On October 27th Jim Wallis (presidential advisor and founder of the Sojourners magazine) debated Albert Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) on the topic of social justice. Namely, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?". Jim Wallis was in the affirmative and Albert Mohler took the negative to this question. The question, as it stands, relies on both parties personally believing the position they defend. And they do, Wallis is a progressive who is a regular activist and very much in the President's ear. Mohler is a conservative who is convicted in the purity of the Gospel by itself.
This debate is very civil from the outset. It appears that both men respect the credentials and the ministries of one another. One could be almost convinced that these two men were arguing two sides of the same coin. Do not be deceived, though. Mohler advocates that "the preaching of the New Testament is the preaching of the Kingdom. It is first and foremost the preaching about how sinners can be made right with God. The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts, did it have social implications? Of course it did, but the preaching itself is the preaching of the Gospel" (67:37). He elaborates upon this saying "the Gospel is about how sinners, who rightly deserve nothing but the eternal condemnation of God, nonetheless are redeemed by His decisive act in Jesus Christ, to redeem sinners" (110:50).
Jim Wallis states his definition as "justice is integral to the Gospel" (108:30) and is "not an add-on or an extra-curricular or a secondary or something that happens...." (109:33). It should be clear that these definitions are not equal. Where this separation occurs is the interpretation of Luke 4:18-19:
"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
Luke 4:18-19 (ESV)
Wallis would advocate that this decree by Jesus incorporates a directive to help the poor and to right injustice. Mohler would be of the opinion that this verse is merely endorsing the proclamation of the Gospel to the poor and a social justice agenda cannot be attached to the essence of the Gospel by this verse. Frankly, Wallis' argument is untenable. While acts of social justice are important for Christians to do it is not at the essence of the Gospel. To try and place social justice at the centre is to undermine the Gospel greatly and to distort the purpose of the Church.
During this debate Jim Wallis uses many anecdotes. In fact, the amount of tales he tells stretches to the absurd. He defends his position with them and not with Bible verses. Such a strategy should be a strong warning sign when discussing a theological issue. One such anecdote he discusses is his interactions with the Occupy Wall Street movement and he states that "they're talking about massive inequality which, by the way, is a biblical issue" (89:00). He also mentions "economic unfairness" (92:00). It is easy to say this, but he needs to point to Bible verses to defend his position. The bulk of verses that speak about justice in the Bible are in reference to God's righteous judgment against human kind. It should also be said that the people involved in Occupy Wall Streetare, more likely than not, participating in jealous, which is condemned in the Bible.
Jim Wallis insinuates that the Gospel is a non-practical vessel without social justice being attached to it. For instance, some of the anecdotes he told basically end up with people asking "why do you do the things that you do?" (64:06) which provide him with the ah-ha moment to confirm that he is a Christian. This suggests that as Christians we have the moral superiority over others. That it is the example of our actions that bring people to Christ. But this begs the question; can a person be swayed by an atheists good deeds? Why should a Christian doing good influence them more? So we see that our actions are auxiliary, a response to the Gospel and not the Gospel itself.
I am an avid fan of Albert Mohler. There are very few men like him in theological circles. Yet I felt that in this debate Mohler had the opportunity to really stamp on Wallis' misguided assumptions about the Gospel and the way he uses Jesus for his own political purposes. He did not even engage with Wallis in the actual debate about this and it was only in question time that we see Mohler really rejecting what Wallis was saying. Dan Phillips, Christian blogger, has elaborated on this point and I find his analysis of the debate both succinct and worth reading. Mohler is clear on the Gospel but he also needed to be clear on his rejection of Jim Wallis' definition from the get-go. After all, he knew what Wallis was going to say and such perversities should not be left to stand.
What is required from the Church is very simple. The Church must stand on the truth that Jesus is the only way to salvation. Through this truth disciples will be born. Part of their role is to minister to the poor and help the poor. However, this role is not, nor should it ever be, the essence of the Gospel. To portray the Gospel as such should not be tolerated.
Last week saw the passing of enigmatic writer and atheist Christopher Hitchens. Unlike other articles now available online I have not spent any time with this man and cannot reflect upon the type of person he was. Yet I can't let his passing go without saying some words about Hitchens.
Hitchens polarises me greatly. He was easily the most amiable and enjoyable of the so-called "four horseman" to listen to and seemed to have a greater ability than atheist champion Richard Dawkins to role with the punches and place relevant arguments whilst in the flow of a debate. Hitchens had a tendency to play with those he was debating in the knowledge that he was more intelligent than his opponent. Sometimes, however, Hitchens would side-track himself and ultimately not keep up with the flow of the debate. His debate against William Lane Craig saw him comprehensively beaten because of this short-coming.
Whilst I enjoyed the way that Christopher engaged in banter with theologians I find myself at pains with the news that the esophageal cancer that was raging in his body finally defeated the man with the quick whit. On one hand I realise that Christopher Hitchens is now, almost certainly, heading to his doom. Christopher Hitchens will have no chance to say something sharp and humorous before the throne of God. His sandglass is now empty and he has now found out, one way or another, if he really does have a creator.
This is not just a reality for Christopher Hitchens. It is something that you and I have to face. We may have many years left, but maybe we don't. Christopher Hitchens was faced with his own death and he has stated that he was not afraid of this reality. Yet, perhaps he should have been. It is no small thing to be given notice that death is coming at you at a rate of knots. Christopher Hitchens has known for the past few years that, most probably, he had created his own death with his drinking and smoking habits. Despite this, he remained stubborn to the end, that we know of, regarding his rejection of any deity.
While his death spells the end of any hope for Hitchens life my thoughts turn to his legacy, namely his militant atheism. Now I have no doubt that Christopher Hitchens was an amiable man and nearly every obituary speaks of a person who was charming and sophisticated. Despite all these attributes he has penned books and articles that will see countless people walk away from the faith. Some may protest that it is only the nominal Christian that will be swayed by his arguments, yet, it should be Churches that are ushering in these people, not secular social groups.
The subtitle to Hitchen's 2007 hit book God Is Not Great reads "How religion poisons everything". Hitchens makes a better fist of grasping with theology than Dawkins but, fortunately, his atheist manifesto falls short. I do not have time to discuss the intricacies of the points he makes in his book. This, I believe, is a challenge for another time. What I am amazed about is Christopher Hitchens willingness to lump all religions together and then disregard them all. This is intellectually dishonest.
I am reminded of the worldview divide when I read the subtitle "How religion poisons everything". Christopher Hitchens fervently believed that religion, and God, has damaged humanity. My impression of the world would be to substitute religion from his subtitle and replace it with words like Satan or sin. It is this poison that has been seeping out of Hitchens books and his debates for many years. He has been actively recruiting crewman onto a sinking ship and, despite the fact that he no longer is on that vessel; people will continue to be influenced by his writings. Such is my dilemma. I feel a great sadness at the loss of Hitchens and the reality of his judgment but I am also relieved that I will not see another antitheist book under Hitchen's name again.
There have been many deaths spoken about in the media this past year. Kim Jong-il very recently died of a suspected heart attack. Steve Jobs, visionary at Apple, died on October 5th. Gaddafi and bin Laden were both celebrated deaths in the media while Amy Winehouse drank a fatal amount of alcohol leading to her demise. In the 2000 smash-hit Gladiator Russell Crowe's character Maximus says "Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity!". Unlike the world that Christopher Hitchens was advocating for, the world we live in is one where we will answer for how we have lived our lives. It is wishful thinking to hope to avoid the judgment that we deserve.
Contrasting those who are mentioned above is a man who died on April 27th this year. David Wilkerson was a champion for the kingdom. He lived a life reflecting the knowledge that eternity was his yet tempered with the understanding that the Christian fight has only just begun. Wilkerson recognised that there are many Christians who have been baptised in salvation but are ignoring the plights of others. Says Wilkerson:
"[S]ome Christians are content to merely exist until they die. They don't want to risk anything, to believe God, to grow or mature. They refuse to believe his Word, and have become hardened in their unbelief. Now they're just living to die."
If we are to remember and exemplify anyone who has passed away this year it should be David Wilkerson. He may not have had the profile of Christopher Hitchens but he had a passion for the lost and for the world as a whole that is disappearing in our Churches. Though his ministry extends far beyond this book David Wilkerson will be remembered for The Cross and the Switchblade. Here is a very powerful video that David preached calling those who heard to anguish for the lost:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
Let me quote the last excerpt from this remarkable video:
"Folks, it is getting late, and it's getting serious.
Please don't tell me, don't tell me you're concerned....
When you're spending hours in front of internet or television."
"Lord, there are some need to get to this alter and confess
I am not what I was, I am not where I am supposed to be.
God I don't have Your heart or Your burden
I've wanted it easy.
I just wanted to be happy.
But Lord, true joy comes,
True joy comes out of anguish....."
I find myself convicted every time I listen to Wilkerson preach this message. There is a groaning world out there full of people like Christopher Hitchens or people getting influenced by his writings. Our hearts should reflect God's agony when He sees those who are spiritually perishing. Surely, this is enough to get us off the sidelines and into the game. Can we not muster the desire to care about our fellow man? When we see the passing of Hitchens we need to realise that leading a happy life is not good enough. That we are not called to be content as our neighbours and friends head towards destruction. It is true that God doesn't need us but it this does not alleviate our commission:
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
I was going to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for some time, however, this story has grown so big that I feel that it can't be ignored. Rick Perry is one of the many candidates vying for the Republican nomination to face off against Obama. For us Aussies, that means he is conservative (and he is even in comparison to other Republican hopes Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich). Now the chances are that Rick Perry won't get close to being given the candidacy from the Republican constituency. This is mainly due to his inability in the debating arena and forgetting things that he really shouldn't forget (though this is forgivable and can be paralleled with Obama's 57 states comment in the last election).
I am not going to discuss Rick Perry's presidential ambitions, though I believe he is one of the best candidates for the job, I am going to talk about this video:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
This video packs a lot of content into a very small space and leaves Rick Perry wide open to scathing criticism, and this criticism has come. If you look at the like/dislike bar there is over 675,000 dislikes and this will continue to grow. It is a safe assumption that this will dethrone the many Justin Beiber songs that reside at the top of the youtube dislike list (only by default because Rebecca Black took her "Friday" video down). Now the criticism has reached our shores and, more specifically, Perry has been attacked by our tabloids. In yesterday's Age (and the Sydney Morning Herald) there is a story titled Ten parodies of Rick Perry's 'Strong' ad.
A portion of these videos are somewhat amusing while others parody Perry with stinging personal attacks. From the outset this has me disturbed. Obviously there will be many people who don't agree with Perry's message but to claim that you are working towards tolerance while throwing damaging and hateful mud at another person is counter-intuitive. You may think that his message is lies and dangerous but the challenge must be directed towards the ball and not the player. As it is, many of these parodies/attacks can be written off because of the inability to deal with the actual content of Rick Perry's video. You can't score points by dehumanising and mocking someone without an intellectual argument of your own.
This brings me to the content of Perry's video. For those of you too lazy to watch the thirty-one second clip he says:
"I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there is something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.
As President I'll end Obama's war on religion and I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage.
Faith made America strong, it can make her strong again."
(note: this is verbatim but does not include his strong Texan accent)
There are three central points to this video. Firstly, there is something wrong with homosexuals serving in the military. Secondly, there is something wrong with Children not being able to celebrate Christmas or pray in schools. And finally, faith is the key to the future of America.
The first argument is clearly the most contentious and divisional part of Perry's message. Unfortunately it seems that this is mostly a gut-reaction to somebody talking about homosexuality in a bad light. The Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy was passed in the US Congress last year and abolished this year by the Obama administration, much to the delight of celebrities like Lady Gaga. This policy, in its basic form, was that homosexuals could serve in the military as long as they were not openly homosexual.
The repeal of this was hailed by homosexual activists as a win for human rights and equality. But was Don't Ask, Don't Tell a good policy and, therefore, the new policy troubling? Initially, it must be said that this change has occurred from outside pressures rather than a push from within the military. Sure, there were some who wished Don't Ask, Don't Tell to be repealed but these people were a small minority. Also worth noting is that, while Scripture describes homosexuality as a sin (unless it is revised), this does not necessarily mean that we, as Christians, need to oppose whatever homosexuals are lobbying for. We do not need to be reactionary in this way. If we oppose the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell we should have solid grounds for doing so. After all this policy is a form of discrimination, the question is whether it is a reasonable form of discrimination?
It is worth pointing out that a fairly recent study has revealed that a large percentage (this article quotes 75%) of 17 to 24 year olds could not serve in the US military (mainly attributed to obesity etc...). From this we can gauge that there is blatant discrimination occurring in the selection process. Obviously, though, this discrimination is warranted. But does this extend to those who are openly homosexual? It is likely that their aptitude and capabilities as military personnel on the field cannot not be faulted (at least not any more so than anyone else). Is this the only criteria?
The biggest change that will occur is that there will be a dichotomy shift within the military. A shift that will have far-reaching consequences. As Albert Mohler says:
"From the nation's birth, the armed forces have held an established place as a culture-forming institution. Our national life is shaped by several institutional forces, but few hold the power held by the U.S. military. The public's admiration of the armed forces is enhanced by the reality of civilian control over the military, and service in uniform has been an important means of establishing national identity and culture.
The results of this influence have been overwhelmingly positive. The successful racial integration of the military was indispensable to the civil rights movement. The military has preserved national values of honor, courage, and service. Few institutions can compare to the massive influence of the military in shaping national culture.
That is why the normalization of homosexuality within the armed forces has been such a central goal of the homosexual movement. The three most significant institutional barriers to the full normalization of homosexuality in the society are the military, laws governing marriage, and the churches. For this reason, all three of these institutional forces have been directly targeted by those who would push for the full acceptance of homosexuality. A focus on these institutions is essential if homosexuality is to be recognized on an equal moral and cultural footing with heterosexuality. There is no surprise here.
It must be recognized that the normalization of homosexuality within the U.S. military will have effects far beyond the armed forces. The most immediate changes will appear closest to where the military is concentrated, both geographically and culturally. Businesses doing work for the armed forces, individuals offering housing and a host of services to military personnel, and others similarly connected to the armed services will be the first to be required to respond to these effects and to conform to the new military reality. From there, the circles of the military's influence will extend to the rest of the society in one manner or another.
The rejection of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is not just about the military - and that is why so much effort has been directed to its repeal."
Many people will see the normalisation of homosexuality as a good thing. I do not and my fellow Christians should not either. It is worth considering what Scripture directs on this issue (and it does have a voice). 1 Timothy 2 states the balance between the individual and the state:
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people - for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
1 Timothy 2:1-4
Military service is a good and noble pursuit. It is an act that puts the individual at risk for a higher cause. However, we must be aware that "we do not wage war as the world does" (2 Corinthians 10:3). The fight for the human soul is the most important and worthwhile battlefield. If we are fighting for our country, yet not allowed to battle for the souls of those in the military around us then our purpose is empty and the hope of freedom will never be achieved.
There are obviously practical implications to this policy change, as well. Homosexuals serving in the military pose a similar issue that would occur if we spoke about shared barracks. It is obviously not very PC to say so (just ask Jason Akermanis) but this is the reality. We must, then, ask whether it is in the best interests for homosexuals to be serving in the military and bunking with the same sex who they may be attracted to? Now the APA will tell you that homosexuals are just as effective a soldier as anyone else on the battlefield, however, this does not alleviate said problem which is exacerbated by the overwhelming evidence regarding homosexual promiscuity (http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/07/13/on-fidelity-or-the-lack-thereof/). This changes the act from perhaps "purely a private matter" to something that could undermine a Regiment's ability to operate in the field.
I will skip Perry's second point because that would transform this article into a very long article (if it wasn't already). His final point is that faith is the key to America's future. I heartily agree with him on this point as I believe faith is the key to Australia's future as well. Many people will rebut this by yelling "separation of Church and state". It should be pointed out that the original intention of such a concept was not to protect the state from Church influence (i.e. the Christian worldview) but to protect the Church from outside influences diluting the message of the Gospel.
If we are to turn to Scripture then we realise how important it is that God play a central role in politics. Littered through-out the Old Testament are stories of God's influence on His chosen nation and their interactions with other pagan nations. While the New Testament revealed the mystery that salvation belonged to both Jew and Gentile equally we still must recognise the importance of God in our nation today. After all, He will judge the nations of the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) and bless them. God has destroyed cities before because of their blatant misuse of sexuality against what is natural (Sodom and Gomorrah - Jude 1:7).
There have been many responses to Rick Perry's video. Most of them are from diametric worldviews which are easy enough to dismiss. Some, however, claim to come from a Christian worldview. Take these two girls, for instance:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
This is an example of a knee-jerk reaction. Not only that but they talk about "bridg[ing] the gap of vast differences among our fellow Americans". They combine this with a message of grace but this is a cocktail that is going to emulsify rather than mix. We must not dilute the Gospel in order to bring more people to Christ, this is counterintuitive. Their point that one cannot use their Christianity as a platform is valid, to a point. Being a Christian does not determine whether one will be a good leader. One merely needs to look at Obama's claims to being a Christian to see this. However, a leader without faith in our living God is like a ship captain without a compass. It is only a matter of time before they pilot the ship into harms way. Against such a person God's fury will burn.
Here's a great list that Kevin DeYoung has compiled regarding books that will be released next year. Keep an eye out for these titles on shelves and bookdepository in 2012.
"I asked several publishers to highlight upcoming books that might appeal to the readers of this blog. I chose three books from each of their recommendations (and a few houses didn't respond). I haven't read these books (except for one or two) so I don't know what is in each one, but from what I can tell these look like some very promising selections.
The write up for each book comes from the publisher.
Thanks to Andrew and Jenny for doing all the hard work in setting up this post.
Baker Books
Alister E. McGrath.Mere Apologetics: How to Help Seekers & Skeptics Find Faith (January 2012). Throughout history there have been great and articulate defenders of the faith. But with the new challenges of scientific atheism we see in our day, there is a need for a fresh and flexible approach to apologetics. Rather than supplying the fine detail of every apologetic issue in order to win arguments, Mere Apologetics teaches a method that appeals not only to the mind but also to the heart and the imagination.
Josh James Riebock.Heroes and Monsters: An Honest Look at the Struggle Within Us All (March 2012). In this stunningly honest, compelling, and ultimately hopeful book, Josh James Riebock explores issues of trust, obedience, intimacy, dreams, grief, purpose, and the unexpected stops along the journey that form us into the people we are. In a creative way, he shows readers that pain and beauty are so inextricably linked that to lose the former costs us the latter.
Shawn Lovejoy.The Measure of Our Success: An Impassioned Plea to Pastors (May 2012). In this honest and encouraging book, Shawn Lovejoy calls pastors back to the "main thing"-the call to love people and make disciples-and to measure their success the way God does. Using Scripture, personal examples, and case studies, Lovejoy gently leads pastors back to their first love, and in doing so he leads them toward a more effective and joy-filled ministry.
Bethany House
Ted Kluck and Dallas Jahncke.Dallas and the Spitfire: An Old Car, an Ex-Con, and an Unlikely Friendship (April 2012). Ted is a thirty-something father of two who's been going to church his whole life. Dallas is a twenty-one-year-old former cocaine addict who has recently become a Christian. When they agree to meet for "discipleship," they know that chatting over coffee once a week won't cut it-restoring an old Triumph Spitfire is more their speed. Filled with surprises and humor, this is the story of two lives changed, and along the way it gives readers a new model for men's ministry.
Chris Travis.Insignificant: Why You Matter in the Surprising Way God Is Changing the World(August 2012). Chris taught math for two years in a middle school in Harlem that the media considers the most dangerous school in all of New York. Now he is planting a church in another rough area of the city. Through stories of his time teaching and examples from the lives of others, Chris casts a vision of how God has a way of turning things upside down: making the weak strong, the foolish wise, and the insignificant matter.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr.The Conviction to Lead: 25 Principles for Leadership That Matters (Fall 2012). Cultures and organizations do not change without strong leadership. While many leadership books focus on management or administration, the central focus of The Conviction to Lead is on changing minds. Using his own experiences and examples from history, Dr. Mohler demonstrates that real leadership is a transferring of conviction to others, affecting their actions, motivations, intuition, and commitment. This practical guide walks the reader through what a leader needs to know, do, and be in order to affect change.
Crossway
Gerald Hiestand, Jay S. Thomas.Sex, Dating, and Relationships: A Fresh Approach (February 2012). A paradigm-shifting book on purity and relationships that challenges even the basic assumptions of evangelical subculture, Heistand and Thomas equip and engage readers to get serious about honoring Christ with their sexuality.
Matt Chandler, with Jared C. Wilson.The Explicit Gospel (April 2012). Few pastors are more gifted than Matt Chandler at reaching both the "overchurched" and the "unchurched" with the gospel. In this, his first book, Chandler insists that we make the gospel-in both its micro and macro aspects-explicit in all that we do.
Michael J. Kruger.Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books(April 2012). Combine popular-level interest in the Gospel of Thomas and Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, with the current gap in evangelical scholarship on the origins of the New Testament, this book meets a significant need for an up-to-date work on canon by addressing recent developments in the field. The result is an academically rigorous yet accessible study of the New Testament canon that looks deeper than the traditional surveys of councils and creeds, mining the text itself for direction in understanding what the original authors and audiences believed the canon to be.
David C. Cook
Britt Merrick.Godspeed: Making Christ's Mission Your Own (Summer 2012). There is a discrepancy today between the life of most American Christians and the life of Jesus in the Gospels-and the outside world has noticed. Yet, a growing number of believers feel that something's missing and are aching to live authentic lives like Jesus. Godspeed equips the twenty-first-century Church to join with Christ as He's presently on mission all around them. Jesus said, "As the Father sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). Godspeed follows this pivotal Scripture to reveal the Father's mandate for mission, the Son's model of mission, and the Spirit's ministry through mission.
R.C. Sproul.The Work of Christ: What the Events of Jesus' Life Mean for You (Summer 2012). In The Work of Christ, Sproul looks at every aspect of Jesus' life and work, addressing such life-changing topics as: Why Jesus' baptism is relevant for our salvation; The similarities and differences between the temptation of the first Adam and the temptation of Jesus, the "second Adam"; How God uses song to celebrate his redemptive acts; Why the Last Supper marks the beginning of a greater exodus than that of the Old Testament; How Jesus' death and resurrection are grounded in the eternal covenant among the persons of the Trinity; Why Jesus' ascension makes a difference in our lives today; and what we know and don't know about Jesus' return.
James McDonald.Vertical Church: What Every Heart Longs For. What Every Church Can Be (Summer 2012). Church is about God: God's glory, God's Son, God's Word, God's presence. End of discussion. Vertical Church is about a total shift in our thinking. This is where honoring God and adoring His Son and proclaiming His Word and seeking His face are the total focus. Vertical Church is about challenging people, inviting them to something harder, calling them to something deeper, discovering something far better and more authentic. It's a bold call to pastors, church leaders, and motivated disciples to fully embrace the truth that the church is first and last about the glory of God revealed in Jesus Christ.
Moody
Lee Eclov.Pastoral Graces: Reflections on the Care of Souls (May 2012). When Jesus Christ, the Lord of the church, calls a pastor He instills a kind of heightened instinct for grace; what we call a shepherd's heart. However, pastors often become disoriented by leadership demands, congregational expectations, and the wounds of ministry. They forget how to use the grace of Christ in the everyday work of pastoring. Lee Eclov equips the reader to understand their calling, their equipping, ministering in difficult circumstances and relationships, and how to finish well.
Carol Barnier. Engaging Today's Prodigal: Clear Thinking, New Approaches, and Reasons for Hope(April 2012). Many families today experience the profound guilt and shame-filled pain of seeing a child walk away from their faith and values. Parents and churches often feel powerless to change the relationship and engage the prodigal in positive ways. With wit and humor Carol Barnier equips the reader with a better understanding of a prodigal's motivation, useful responses that won't prevent reconciliation, clear boundaries to protect themselves and other children, and the value of realistic expectations.
Brian Fikkert, Steve Corbett, John Perkins.When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor . . . and Yourself (Updated Edition) (April 2012). An updated edition of the paradigm-shifting book that equips individuals and churches to implement what they have learned about mercy ministry and missions efforts. Focuses particularly on the principle of Asset Based Development with a new foreword from David Platt.
Thomas Nelson
Doug Wilson.Indispensible Dad(May, 2012). This book is a thoughtful and timely excursion into our culture of fatherlessness, what Wilson calls "the central malady of our time." Central because it is the cause of so many of the ills we face-everything from atheism and crime to joyless feminism and paternalistic government expansion-but most important because of the effect it has on families, children, wives, and husbands. Bottom line: when fathers are checked out, left out, or ruled out, it hurts literally everyone.
Patrick Henry Reardon (foreword by Russell Moore).The Jesus We Missed: The Surprising Truth About the Humanity of Christ (February 14, 2012). A respected and beloved theologian shows how a renewed appreciation for the humanity of Jesus Christ can better our biblical understanding of the Savior, strengthen our faith, intensify our relationship with him, and give us hope in the darkest hours of our lives. While taking special care not to minimize the Godhood of Christ, Patrick Henry Reardon helps readers come to grips with his real flesh-and-blood humanity-the confession of the Christian church for 2,000 years.
John MacArthur.Twelve Unlikely Heroes:How God Commissioned Unexpected People in the Bible and What He Wants to Do with You(August 7, 2012). In the third installment of the Twelve series, readers discover that true success is measured in terms of obedience, humility, and faithfulness to God. In Twelve Unlikely Heroes readers gain new insights into the kind of people God uses, and what it means to be successful in his eyes. It highlights this wonderful mystery: that God uses weak, foolish, and broken people to showcase his power, wisdom, and love. He works through those who are humble, contrite, and eager to obey. By God's grace and for his glory, ordinary sinners are unexpectedly transformed into heroes of the faith."
Click here to go to Kevin DeYoung's website at Gospel Coalition.
It takes a lot to stand against opposition and against the status quo. Many times it feels like the beach is washing over the rocks, gradually grating the rocks down until there is no resistance. It is at the hardest of times that we must stand on the rock that will never be corroded and dare to be different.
We can take heart from some examples presented to us recently. The other day Tennis legend Margaret Court spoke in defence of marriage. It is irregular for a celebrity to be a conservative. Perhaps because the liberal celebrities are so loud. For instance, George Clooney is a very passionate liberal who is just about to release a movie with a strong liberal lean:
Adobe Flash Player not installed or older than 9.0.115!
He may be the figurehead but there are many others who follow in his footsteps: Matt Damon, Leonardo Dicaprio, Bruce Springsteen, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, Brad Pitt & Robert De Niro. It is safe to say that in Hollywood liberalism is king. Thankfully, Margaret Court does not live in Hollywood. She resides in WA but still faces opposition for her position against homosexual marriage.
Standing with her is Kevin Rudd's sister Loree who quit the Australian Labor Party today because of the new stance the Party has on homosexual marriage. Loree Rudd said:
"I don't believe gay marriage is good for the community. Homosexuals should be loved and treated right and they should not be discriminated against.
It is a horrible thing for them to be discriminated against and that's why my brother introduced laws so they are not discriminated against. But to make that huge leap from their rights to breaking a commandment of Moses, to say homosexuals' relationships is marriage, is utter nonsense."
Of course the vast majority of the 500+ comments below this article in today's Age (a notoriously left-leaning tabloid) echo some variation of "it's great that the Labor Party now has one less bigot". I hope for her sake that she is not keeping an eye on what people are saying about her because some of it is extremely rude. So I will try and counterbalance this somewhat by saying how impressed I am with Loree Rudd. Not only is she putting her position into the spotlight but she is going further and quitting the Party that she has stood behind for many, many years. It is surprising that it has taken Loree this long to question her Party's policy in light of scripture but her conviction to uphold biblical truth cannot be faulted on this occasion.
Homosexuality is not the only issue to which people have to stand against the flow of society. John Howard, last night, spoke at a book launch for Ian Plimer's new book How to Get Expelled from School. This book aims to correct misinformation about climate change and is very much a hot potato issue. For John Howard to place himself on the side of scepticism puts him very much in the progressive cross-hair. Yet, this is exactly what he has done and it sets him apart.
It is on days like today that my confidence in humanity is restored. Not the confidence that a humanist has but the confidence that I know that God is the ultimate power in this nation. We are His instruments even if we do, at times, struggle to remember our purpose. We must not "conform to the pattern of this world" (Romans 12:2). Instead we must be the "salt of the earth" and a "city on a hill" (Matthew 5:13-14).
In the popular kid's picture book series (at least it was popular when I was a kid) one has to flip through pages containing massive pictures and try and find a candy caned coloured man with a walking stick called Wally (or, for some bizarre reason in America his name is Waldo). The hard part, of course, is that he blends in so well with the rest of the picture that it is hard for the human eye to discern where this mischievous character is hiding. Wally's ability to blend in with the world around him is not something that we should emulate. We are set apart and must remain this way so that others can be set apart. Not so the world becomes like us (as Wally's world does) but so the world can become God's kingdom. Essentially we are accountable to God for when we are a poor example but we are not responsible for the salvations of others.
For many this feels like it is all hard work and no glory. So they remain silent about their faith. After all, who wants to be the next Mel Gibson? Yet engagement is the only option. We cannot remain silent on issues and hope that no attention will be drawn our way. The book of Jonah paints the picture of an unwilling servant. We are not told exactly why he runs away from what God commands him to do. We can speculate on ideas such as:
Jonah had a comfortable life that he didn't want to leave
Jonah was physically afraid of the Ninevites
Jonah was afraid that the Ninevites would laugh at him
Any of these reasons would have great practical application for my article; however, it is dangerous to read between the lines when one is discussing theology. Instead, I shall keep to the text. Jonah is tasked with giving bad news to, what he believes, will be an unwilling audience. Today we will likely face an unwilling audience but we should not approach our task as Jonah did. He was sure that these people were going to reject his message and, even if they didn't, God would destroy them anyway. Thankfully God is more gracious than Jonah and does spare those who turn to Him in humility. It is with humility that we should approach the task of being God's light-bearers. Of proclaiming the need to be reborn through Christ and living up to these declarations. God has a deep love for all the people in this nation and around the world. He has not forsaken us yet.
One final question: why can't Tim Tebow talk about his faith, yet George Clooney can waffle on about his liberalism without rebuke?
Here is a great article for young Christian men about what we can learn from presidential hopeful Herman Cain who has stepped away from his campaign because of allegations of a sexual nature.
Herman Cain “suspended” his campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination on Saturday, ending one of the most interesting political campaigns of recent years. Cain’s energy and ideas had catapulted him into the front ranks of Republican candidates, even though he had never previously run for any national political office. This unlikely candidate ran an unconventional campaign that collapsed under the weight of unusual developments. In a matter of minutes, it was over.
“As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” he stated. “Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I am not a fighter,” he said.
The “suspension” of his campaign means the end of his quest for the nomination, and it came in the wake of serious allegations of sexual misconduct that Cain, in the end, could not escape. It began with a Chicago woman accusing him of making an unwanted sexual advance years ago when Cain was head of the National Restaurant Association. Next, a second woman made similar charges. Then, it was discovered that two other women had made similar accusations against Cain. At least two of the women received settlements from the National Restaurant Association in return for dropping their charges. It then became known that the two women received the equivalent of a year’s salary as part of the settlement.
The final blow came when an Atlanta woman, Ginger White, accused Cain of recently ending a 13-year sexual affair. Though the candidate suffered from political mishaps and confusion on some key issues, the sexual charges are what, in the end, doomed his candidacy.
While there are any number of worthy angles of serious reflection left in the wake of the Cain campaign, there are lessons here of particular importance to Christian men. 1. The Christian man must realize that credible accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality are fatal to credibility and ruinous to Christian witness.
The Bible places an unmistakable premium on sexual purity and faithfulness. This expectation is revealed in laws, precepts, and commandments and it is demonstrated throughout Scripture in virtually every conceivable manner. The clear expectation is fidelity within marriage, and the Bible warns of both temporal and eternal consequences of sexual immorality.
The Church does not consist of those who have never sinned, but of those who have come out of any number of sinful patterns into obedience to Christ. When a credible accusation of sexual immorality is made against a Christian man, nothing less than his faithfulness to Christ is called into question. Nothing is then more important than to refute the charge with honor and credibility, or to make a clean confession and accept the consequences. 2. The Christian man cannot dismiss any charge of sexual immorality as being a private matter of no public concern.
We know better. One hard lesson from the experience of Herman Cain is this: A Christian man accused of sexual immorality cannot make the argument that moral concerns “end outside of one’s bedroom door.” The Christian man cannot say, or allow to be said on his account, that matters of “legitimate inquiry” are limited to actions which carry legal sanction.
The American people do not accept this evasion when it comes to their political leaders. Even when they have supported a candidate after such a revelation, they have not claimed that the immoral behavior was of merely private consequence or concern. Christians are held to a far higher standard than those who are merely political leaders. When the political leader identifies as a Christian, the importance of these issues is only amplified.
3. The Christian man must plan his life in order to assure moral accountability and protections.
When the first charges of sexual misconduct were alleged, the first problem for Herman Cain was his inability to dismiss them immediately and demonstrate his innocence with credible argument. Instead, Cain fumbled the charges badly. In retrospect, he fumbled them at least in part because he could not dismiss them — and this was fatal to his campaign.
Look closely at the charges. One woman charged that Cain had made a sexual advance after taking her out on a night of socializing and entertainment in Washington, DC. Cain’s situation would have been radically different if he had been able to respond that he had always maintained a policy of never socializing alone with any woman other than his wife. If those close to Cain had been able to support his claim, the charge would have been very difficult to press. Cain made no such claim. There was no denial that he had been alone with the woman in this context.
The other women who made accusations of sexual harassment were also able to do so without any credible refutation — especially when it was revealed that at least two of the women had received settlements from Cain’s employer.
Does this prove that Cain was guilty of what the women charged? We will never know. What we do know is that he had engaged in behaviors that no Christian man should allow himself, opening his life to moral vulnerabilities that no man can responsibly accept.
In some situations, an insurance company can decide to settle a potential lawsuit without the permission of the accused. This is extremely dangerous for a Christian man in the business world or in any leadership position. What the Christian man must not accept is that this would be the end of the matter. He must insist, at the very least, that the appropriate authority (such as a supervisor or corporate board of directors) be ready to state that there is no credible evidence of such misconduct. No responsible authority has made such a statement on Cain’s behalf.
The Christian man must plan his life, including his business life and his professional career, in such a way that he does not allow himself to be in a situation in which he can be credibly accused of such misconduct. A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife — period. Though this can sometimes add complication and cost, a Christian man should not travel or conduct business in a way that exposes himself to sexual temptation or opportunity.
4. The Christian man must depend upon his church, the congregation that is so essential to his Christian vitality and faithfulness, as a bulwark against sin.
Christianity is not to be lived in isolation. We are called together into congregations of fellow believers, living together in submission to Christ and growing together by the ministry of the Word. Christian men desperately need the strength and accountability that comes through faithful membership in a Gospel church.
The congregation must provide moral protections as well as moral instruction. The men of the congregation, old and young together, must be a band of brothers ready to pray for one another, to encourage one another, to confront one another, to admonish one another, to protect one another, and to stand together in faithfulness to Christ.
Do your Christian brothers know of your practices, patterns of life, and principles of conduct? Are they ready to defend you should an accusation come? Do you regularly seek the counsel of your brothers in deciding how to conduct your marriage, your business life, and your professional practices? If not, you are in trouble already.
5. A Christian man knows that his wife is his best defense against sexual immorality and sexual vulnerability - and his most important witness to character.
The campaign of Herman Cain started to disintegrate with the accusation of a 13-year sexual affair. Once again, Cain had no rational defense, other than to insist, as he did, that he had done absolutely nothing wrong. Why was that not credible? The press quickly learned, and Cain affirmed, that he had given the woman repeated sums of money and had exchanged frequent phone calls and text messages.
Then came the most damaging admission: His wife knew nothing of the relationship. Then came an even more bizarre development: Cain waited days to discuss the accusations with his wife in person. As The New York Times reported, the accusation was made the Monday after Thanksgiving. Cain did not return to Atlanta until Friday night “to meet and consult with his wife for the first time since Ms. White came forward with her claim.” Seriously? Americans watched day by day as Cain told the public that, by the end of the week, he would consult with his wife. That would be the wife who did not know of her husband’s “friendship” with a woman he had over the years given both money and much attention.
At his Atlanta appearance, Cain said: “I am at peace with my God. I am at peace with my wife, and she is at peace with me.” Mrs. Cain, who was at his side, said nothing.
Did the liberal press try to pull Cain down? No doubt this is true, but Cain’s campaign was not destroyed by the accusations, but rather by his inability to counter and refute them. Is any man vulnerable to such accusations? At one level, yes. But that is a very superficial level. What separates such accusations at this point is the ability of the accused to mount a real defense and refute the charges.
Herman Cain’s situation would have been radically different had he responded by denying the charges, documenting his moral protections, demonstrating the untruthfulness of the charges, allowing his wife to attest to those protections, and then challenging anyone with evidence to the contrary to come forward and present such evidence in public.
Perhaps he could not. In any event, he did not. There was just too much left on the table after any fair-minded person looked closely at the charges.
Herman Cain would be in a very different position today if he had been able to say that he had never socialized alone with a woman other than his wife, and that he had never engaged in a relationship or friendship with any woman that was unknown to and unaccompanied by his wife. As became apparent, he could not make these statements.
It is too late for Herman Cain to restart his presidential campaign and start again. But it is not too late for many Christian men to act in order to prevent the day when they are caught in their own moment of trial in the face of such accusations. For Christians, the lessons of Herman Cain are too important to leave in the history books of the 2012 presidential campaign.
This debate is very civil from the outset. It appears that both men respect the credentials and the ministries of one another. One could be almost convinced that these two men were arguing two sides of the same coin. Do not be deceived, though. Mohler advocates that "the preaching of the New Testament is the preaching of the Kingdom. It is first and foremost the preaching about how sinners can be made right with God. The apostolic preaching in the book of Acts, did it have social implications? Of course it did, but the preaching itself is the preaching of the Gospel" (67:37). He elaborates upon this saying "the Gospel is about how sinners, who rightly deserve nothing but the eternal condemnation of God, nonetheless are redeemed by His decisive act in Jesus Christ, to redeem sinners" (110:50).
Hitchens polarises me greatly. He was easily the most amiable and enjoyable of the so-called "four horseman" to listen to and seemed to have a greater ability than atheist champion Richard Dawkins to role with the punches and place relevant arguments whilst in the flow of a debate. Hitchens had a tendency to play with those he was debating in the knowledge that he was more intelligent than his opponent. Sometimes, however, Hitchens would side-track himself and ultimately not keep up with the flow of the debate. His debate against William Lane Craig saw him comprehensively beaten because of this short-coming.
I am reminded of the worldview divide when I read the subtitle "How religion poisons everything". Christopher Hitchens fervently believed that religion, and God, has damaged humanity. My impression of the world would be to substitute religion from his subtitle and replace it with words like Satan or sin. It is this poison that has been seeping out of Hitchens books and his debates for many years. He has been actively recruiting crewman onto a sinking ship and, despite the fact that he no longer is on that vessel; people will continue to be influenced by his writings. Such is my dilemma. I feel a great sadness at the loss of Hitchens and the reality of his judgment but I am also relieved that I will not see another antitheist book under Hitchen's name again.
I was going to leave the topic of homosexuality alone for some time, however, this story has grown so big that I feel that it can't be ignored. Rick Perry is one of the many candidates vying for the Republican nomination to face off against Obama. For us Aussies, that means he is conservative (and he is even in comparison to other Republican hopes Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich). Now the chances are that Rick Perry won't get close to being given the candidacy from the Republican constituency. This is mainly due to his inability in the debating arena and forgetting things that he really shouldn't forget (though this is forgivable and can be paralleled with Obama's 57 states comment in the last election).
Alister E. McGrath. 
Josh James Riebock. 
Shawn Lovejoy. 
Ted Kluck and Dallas Jahncke. 
Chris Travis. 
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. The Conviction to Lead: 25 Principles for Leadership That Matters (Fall 2012). Cultures and organizations do not change without strong leadership. While many leadership books focus on management or administration, the central focus of The Conviction to Lead is on changing minds. Using his own experiences and examples from history, Dr. Mohler demonstrates that real leadership is a transferring of conviction to others, affecting their actions, motivations, intuition, and commitment. This practical guide walks the reader through what a leader needs to know, do, and be in order to affect change.
Gerald Hiestand, Jay S. Thomas. 
Matt Chandler, with Jared C. Wilson. 
Michael J. Kruger. 
R.C. Sproul. 
James McDonald. 
Carol Barnier. 
Brian Fikkert, Steve Corbett, John Perkins. 
Doug Wilson. 
Patrick Henry Reardon (foreword by Russell Moore). 
John MacArthur. 
In the popular kid's picture book series (at least it was popular when I was a kid) one has to flip through pages containing massive pictures and try and find a candy caned coloured man with a walking stick called Wally (or, for some bizarre reason in America his name is Waldo). The hard part, of course, is that he blends in so well with the rest of the picture that it is hard for the human eye to discern where this mischievous character is hiding. Wally's ability to blend in with the world around him is not something that we should emulate. We are set apart and must remain this way so that others can be set apart. Not so the world becomes like us (as Wally's world does) but so the world can become God's kingdom. Essentially we are accountable to God for when we are a poor example but we are not responsible for the salvations of others.