World
Topic: From the River to the Ends of the Earth
As Scripture instructs, we must be adult in our understanding. But we must also cultivate what Luke records in the books of Acts when he says that the early Christians ate their bread with gladness and simplicity of heart. We may be refreshed with both when we come to understand how much of the water of life there actually is.

“Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet 3:10-13).

What God gives to His people, He gives according to promise. We should know enough about scriptural language that we do not think the dissolution of the old heavens and the old earth in this passage consists of a meltdown of the periodic table. What we mean by elements is not what they meant by elements. Peter’s word is stoicheia, which I would submit should be referred to the elementary gods, water, earth, wind and fire. Before redemption, mankind was in bondage to these elementals as Paul puts it in Gal 4:3-8. There is perhaps a reference to two of them in Eph 2:2 and Rev 14:18. We have now been set free from them – their power and authority has melted away.

But what does this passage mean positively? The interpretive key is found in Peter’s phrase “according to His promise.” Where were we promised a new heavens and a new earth? Where does the Old Testament talk about this? The answer to this question is Isaiah’s glory. At the great conclusion of the book of Isaiah, the prophet tells how reprobate Israelites would be rejected, and the Gentiles brought in. “I was sought by those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. I said, ‘Here I am, here I am,’ To a nation that was not called by My name. I have stretched out My hands all day long to a rebellious people (Is 65:1-2a). God promises to call His elect by another name – Christian, as it turns out – and the basis of this change is His promise. “For behold, I create a new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind” (Is 65:15-17). This is where the promise was made, the one which Peter claimed (Is 66:22). But do not look for a simplistic fulfillment. “Thus says the Lord: ‘Heaven is My throne, and earth is My footstool. Where is the house that you will build Me? And where is the place of My rest?’” (Is 66:1. We are the temple (1 Cor 3:16, 6:19), we are the living stones (1 Pet 2:4-5); we are the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:2,9).

When Jesus teaches us about living water, we should all have learned enough scriptural truth not to look in the bucket. This “water” is everlasting life (John 4:13-15); this “water” is the Holy Spirit of God (John 7:37-39). “But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” Most notably, Jesus said, “He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.” But where does Scripture talk about rivers of living water?

“Then he brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east . . . and it was a river that I could not cross; for the water was too deep, water in which one must swim, a river that could not be crossed . . . When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed . . . And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live . . . Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine” (Ezek 47:1-12).

This river of Ezekiel is the Spirit; it is everlasting life, and it flows out from underneath the threshold of the Christian Church. We see a great bridal city. The parallels between Ezekiel’s temple and the New Jerusalem make it clear they are a vision of the same thing – the holy Christian church. But how does John introduce his discussion of it? “Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away” (Rev 21:1). The last two chapters of the Revelation are a glorious description of a justified and perfect Church, with healing for the nations. “And the Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!’ And let him who hears say, ‘Come!’ And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev 22:17). This water of life was not given to individuals so they could keep a thimbleful in their hearts. This is water that is meant to inundate the world.

Addressing Real Need

from Out of Ur:

Missing the Point of Prophecy

An excellent reminder of the real point of prophecy from Sharper Iron. -JB

Without a doubt, prophecy is one of the most popular genres of Scripture. An announcement that the pastor will begin a series through 1 Chronicles may incite some yawns, but the attendance might swell if he decides to preach through Revelation.

While prophecy is an important part of Scripture, its study can become an end in itself. It can become all about detailed charts, a haughty denouncing of others’ perspectives on the Millennium, and dogmatic—yet unwarranted—speculation. To avoid these errors, we must keep in mind the purpose of prophecy.

Knowledge without Obedience

The danger of familiarity with prophecy—indeed, with any portion of Scripture—is that even if we apparently interpret it correctly, we can still miss the point. We can easily become self-deceived hearers and not doers of the Word (James 1:22). When we fail to make applications to our lives, we fail to truly grasp the reason God gave prophecy—all while congratulating ourselves on how much we know about the end times. King Herod obtained a correct interpretation of the prophecy of Micah 5:2 from the priests and scribes (Matt. 2:5-6), but those prophetic experts failed to walk a few miles to go worship the One who came to fulfill such prophecy.

I used to think that passages like 2 Timothy 4:3 referred only to those who overtly rejected Scripture’s authority, thinking that those who “have itching ears” and “heap up for themselves teachers” were liberals. A discussion with a friend helped me realize that, sadly, there is a way for professed Bible-believers to fall prey to a form of this error as well. This mistake happens when we simply want to listen to a preacher for the aesthetic value or because we like his style or because we want to learn but not obey. God warned about such hearers in Ezekiel 33. They invited others to come hear the preacher (v. 30), they complimented the preacher (v. 31), they considered the preacher’s words as music to their ears (v. 32), yet failed to obey the message (v. 31-32). They wanted their ears tickled, but their hearts were far from God. And it is also possible for those enamored with prophecy to fit the same description.

Knowledge that Leads to Worship and Holiness

Contrast Ezekiel’s hearers with the standard John gives his readers in 1 John (NKJV, emphasis added):

And now, little children, abide in Him, that when He appears, we may have confidence and not be ashamed before Him at His coming. If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.

Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. (1 John 2:28-3:2)

Paul gives this reason for his exhortations to obedience:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. (Titus 2:11-14, emphasis added)

And notice Peter’s admonition in light of the coming judgment on the world:

Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Pet. 3:11-13, emphasis added)

According to God’s Word, the anticipation of our Savior’s return should produce in us a hope that manifests itself in righteousness. We must be holy people who are zealous of good works (Titus 2:14). We must not become so obsessed with details (or speculations) about the future that we miss the fact that God wins and that we should live before His face at all times.

Our growth in purity is the point of prophecy. A proper study of prophecy should fuel a holy longing to meet our Bridegroom, the Lord Jesus Christ, face-to-face. It should motivate us to prepare for that glorious day by pursuing holiness now. Our lives should show that we are not ultimately citizens of this time and place, but that we look forward to an eternal kingdom and a new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. We should not be puffed up by knowledge, but seek to “worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev. 19:10). May we so preach, teach, and live.

Doug Smith is happily married to Krystal. They are the parents of three children. They are members of Cornerstone Chapel in Bristol, Tennessee. Doug teaches hermeneutics with the Cumberland Area Pulpit Supply and also does supply preaching. He is pursuing the M.Div. degree through Southern Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. You can view his blog at http://glorygazer.blogspot.com.

Thoughts on The Shack

I just finished reading The Shack, the current best seller that has surprised everyone with its popularity among Christians and non-Christians alike. I’m a little behind - by this time probably a million people have already read it. That’s okay - I don’t mind being behind.

I haven’t been unaware of the book. How could one? I’ve followed the reviews, pro and con, and at one point vowed not to read it at all. I’m not sorry I did read it, if for no other reason than I now know for myself whether in good conscience I could recommend it to anyone else. I can’t.

The book has a decidedly emotional impact. It is very easy to empathize with Mack, the main character, and his journey to deal with the pain of his severe abuse as a childhood and the loss of his 6½-year-old daughter to abduction and brutal murder. All of us have asked some of the questions Mack asks: “Why is there evil? How can God be a good God when he allows such horrors?” etc. The answers Mack proposes, however, contain theological distortions, at times presenting a skewed version of essential Christian doctrines, at times presenting a blatantly false version of those doctrines.

The book has received reactions from one end of the favorable/unfavorable spectrum to another: from Eugene Peterson’s euphoric statement that the book “has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress did for his” to Mark Driscoll’s flat statement that the book is heresy. I consider the review written by Tim Challies (author of The Discipline of Discernment) to be the fairest and most accurate. You can access the review here.

As might be expected, Challie’s review received a great many responses, both positive and negative. He recently posted a response entitled “Open Mind, Closed Bible” in which he answers the two most common criticisms of his review.

An example of one of the criticisms: “Your review reminds me of exactly why ‘stodgy old religion’ is so unappealing to masses of people. William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” An example of a second criticism: “Another concerned reader told me of a professor in a conservative seminary who was untroubled by much of the book’s poor theology. ‘I was surprised that he seemed not as concerned due to the fact that it is a novel and so some leeway should be allowed for ‘poetic license.’ He acknowledged my concerns and said he shared them as well but said the novel did not ‘intend to do theology.’” Challie’s response is well reasoned and thorough. The complete response can be accessed here. The following is a portion:

“There are two broad arguments used here.

The first is pure pragmatism, implying that the book should be judged not on theological arguments, not on the basis of comparing it to Scripture, but on the basis of how people have reacted to it. Because so many people are responding positively to this book in opposition to “stodgy old religion,” we must believe that it is good. “William Young wrote a novel - a story that inspired me and thousands of others to want to have a closer, more intimate relationship with God. All your theological arguments can’t erase that.” The danger of such an argument is that it effectively places us over the Bible and over God. No longer do we judge right and wrong by what God says, but we judge right and wrong by how we feel. If the book inspires people to be intimate with God, we must judge it to be good. If it stirs emotions we like, we judge it to be good.

There are profound implications here. Pragmatism necessarily causes us to lose our focus on the absolute standard God has given us in His Word to determine right from wrong. When we lose that focus the church is placed on the slippery slope to becoming like the world. When we discard God’s standards we must depend on our own deeply flawed standards. We begin to trust in ourselves and lose our trust in God. We lose our reliance on His Word as the tool for discernment.

The second argument is that The Shack is not a work of theology and, therefore, must not be treated as such. An article at Christianity Today makes this argument. “It’s tricky to speak definitively of The Shack’s theology. Young could have written a theological treatise, a spiritual memoir, or even a long poem. Instead, he wrote what he calls a “parable” (not an allegory). That should give readers pause about confidently reading off a systematic theology from the book.” And in their review of the book they say, “Readers are talking about The Shack for its theology and its storyline, not for its faulty mechanics. Reviewers have criticized the book for hinting at universalism, as well as for feminism and a lack of hierarchy in the Trinity. Rather than slicing and dicing the novel, looking for proof of theological missteps, a better approach might be to look at significant passages as springboards for deeper discussion. The Shack is a novel, after all, not a systematic theology.”

This is a convenient argument but one we need to guard against. It creates a false, unrealistic division between works that are theological and works that are not. Surely we will admit that there are works that call for great theological precision (such as a Systematic Theology) and works that call for a more general precision, but we cannot neatly divide areas that require correct theology and areas that do not. The Shack is, by the author’s own admission, a work that seeks to change the reader’s perception of God. It is deeply theological! Read the reviews of this book and you will find readers saying how much this book impacted their understanding of God’s person and nature.

Tom Neven, writing for Boundless Line, covers this well in an article titled “But It’s Only Fiction.”

If you’re going to ground your fiction in the real world, then it must conform to the rules of the real world we live in. No unicorns or magic squirrels allowed. Even one of my favorite literary genres, Magical Realism, adheres to certain basic rules.

So if you’re going to have God as a character in your real-world fiction, then you must deal with God as he has revealed himself in Scripture. By using the Trinity as characters in this story set in the real world, The Shack author William P. Young is clearly indicating that he’s supposedly talking about the God of Christianity. But God has said certain things about himself in Scripture, and much of what Young does in this novel contradicts that. I don’t care if he’s trying to make God more “accessible.” He’s violated the rules of fiction.

More important, why does Young feel the need to change the character of God in this story? In a way, he’s saying that the God who reveals himself to us in the Bible is insufficient. Young needs to “improve” the image to make it more palatable. But as I said in the original post, God never changes himself so that we can understand Him better. He changes us so that we can see Him as he truly is. If God changed his nature, He would cease to be God.

The reader who complained about “stodgy old religion” exhorted me to “try to re-read the Shack with a more open mind.” But from her email and the others like it, I can see that in this case an open mind would require a closed Bible. We cannot set aside Scripture even when we read fiction. There is no such thing as only fiction (emphasis mine). The Shack is theological fiction. If it talks about God, it must be so! While it may not require the kind of precision we would expect from a work of formal theology, we cannot deny that the author seeks to teach what he believes to be true about God. And we cannot then deny that it teaches theology that is, in a word, false. It is not an issue of precision but of right and wrong! Fiction is a powerful medium for communicating truth and the evidence of this is in every positive review of the book; the evidence is in the fact that Jesus Himself often communicated using fiction.

Even in times when the church is strongest spiritually, perversion of essential Christian doctrine is anathema. At a time like this when the “winds of doctrine” (see Ephesians 4:14) are blowing at gale force and the discernment of Christians is at a decided low the slightest perversion of essential Christian doctrine is doubly dangerous - especially when coupled with the intense emotional impact of The Shack. The emotional aspect tends to fix the perversions in mind a great deal more than would reading the same things in a theology textbook, for instance.

Besides the distortion of doctrine, the book at times very subtly undermines the veracity of Scripture and is - again subtly - critical of the institutional church. Although I can understand and even sympathize with Mack’s attitude regarding the institutional church, I find the undermining of Scripture unacceptable. -JB

The Meaning of Revival (or The Meaning of Christianity)

If any Christians can watch this video and not be moved, God have mercy on them. JB

(Thanks to DefCon)

The Power of Words

Serving

“The reason most of us do not see opportunities to serve is that we are continually thinking about ourselves instead of others.”

-Jerry Bridges, The Crisis of Caring

HT: Justin Childers