Monday, April 28, 2008

John Armstrong, "Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 3"

Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 3

April 28, 2008
John H. Armstrong

In the past two ACT 3 Weekly articles I laid out several of the points I shared with a seminary class in Florida in March. I was asked to contribute from my own experience to the preparation of these students in a divinity school setting. In this third and final installment of my three-part series, I add these further points that I made to the seminary class in Florida.

Understand and Teach the Plotline of the Bible

The Bible clearly consists of many stories. These many stories reveal to us the living and true God. Each portion of Holy Scripture is inspired by God but not all portions are of the same importance in revealing God to us. All Scripture can feed us, teach us and guide us, but we must interpret the Scripture to make any sense of it at all.

The problem I find, throughout the Christian world, is that we do not understand the central story of the Bible. I think the place to begin is in Luke 24:13-35 where Jesus opens the Scripture to two men, on the road to Emmaus, and explains how all the story of the Scripture is about him (24:25-27). This is why St. Augustine rightly said that the New Testament is concealed in the Old and the Old is revealed in the New. Sometimes this approach has been called "Christo-centric." I used this terminology for decades and still like it, but I have come to embrace a richer and fuller concept taught to me by several biblical scholars who happen to be my friends. They refer to the whole Bible as being "Christo-telic." The word "telic" here comes from the Greek word telos, which refers to the end, the final point, or the right perspective. The point is that all Scripture is given to reveal the end purpose of God which is discovered in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

Pastors and people must know this. They must show others how to read the Bible this way and then help people know their Bibles in this way. A lot of people learn Bible facts, even mastering trivia and stories. But they do not see the big story, thus they do not get the right perspective in view. The only way I know to get this is to know the Bible as a whole and then to show how to read it properly with this method in view. Sadly, most schools do not prepare pastors to do this and few Christians understand it. Massive mistakes in interpreting the Bible lead to massive categorical errors in application of the Bible to churches and culture.

The 100 Minute Bible, abridged by Michael Hinton (Available here) $3.77

Learn the Value of the Creeds and Learn How to Teach Them Well

The earliest creeds were written to guide believers and congregations so that they would not stray far from the central message of the Bible. These creeds are distinctly Trinitarian in nature. Much of what we do and say in the Church today, at least in evangelical churches, is not deeply Trinitarian. The loss of perspective in spiritual formation, prayer, worship and right living is immense because of this flaw. A right use of the creeds can correct this over time.

Ministers ought to know the creeds and learn to use them well with their congregations. People should be taught to love them and learn them. A creedal church is a better taught church and one that can handle the important things of Christian thought and doctrine.

The Place for Catechism

Catechism of both young and old alike will go a long way in teaching Christian faith better. Once most Christians were trained in one or more catechetical tradition and thus people knew basic truths about the nature of God, sin, man, grace and the future. Today this is no longer the case. We have to begin all over again. The Christian tradition should not be scrapped but recovered at this point. This method is ancient but it is also modern and future.

I cannot think of a single church I know that has brought back this method that has regretted it in any sense of the word. I know many young Christians, my own children included, who are much stronger for this kind of teaching in their childhood.

The Church Must Become "A House of Prayer"

Jesus made it quite plain that he intended for his people to form assemblies where prayer would be central. Yet modern pastors and churches do not make prayer central to the life and ministry of the church. We talk about it, teach it sometimes, but we pray so very little as a church. Rare is the church that ever has a dedicated place and time for real intercession. Rare is the leadership team (council, session or consistory or deacon group) that makes prayer a real priority. We pray and then we work. The real work is the prayer. If we prayed I am convinced we would work less and gather more real fruit.

Seminaries are notoriously weak about this matter. There are few, if any, courses on prayer and the amount of prayer the seminary community offers is little in most instances. Teachers will pray, now and then, but students are too busy studying to pass exams to pray.

Understand and Teach Epistemology

The word episteme means knowledge and the word epistanai means to understand or to believe. Epistemology is thus the study of the nature, source and limits of knowledge. Epistemology seeks to relate faith to human knowledge. How much can we know, how can we know it and what are the limits to our knowing?

Science says statements about knowledge must be tested by experiments and proven. Many biblical methods treat the Bible in much the same way. We learn the ways to test the Scripture-exegesis through the original languages, textual critical skills and expository methodologies-and then conclude that if we agree on the method and the inspiration of the text we can know with certainty almost everything that we read in the Bible. This conclusion is both false and unwise. Indeed, I believe it is dangerous. It builds up a kind of pride that has flooded many conservative schools and churches in stark opposition to the pride of liberals who believe they can discern what is good and right and reject what they do not need or accept in the Bible.

Is knowledge possible on the grounds of scientific exegesis, reason or experience? Some have argued that the proper use of reason is the key. I think all have their place but what we forget is that "the secret things belong to the Lord our God" (Deuteronomy 29:29), and "for now we see only a reflection as in a mirror, then [that is when we are in his presence someday] we shall see face to face [clearly] (1 Corinthians 13:12).

Epistemology asks questions that are important to theology. Can we have knowledge without understanding? The Bible and the Church have said we can, it seems to me.

Are there limits to knowledge? Again, it seems both the Bible and the Church have said yes. We can know some things but we cannot know the eternal essence of them. We perceive, and by faith we trust, but we do not know all mysteries.

The presentation of the Christian faith presupposes that knowing is possible. I teach apologetics, a defense of the faith that is built on the premise that people can know truth. Theology assumes, rightly so, that God is able to overcome our limitations to reach us or he is able to make himself known within our limitations.

Reason and revelation are not opposites. We can have a view of truth that sees it as a unity. Theology and philosophy can dialog and not be eternal enemies. People can ask their questions of the Christian faith, but they cannot understand fully the answers of that faith.

Reason is the human capacity to carry out organized mental activities such as the association of ideas, the induction and deduction of inferences, or the formulation of value judgments. In Isaiah 1:18 God calls on human persons to reason with him about the gospel and this pattern is repeated throughout the Scripture.

But human reason is fallen. One of the effects of redemption is the "renewing of the human mind" (cf. Romans 12:2). As we grow in grace it seems that we can reason better in accord with the truth that is discovered in Christ. We become captives to the Spirit of God. Our thinking processes can become more Christ-like in both cognition of truth and in moral perception and response.

But we can never attain the place, at least in this life, where we have the last word on either revelation or ourselves. No human theological system and no mortal being can adequately explain immortality and the eternal God so as to solve the mysteries of our faith. We can only "lisp," as Calvin put it. This calls for epistemic humility, an all too uncommon feature in many conservative churches and schools.

We Must Love the Church

Most of you would expect me to teach this truth wherever possible. I believe Christ loves the Church and gave himself up for her. I believe he calls on us to love her and to live at peace with one another. This takes me to John 17 and the prayer Jesus prayed for us to be one. Too many ministers help foster divisions by their personal opinions and leadership styles. We must learn to cherish the bride of Christ, and the only bride we can now see is the visible church with all her flaws.

This is as much my personal passion now as anything in my life. I am writing my next book on this very subject: Your Church Is Too Small. I do not understand how you can love Jesus and not love his Church, not as a theory but as a real, visible and whole reality. I urged the seminarians to make this their life's passion as well.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Justin Taylor, "Questions to Ask Before you Preach"

Questions to Ask before You Preach

Joe Thorn:

These questions help to clarify and correct my preaching even before I stand up on Sunday.
1. Does this message exalt the gospel of Jesus Christ?
Will people walk away from this gathering encouraged to trust in law or grace? Can a person hear this message and know our only hope of redemption?
2. Will people know what to do after hearing the message?
I never want my preaching to merely grant knowledge. Good theology always impacts the will. Does a man know what he should do in response to the truths unpacked in the message beyond the general call to repent, and believe? What will repentance and faith look like for my audience?
3. Am I saying anything that will distract from the point I am trying to make?
Here I am thinking less of content and more of expression. Might the language I use, or the illustrations I choose, become the focus rather than the message I am trying to communicate?
4. Do I, at any point, make much of myself in this sermon?
I have heard a number of people express frustration with how some preachers make much of themselves in their preaching and teaching. It is as if some men are ever the example of how to do things well. This will either lead men to think "That pastor is awesome!" or "That pastor sure thinks a lot of himself." Either way I am getting in Jesus' way during the sermon if I make much of myself.
5. Would I like this to be the last sermon I ever preach?
It's a good question to ask, because it just might be the case. Believing that this may be my last opportunity to preach Christ will clarify what really needs to be said. Am I okay with this message being the last thing my family and church hears from my lips? And more importantly, am I okay with this message potentially being the last thing a man, woman or child will hear about the gospel before they die? This too just might be the case.
When asked, these questions bring a sense of sobriety and urgency to my preaching. Do you ask yourself any questions like these before preaching/teaching? What else might we ask ourselves?

posted by JT at Friday, April 25, 2008

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Riddlebarger on The Two-Age Model as Interpretive Grid (Amillennialism 101)

The Two-Age Model as Interpretive Grid -- Amillennialism 101

The Two Age Model as an Interpretive Grid

It is important to consider the basic eschatological framework provided for us by the New Testament writers, who speak of eschatological matters with one voice when they depict God's sovereign control of history as the out-working of two qualitatively distinct and successive eschatological ages, known variously as "this age" and the "age to come."

Throughout the New Testament, "this age" is used in reference to the present course of human history, while the "age to come" is used of the eschatological age of redemption promised throughout the Old Testament, which is now realized with the coming of Jesus Christ, and manifest for all to see in the triumph associated with his bodily resurrection and exaltation.

I believe that the period of time between the first advent of Jesus Christ until his Second Advent–the time between the establishment of Christ's kingdom as described in the gospels and the consummation of all things–is the same period of redemptive history described in Revelation 20 as "a thousand years." This means that the so-called "millennium" is a present reality and not a future hope. This means that events depicted in Revelation 20, refer not the future but to the present. This also means that the thousand years is that same period of time in which citizens of "this age" await "the age to come"–though given the fact of the present reality of the kingdom of God (Matthew 12:28, Luke 10:1-20; 17:20-21; Romans 14:17) and the work of the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13-14), "the age to come" is already a present reality for the believer in Jesus Christ.

This tension between the "already" and the "not yet" characterizes much of the New Testament eschatological hope as Christians await the final consummation of Christ's present kingdom on the great and glorious day of the Lord Jesus. As Geerhardus Vos points out, "Christianity in its very origin bears an eschatological character. It means the appearance of the Messiah and the inauguration of His work." Therefore, the starting point in developing this Christ-centered eschatology is "the historico-dramatic conception of the two successive ages," which are variously designated "this age" and "the age to come" (Geerhardus Vos, "Eschatology of the New Testament," in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed., Richard Gaffin, P & R, 1980, 25-28). According to Vos, since the very fabric of redemption itself is eschatological, the key to understanding this is to correlate eschatological language predicated of these two ages to the historical events surrounding the person and work of Jesus Christ. This will become clear when we examine terms such as "this age," "the age to come," and the biblical texts in which they occur.

Both Jesus and Paul repeatedly speak of "this age" and "the age to come" as two successive and qualitatively distinct eschatological periods. In three places in the synoptic gospels our Lord explicitly contrasts "this age" with "an age to come." In Matthew 12:32, Jesus is speaking of the impossibility of forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either "in this age or the age to come." In Luke 18:29-30, Jesus is speaking about the kingdom of God, in response to the unbelief expressed by the rich young ruler. Jesus says, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life." Finally, in Luke 20:34-35, Jesus declares, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage."

From these texts it is clear that our Lord understands these two ages as successive and qualitatively distinct. "This age," say Jesus, is characterized by marriage and things temporal. "The age to come," on the other hand, is characterized by resurrection life and immortality, hence the impossibility of natural, earthly life continuing in any form after the general resurrection which occurs at our Lord's return (John 6:39-40, 44, 54). This notion of a the general resurrection occurring at Christ's Second Advent presents a very serious problem for those forms of premillennialism in which it is argued that people in natural bodies continue to populate the earth during Christ's millennial rule after the resurrection of the righteous. If the "age to come" is the age of resurrection in which there is no marriage or sexual relationships, just how is it that people somehow escape this universal event so as to repopulate the earth, after Christ returns? This is an impossibility.

Paul sets out the same eschatological understanding of history in Ephesians 1:21, speaking of the present exaltation of Jesus Christ, who is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come." Like Jesus, Paul sees these two ages as consecutive and distinct, though Paul adds to our understanding the important point that Christ's rule is already a present reality which began with his resurrection and exaltation. As Lincoln points out, "the terminology and structure involved in this contrast play a large part in the apostle's thought" (Andrew T. Lincoln, Paradise Now and Not Yet, Cambridge University Press, 1981, 170 ff. Geerhardus Vos also sees this as a fundamental structure in Paul's thought, in The Pauline Eschatology, (Baker Book House, 1982, 1-41).

The impact of this two-age eschatological framework upon the question of millennialism becomes very apparent when we examine how these terms are used throughout the New Testament. Whenever the term "this age" is used it is always in reference to things temporal, things destined to perish. Consider the following things predicated by the biblical writers of "this age." The end of the age will be preceded by signs (Matthew 24:3), and Christ himself will be with us until this age ends (Matthew 28:20). There are material rewards in this age (Luke 18:30), and the people of this age marry and are given in marriage (Luke 20:34). According to Mark, the present age is an age of homes, fields and families (Mark 10:30). Paul, on the other hand, puts this in ethical terms. We are not to be conformed to the pattern of this age (Romans 12:2), for this present age is evil (Galatians 1:4). The wisdom of this age is the godless speculation of the philosophers (1 Corinthians 1:20), and is characterized by rulers who do not know the truth (2 Corinthians 2:6-8). In fact, says Paul, Satan himself is the "god" of this age (2 Corinthians 4:4) for the ways of this age are evil (Ephesians 2:2). Paul exhorts those who are rich in this age not to put their hopes in their riches for the age to come (1 Timothy 6:17), for we are to live godly lives now as we await the age to come (Titus 2:12).

In every case, the qualities assigned by the biblical writers to "this age" are always temporal in nature and represent the fallen world and its sinful inhabitants awaiting the judgment to come at our Lord's return. This becomes clear when we see "this age" as the biblical writers intend—an age which stands in stark contrast to the eschatological "age to come."

What do the Scriptures say about the "age to come"? The gospel writers record our Lord as saying that there will be no forgiveness in the age to come for speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32), and that it is a period of judgment when the weeds are thrown into the fire (Matthew 13:40). It is also an age of eternal life (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30) and when, as we have seen, there is no longer marriage or giving in marriage. It is an age, says Paul, where life is truly life (1 Timothy 6:19).

This means that the "age to come" is an age of eternal life and immortality. It is characterized by the realization of all of the blessings of the resurrection and consummation. It is not an age in which people await the consummation! When we consider those additional texts where Paul speaks of the consummation of the kingdom of God, the evidence against premillennialism becomes even stronger. According to Paul, evil-doers will not inherit this kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9-10), while flesh and blood cannot (1 Corinthians 15:50). Those who live evil lives will not enter this kingdom (Galatians 5:21), nor will the immoral (Ephesians 5:5). Thus, it is clear that "the age to come" refers to that period of time after the resurrection, the judgment and the restoration of all things. Those who participate in the "age to come" are no longer characterized by the temporal, but the eternal—a point particularly problematic for all forms of premillennialism which insist upon an earthly existence of some sort in a millennial age of half-way consummation after Christ's return, as well as for those influenced by preterism, who see "this age" as the Jewish era and "the age to come" as that which follows God's judgment upon Israel in A.D. 70.

The inability of dispensationalists in particular and premillennarians in general to deal with this argument becomes clear when we look at how dispensationalists deal with the rather extensive biblical data about the two ages. As J. Dwight Pentecost argues,

As it is used in the New Testament, according to the normal usage of the words, this present age refers to that period of time in which the speaker or writer then lived. As used in reference to Israel in the Gospels this present age referred to the period of time in which Israel was anticipating the coming of the Messiah to fulfill all her covenant promises. The coming age was the age to be inaugurated by the Messiah at His advent. In reference to the church the term this present age refers to the inter-advent period, that period from the rejection of the Messiah by Israel at His second coming. The phrase coming age could be used in its earthly aspect, to which the church will be related (as in Eph. 1:21), or in its eternal aspect (as in Eph. 2:7) (J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 1980, 131-32).

But, we must ask, "are we ever justified in saying the coming age was to be inaugurated, but was not, because Israel rejected her Messiah"? "Does the age to come has an earthly aspect as well as a eternal one? Pentecost's understanding of this matter simply does not fit with the data we have already seen, and it seems to me as though the two ages have not been properly considered as a major interpretive grid. More recently, Elliot Johnson has tried to weaken the thrust of this argument by pointing out that since so many interpreters of the New Testament cannot precisely agree upon what is entailed by the terms "the already" and the "not yet," it must be because the terms fail to clarify what is already fulfilled and what remains yet to be fulfilled (Elliot E. Johnson, "Prophetic Fulfillment: The Already and the Not Yet," in Willis and Master, eds., Issues in Dispensationalism, 188).

The solution to this over-stated dilemma is to connect the terms the "already and not yet" to the more concrete terms, "this age" and the "age to come." The already refers to the eternal blessings of the age to come which are realized in the present, while the not yet refers to the blessings of the age to come, yet to be realized in the consummation. Neither dispensationalists, nor millennarians in general, can account for the significance of the biblical writers view of history as a non-millennarian and successive unfolding of two qualitatively distinct eschatological ages.

Adapted from my book, A Case for Amillennialism (Baker, 2003). Click here: Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End

Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 at 11:03AM by

Kim Riddlebarger in Amillennialism 101 |

Monday, April 21, 2008

John Armstrong, "Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 2"

ACT 3 Weekly E-mail : April 21, 2008

Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 2

April 21, 2008
John H. Armstrong

Last week I began a mini-series on the life of the minister of the gospel based upon my teaching at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando in March of this year. I gave four points from my presentation. This week I begin with the fourth point and expand it and then go on to three more points.

1. Develop a Healthy Imagination

I grew up in the old South. I saw racism in the 1950s up close. I have never gotten over it really. But I soon adopted the attitude that I was not a racist since I never did any of these bad things myself. I hated the overt racism and spoke out. By this stance I felt I escaped all racism, personal and corporate. Through these developments I never owned up to what my own white people did and to the way I profited financially and intellectually because of their racism, overt or otherwise. I also used this cover to shield me from listening to the stories of my black brothers and sisters in the present era. I assumed that the problems could all be solved by well-intentioned hard working black people. Any appeal to race was new reverse racism and the equation I adopted was that this was quite simply the "race card" played by liberals. I believe that this is what was behind my recent blogs on Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.

Many of my white brothers and sisters still do not understand my approach because they have not yet seen how racism has a insidious and systemic quality about it that requires me/us to admit my/our advantages and then to listen more carefully to the anger that some black Christians feel about white people in America. If the Church is still divided by race then we have a missional problem. Can anyone deny that it is and be serious about this issue?

If I am committed to reconciliation and mission, which I am very deeply, then I do not know any other way to approach this very real problem. In this case truly knowing the African-American story helps me a great deal. I get that story from film, art, books and a lot of listening to real people, not myself. My imagination about the black experience is growing and I am learning and this humbling process is important to my mission and leadership as a minister. I pray that more white Christians will join me in this journey. I hope I can influence them to do so.

As another example of using imagination well you need fiction. I confess that I did not read fiction until I was in my forties. Sadly, I was exposed to literature in prep school and college but it didn't grip me like it should have. It was not the fault of my teachers for I had some great teachers. It was because my mind is wired for propositions and arguments more than imagination. I only tolerated art and saw an occasional film. Our age is now a visually driven culture. Thus telling a good story is still a real challenge for me. I had to work at every one of these problems with real effort. I believe my life, and leadership ability, is much better for that hard work. I encourage ministers to develop a healthy imagination if they want to impact the lives of others at the deepest levels.

2. Maintain a Good Sense of Humor

I do not innately possess a sense of humor. I take myself far too seriously and thus tend to think everything is life and death serious. I was given a wife, however, who was born with a sense of humor. She has spent her lifetime developing it even further. She has been a lovely gift to me in so many ways but this is one that truly stands out. (It is not the only one I assure you.)

I can still recall the late Vance Havner telling ministers that if you would succeed in the ministry you must have a sense of humor. I have heard it said by many since. One mission used to tell future missionaries that two things were needed to succeed as a career missionary: (1) Profound piety, and (2) A great sense of humor. I agree. Without both you will never make it in the ministry.

Christians in general, and ministers in particular, must be able to see humor in so many moments and events that happen in life. Most of all, we must learn to take our work seriously but never ourselves. Some of the most neurotic Christian leaders I have known had no sense of humor. (Beware of such leaders!) Their followers do not pay attention to this problem and the results are often deadly. If a minister does not have a healthy sense of humor I now tend to avoid them, since I have found such ministers will generally become fierce foes of mine in the end. They do not make good friends, just allies in causes. A lot of those I thought to be my friends proved to be allies who left me when they disagreed with me. My best friends disagree with me but they also laugh at me, and with me, and then stay by me.

3. Friendship

The minister must have real friends. Yet the typical pastor is told that they can never develop close friends within their local congregation. I have mixed emotions about this counsel. I think I would say, after forty years of thought about it, that you can have close friends within a congregation, but you must be very careful about how quickly you develop such relationships and what you expect of them. I am sure of this, however - you must have friends beyond your congregation. You need peers who are truly good friends and you need relationships that have nothing to do with your work directly.

And if you have true friendships you must come to value them very highly. You can only have a few. Work at them. Make them a priority in your life. The friendless pastor is far too common. Pastors are some of the loneliest people that I've known. (They suffer silently in most cases.) They need to cultivate times with people who are their own age as well as people who are older and younger. (As you get older you should actually want younger friends more than ever. This may seem counterintuitive but my younger friends keep me very fresh and alive.) Someone once told me that you needed to have in your life: (1) People you are mentoring, (2) People who are your peers, and (3) People who are mentoring you. I would agree.

My best friend is my wife. She is my "soul-mate" in the truest sense. I will tell her things I would tell no one else. She is not so much my partner in the ministry, a term I have never liked since she was not called to the ministry with me, but she is my true friend. She knows me like no one else. She reads me like a book. She knows my weaknesses and yet she still loves me. She gives me the advice I need even when I do not like it. Most of all she loves me for who I am, not as a pastor with a ministry to many other people or an author or leader.

4. Cultivate True Piety and Toughness

Piety literally means "duty to God." We live in a time when the ideas of duty and honor seem missing. But duty was bred into me via an ROTC background in a high school military academy, something I am still grateful for to this day. I understand the word and the concept and believe that I have a "duty" to obey God because of the love of Christ and his sacrifice for me. Thus I know I must be trained and work hard at cultivating true piety.

I use the word "true" here because there is such a thing as false piety. False piety has it all backwards. It seeks to make duty a means to gaining favor or impressing others. True piety does not need to be seen or heard. It is the formation of the heart by the presence and power of God himself.

The minister who lacks true piety will soon fail. This is what will keep you from falling. It will keep you true to your vows to your wife, true to your ordination promises and true to your God. You must, however, cultivate it. Just as a diligent farmer cultivates his fields this spring for planting so you must cultivate your heart day-by-day. You do this by acts of true devotion, by worship, by reading the Bible not for a sermon but for your soul. Lectio divina, or sacred reading, has become a key for me. Lectio requires me to read with intensity and care. It puts the emphasis on how this word speaks to me. Spiritual formation is a new discovery for many evangelicals. I pray it is not another fad like so many others we've embraced.

The faithful minister must not only be pious but that piety has to be linked to toughness, both mentally and spiritually. When I was at Disney World's Animal Kingdom, the same week that I spoke to the seminary class, I took the tour of the African open lands. We saw a black rhino and they told us that there are only a few hundred left in the world since poachers want their valuable tusks. The speaker said they had a hide that was over a quarter inch thick. I thought to myself: "I think I have such a hide."

A few days later I had a nurse insert an IV into my hand before surgery and she said, "I've never had so much trouble. You have very thick skin." I said to her, "I got it from being in the ministry all these years. It is the only way I made it."

Next Week: I have several more items to share in Part Three, my final article in this series, on April 28.

Rick Phillips, "Advice for Sabbath-keeping"

advice-for-sabbathkeeping.php

Advice for Sabbath-keeping

Posted by Rick Phillips

Having preached a sermon that touched in part on the Christian Sabbath (the text was John 5:9-18), I followed it up with a pastor's letter that gave advice to those learning to keep the Sabbath. I though it might be of benefit to our readers here as well.

I am persuaded that the Fourth Commandment, establishing the Sabbath observance, remains in effect for Christians. Not all Christians agree on this and some think Sabbath-keeping is a form of legalism. I am persuaded that this is mistaken, since Sabbath-keeping is one of the Ten Commandments, since the Sabbath ordinance is rooted not in the old covenant but in creation (see Gen. 2:2-3), and since as a sign and foretaste of God's eternal rest in glory, it is still needed on this side of Christ's Second Coming. As Hebrews 4:9 states, "There remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God."

The Fourth Commandment says that on the Lord's Day "you shall not do any work" (Ex. 20:10). This means that each of us should rest from whatever is our typical work. Students should set aside their books; businessmen should set aside their business; housewives should set aside their chores. We are to rest from our normal labor. Isaiah 58:13 adds that we are to refrain "from doing your pleasure on my holy day... not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly." This tells us that the day is to be set aside for worshiping, fellowshipping with God, and enjoying his spiritual blessings.

I know that many do not have experience in observing the Sabbath, so the idea is intimidating. The question is raised: "What are we supposed to do all day?" It is a good question and I would like to offer some practical advice:

· Our Lord's Day should normally be framed by morning and evening worship. If we simply do this, our Sundays will be generally structured around God and His blessings.

· This means that the key time is between the two services. A little planning and structure will make a big difference. For instance, the family may have its main meal after morning worship, and include more extended family prayers and singing. One of the best things to do is to get together with one or more families for this meal, using the time for especially spiritual fellowship.

· What about singles or widows? It is good to get together with friends for the Lord's Day meal. When I was a single new believer in Philadelphia, a group of us would spend the day together and then go together to evening worship. Often one would have a guitar and we would sing, we would spend time in prayer, and we would simply enjoy our Christian fellowship. Those are precious memories to me.

· The Lord's Day is a good time for devotional exercises. The family might read a Christian book together, set aside time for personal devotional reading, or spend time in hymn or psalm singing.

· Husbands/fathers should be especially concerned that their wives get rest and refreshment on the Lord's Day. Perhaps Dad might take the kids so that Mom can spend some time with the Lord or read a book. Perhaps he might prepare a meal so that Mom can rest.

· Some of us may be able to use the Lord's Day for acts of gospel mercy, such as visits to those in the hospital or shut-ins. As Jesus makes clear in John 5:, we are not violating the Sabbath by doing the work of the gospel.

· You can't sit still for five hours, so children especially will need exercise and activity. If they are going to attend evening worship, they are going to need to go to the playground - this is perfectly consistent with a day devoted to God. I find an afternoon nap to be a useful way of preparing for evening worship, too!

· Do not become legalistic about the Lord's Day. There are some kinds of work that are appropriate for the Sabbath, such as my work as a minister, the work of doctors and nurses, and others who do works of gospel ministry, mercy, and basic necessity. Still, how important it is that we be able regularly to worship in the church. Freeing up our Sundays as often as possible is one of the most important things in our lives.

Lastly, let me plead with you not to be intimidated by an emphasis on Sabbath-keeping. I am persuaded that God has given the Lord's Day as an essential component of our spiritual lives - therefore it is my duty to teach it. So if you have not practiced Sabbath-keeping, I urge you to think about making some changes in this direction. Simply adding one of the above activities between the Sunday worship services will have a big effect on your Lord's Day. You may not do it perfectly, but our gracious God will bless you. Let's not be legalistic or prideful about the Lord's Day, and let us not have a judgmental spirit among one another. Please do not fear that you will be judged for not observing the Lord's Day exactly as others do, and please do not judge others for differences of conviction or practice. But let us zealously seek the blessings that God offers through our devotion to him. He promises to those who call the Sabbath a delight:

You shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth;I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father (Isa. 58:14).

Saturday, April 19, 2008

Jeff Meyers on "Lord, Language, & Liturgy" [On the use of "YHWH" in Christian readings of OT}

http://homepage.mac.com/jeffmeyers/YahwehLord.htm

Lord, Language, & Liturgy

Jeff Meyers

In our liturgy we read "Yahweh" when the Hebrew text uses the Tetragrammaton YHWH to refer to God. Most of our English translations continue to translate YHWH as LORD, distinguishing it from the Hebrew word adonay ("lord") by the use of small or large caps formatting. I am convinced that this perpetuates a very unhealthy tradition and makes for a muddled reading of Scripture. It's time to break that tradition and restore the divine covenantal name given to Israel to the public reading of Scripture.

It is better for us to read Yahweh rather than LORD in our translations, Scripture reading, and preaching for these reasons:

1. Yahweh was given to Israel as God's "memorial name" (Exod. 3:15). This personal name of God was revealed to Israel so that they might use it in prayer and thus remind God of his covenant so he would act for them. God's personal name for Israel was not "Lord" but "Yahweh." As Psalm 20 says, "Some trust in chariots and some in horses but we will memorialize the name of Yahweh our God." The name of the God of Israel was not "Lord" or "LORD" but Yahweh.

2. "Lord" is a title not a name. You can make the word "Lord" into all caps, italicize it, bold it, or whatever, but that doesn't change the fact that it means "Master" or "Sir" and is not a name, certainly not God's revealed personal name. So when one translates passages like "Let them praise the name of Yahweh" as "Let them praise the name of the LORD" you muck up the meaning badly. His name is not "Lord" or "LORD" but YHWH.

3. The abbreviation YAH is not replaced with LORD in our English translations. We still say and sing "hallelujah," which means "praise Yah[weh]." Why don't we sing "hallelu-LORD"? Silly, you say? Just as silly as replacing YHWH with Lord. If saying the whole name is so spiritually hazardous, why isn't saying part of the name just as dangerous? But YAH was not even replaced by superstitious Jews who refused to say the whole name for fear of judgment. In addition to Hallelujah we still have all the proper names that include Yahweh in them, like Joshua (Heb: Yah-shua - "Yahweh saves"). The best we can say is this is inconsistent; the worst is that it's evidence of how stupid this superstitious avoidance of the name Yahweh really is.

---------- Blog post ended here -----------

4. Later Jews superstitiously refused to vocalize the name. I'll get to when this happened in a moment. But the practice of replacing Yahweh with Lord was an act of rebellion. God gave this name for the Jews to use in memorial prayers, Psalms, and worship. Not using it means that they thought they were wiser than God. This is part and parcel with the Pharisaical "fencing of the law." In order to avoid transgressing the 3rd Word ("taking the name of Yahweh in vain") the wily Pharisaical Jews decided to just avoid the word altogether. And we want to follow that tradition?

5. What modern Jews think about what we do in our translations is irrelevant. This is a red herring anyway because we have enough in our Bibles to madden the Jews as it is. But more importantly, we need to remember that post AD 70 Judaism is a different religion than that practiced by OT believers before Christ. There are no simple "OT believers" around today. Adding Yahweh to our translations wouldn't make a difference at all. The superstitious avoidance of the vocalization of Yahweh didn't become "official" until after the first century AD, probably in response to the Christian argument that Jesus is Yahweh. Even so, why should we coddle them in their superstitious rebellion anyway? It seems to me that the real offense would be to Evangelicals who THINK the Jews would be offended. I doubt very much if most Jews would even bother to sigh.

6. Bible publishers want to make money and making such a widespread change in the way the OT is translated would mean loss of profit because it would be too much of a departure from KJV tradition. Follow the money trail. Bibles are the most profitable product for publishers. Above all, publishers want to make money on their new translations. It's not about accuracy but adding up currency.

7. Isn't it fascinating to learn that the KJV translators had the sense to know that YHWH absolutely needed its own translation in at least four places in the OT.

Ex. 6.3 - "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

Psa. 83.18 - "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth."

Is. 12.2 - "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation."

Is. 26.4 - "Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength."

Interesting, huh? In Isa. 12:2 and 26:4 they are evidently trying to get the reader to link LORD and JEHOVAH since the Hebrew text has only YHWH and not adonay. Even though that's an odd way to translate these verses, they at least recognized here that one had to alert the reader to the presence of YHWH for a proper understanding of the text. I would argue the same for just about every occurrence of YHWH in the text. What's the difference between these five passages and all the passages in the Psalms that say, "Praise the name of Yahweh"? If you don't put the actually name of Israel's God where it belongs, you end up with a translation that makes a completely different statement than the original.

8. Now here's something you may not know. The old Calvinistic Standard, the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), is the only version to consistently translate YHWH as Jehovah throughout the entire OT. Check it out. I differ, of course, about the vocalization of Yahweh. It's not "Jehovah," but I would take that any day over the LORD/Lord lunacy we have now. Check out the ASV sometime:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/asv.html

9. The fact that we don't know the precise vocalization doesn't matter. How can this be used as an argument? Just as we say "Jesus" in English instead of the Greek "Iesous," there is no reason not to say Jehovah, Yahweh, Jahve, or something else similar. Getting the exact vocalization right is immaterial. The important thing is that we hear and see the personal, covenantal name of God in the text. From Hebrew, it seems clear that it was sometimes vocalized "yeho" or "yehu" from the names of the kings. So I don't think tonal precision to ancient Hebrew usage has any importance.

10. So what do we do with the fact that "the Jews did not pronounce the name YHWH"? When I read statements like that I ask, "Which Jews?" Too often, when these kinds of statements are made people think of the Jews living during the time of the OT. But there is very little evidence to suggest that Isrealites and later Jews living before the inter-Testamental period consistently practiced this superstition. In fact, there's lots of solid evidence to contradict such speculation.

Doing a little research on this uncovers the fact that the Jews were still pronouncing YHWH at the end of the OT period. Indeed, there is no solid evidence to suggest that the Jews did not pronounce this name at the time of Jesus. Most evidence points to the conclusion that the development of this superstitious avoidance of vocalizing the name of Yahweh comes after the destruction of the Temple. That doesn't mean that nobody was doing it before this time. But the practice doesn't appear to be the official policy of Judaism until after the destruction of the Temple. The superstitious avoidance of Yahweh is associated with the transformation of Judaism into a new religion after the NT period, an extension and intensification of apostate, Pharisaical Judaism.

And what about the Septuagint (LXX) translators? Well, it appears that the writers of the LXX were not yet under the spell of this stupid superstition.

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology notes: ""Recent textual discoveries cast doubt on the idea that the compilers of the LXX translated the etragrammaton YHWH by kyrios. The oldest LXX MSS (fragments) now available to us have the tetragrammaton written in Heb. characters in the Gk. text. This custom was retained by later Jewish translators of the OT in the first centuries A.D. One LXX MS from Qumram even represents the tetragrammaton by IAO. these instances have given support to the theory that the thorough-going use of kyrios for the tetragrammaton in the text of the LXX was primarily the work of Christian scribes. . . On the other hand, the Jews would have already replaced the tetragrammaton by kyrios in the oral transmission of the Gk. OT text (Vol. 2, p. 512).

"In pre-Christian Greek [manuscripts] of the OT, the divine name was not rendered by 'kyrios' as has often been thought. Usually the Tetragram was written out in Aramaic or in paleo-Hebrew letters. . . . At a later time, surrogates such as 'theos' [God] and 'kyrios' replaced the Tetragram . . . There is good reason to believe that a similar pattern evolved in the NT, i.e. the divine name was originally written in the NT quotations of and allusions to the OT, but in the course of time it was replaced by surrogates" (New Testament Abstracts, March 1977, p. 306).

This, then, raises the question of whether the NT writers really were accommodating themselves to the Jews when they translated YHWH as kyrios. They must have had some other reason for doing it. What might that have been?

Notice that the divine name YHWH was given to Israel. The name of God used by non-Israelite believers was most often "God Most High" or the "Most High God." Just do a concordance search and you'll see this, from Melchizedek in Gen. 14 to King Nebuchadnezzar in Dan. 4. With the exile, however, God does a new thing in the world. He sent the Jews (short for Judahites) into the whole world to be witness for him. They no longer have their own Davidic King. Now they are subject, by God's own decree, to the world emperors of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome.

This new world order is different than the old tribal and kingdom arrangement of the past. Now God begins a new work of international significance. Of course, this culminates in the work of Jesus and his apostles. I don't have time to go into all the details here. But interestingly, at this time God begins to speak in tongues (non-Hebrew languages), specifically Aramaic. And the name Yahweh is not used in the Aramaic sections of the OT.

It seems best to understand that the name YHWH was given specifically to Israel and the Jews and is particularly associated with the Mosaic and kingdom phases of their history. God is for the Israelites peculiarly Yahweh. The name YHWH is not used in the Aramaic and later in the Greek Scriptures because YHWH is for Israel and the Jews. Yahweh is "the name of the God of Israel" (Ezra 5:1, in Aramaic).

Even if the evidence seems to indicate that the people of God did not use the name Yahweh as much in the exilic and post-exilic period - a time when the kingdom of God expanded to include the world emperors as guardians of his seed people - that does not imply that they refused to say the name Yahweh anymore at all. Writing new things for a new situation is one thing, reading the received Scriptures is something else. In other words, when they read the Torah in their assembly they read Yahweh, but when they wrote and spoke to their Gentile neighbors in the wider world they used more generic titles for the true God.

If the NT writers, continuing the trajectory of the new covenantal arrangement after the exile, did not use the name Yahweh in their translation of OT texts, this does not necessarily imply that they refused to vocalize the world when they read the Scriptures publicly in their services. The revelation of God's name corresponded with the increasing revelation of his character and purposes so that finally God is revealed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and the specific "memorial name" for worship and prayer is now the name of God incarnate, Jesus.

This does not mean, however, that we should just go back and erase all the previous names of God and put Jesus or Lord in their place. Even if we don't use the name of Yahweh in the same way as the Israelites did, we need to be able to read the Scriptures in such a way that we can learn how that name functioned for them. After all, these things were written for our instruction. If hearers of the Scripture cannot discern the difference between God's personal name and the title "Master/Lord," then they will miss an important dimension of instruction concerning how the people relate to their covenant God.

The bottom line is the LORD/Lord business in English is confusing, especially when heard/sung in church and not simply in one's private reading. Even by making that distinction (LORD/Lord) the translators are conceding the battle. Why even do this? It just raises questions. When people read this odd translation they will look in the margin or in the explanation in front of their Bibles and see "Yahweh" anyway, so why not go the whole nine yards?

Moreover, the distinction is completely lost when the text is publicly read out loud and not just "studied." You see, for liturgical use the modern way of translation utterly fails. Hearers will have no idea when LORD or Lord is being used. Well, this is just par for the course. Not many in our tradition think about corporate/liturgical use when they do these translations. It's all about private reading and study. If we insist on not vocalizing YHWH, then we must at least do something to make the distinction audible in public reading - maybe if we use "Lord" for Yahweh, then "Master" should be used for adonay. At least the distinction could be heard. But again, why go through such linguistic contortions? Why not rather translate the text faithfully and allow God's people to hear and thereby understand the proper difference between the title Lord and the name Yahweh?

In conclusion, for reading the text in Church and for use in study Yahweh should be used. It is, after all, the unique name God revealed to Israel, and to say "by my name LORD I was not known by them" (Ex. 3:15) is grotesque and dangerously misleading.

Monday, April 14, 2008

John Armstrong, "Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 1"

ACT 3 Weekly E-mail : April 14, 2008

Equipping Lives for the Ministry of the Gospel, Part 1

April 14, 2008

John H. Armstrong

I am often afforded the unique opportunity of teaching future ministers in a seminary setting. I was given such an invitation recently, by my good friend Steve Brown. I thus spent several hours in a class at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando in mid-March talking to future ministers. To prepare for this class I jotted down some thoughts and then spoke out of the experience of my own life from these simple notes on a hotel scrap. I then thought that I should write out some of what I spoke that morning and thereby share it now more widely. I make no claim to being profound in these insights. I do think there are some practical things here that might be helpful to many readers, whether you are in the ministry or not.

Develop and Maintain Intellectual Curiosity

Every real leader I know has a developing and growing intellectual curiosity. This means that they have an innate desire to know things and understand how the world works and why. Simply put, they are eager to learn and expand their knowledge base. Pastors, like almost everyone else who works in an environment where they must deliver messages and teach on a regular basis, can easily fall into a trap here. They become satisfied if they can give out what is expected of them week-by-week. They will have to study, for sure, but often this study has as its singular goal the production of something else for their ministry in public; i.e., for their congregation. By this means they often reduce the activity of their minds to producing content and writing sermons. This does not feed them personally and often fails others as well. Many pastors study because they have to do it not because they love it.

Every truly careful thinker that I have known has developed a deep, deep hunger for learning. They hunger to learn what that they do not know and they are eager to become better informed. And this goes well beyond knowing the Bible and preparing outlines. They remain life-long learners who are open and serious about the life of the mind. They will pursue truth in many places and contexts. They will learn from authors and people they disagree with and not simply read to reinforce their prejudice.

When I spend time with a pastor I look around his office/study and ask several questions. What is this person reading right now that is beyond their preparation for another sermon? What excites this minister about learning, period? What have they seen, experienced or read that has touched them and challenged them in a truly human way? What are they talking about and why?

Read, Read and Read Some More

This, following my first point, is rather obvious. Though reading is not the whole of intellectual curiosity it is clearly a major part of it. I learn from three sources: (1) The people I know, (2) The places I have been, and (3) The books I have read. I have found this saying is generally true: "Readers are leaders." Those who do not read do not learn, and those who do not learn do not grow and thus they do not become good ministers. John Wesley told his ministers to "read or get out of the ministry." I wonder what would happen if that counsel was applied today.

Every pastor will have to read some just to survive. The problem will come with what they read and why. Recently, a pastor friend was sharing with me about the experience of having interns (from a well-known conservative graduate school in this case) who were preparing and delivering sermons for the first time. He told me of his frustration with the fact that these interns knew a lot about church methodology and leadership principles but how they could not handle a biblical text and prepare a decent sermon. I fear this is all too common. And in this case the school sells itself on teaching people the Bible!

Ministers must be serious readers. They should be the very best student of the Bible in their entire congregation. But they should also read news, history, biography, literary works and poetry. They should, of course, read systematic and biblical theology as well as historical theology. Every minister, to some degree, ought to become a respectable biblical theologian. This does not mean they will simply master one textbook or repeat, like a parrot, the writings of one creed or one popular thinker. They need to have a wide exposure to the discipline of theology itself and learn how to discern good from bad. I will never forget asking Warren Wiersbe many years ago: "Why are you reading a Lutheran a-millenialist if you are a dispensational pre-millenialist?" He answered, "Why should I read what I already know?" I have carried that with me for years.

But ministers often read only a very narrow range of materials. I am suggesting that they go well beyond this and read very widely. Learn to understand the arguments of various sorts of theology and thought, and especially learning how to understand what makes people think and act they way they do, is priceless.

Study

Paul says, "Do your best to present yourself to God, as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15). The phrase "do your best" is sometimes translated "study." The idea here is not so much "study" in the sense of sitting in a chair reading as it is "working" with all your being to understand things so that you can correctly use the Scriptures in your ministry.

Pastors today are not students like they once were. There was a time when the best-read, best-taught individual in a community was the local minister. He was the parson, the person who knew things widely and well. This is no longer the case. Most of us are not prepared broadly to think well and to lead. The emphasis today is on leadership as a technique, management as a corporate function, and on building the congregation so that it will grow numerically. The "bottom-line" is size and how the minister manages congregational developments day-to-day.

Fighting for time to truly study will always be a serious challenge for ministers. Most that do this well always have something with them and they are always listening to the best sources for what to read next. I suggest, as an example, that for every one modern book you read you read two older books. Everything about modern life and ministry wages war against this kind of study. You will have to dig and fight for the time and place to study as you ought. You have to make this a priority or you will surely fail.

Develop a Healthy Imagination

Imagination is the power to see things that are not, to create things that have not yet been seen, to form mental images of what is not actually present. A healthy imagination is one that is alive and growing. Few ministers develop their imagination, preferring rather to give out what they know from others. This is why sermons are dull and teaching is not vivid. Such sermons only urge people to listen to more information that does not grip their minds and souls at a profoundly imaginative level. Story telling is a lost art and preaching is, quite frankly, pretty boring in most places.

So how do you develop a good imagination? I think art, film, creative writing and story-telling work well. We have to learn how to use all of these, and more, to see what we do not readily see and to feel what we would not otherwise feel.

Kevin Johnson, "Recommended Reading List for Elder Wannabe's"

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1578

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Kevin Johnson, "Even More Radical and Controversial Advice for Elder Wannabe’s"

http://www.reformedcatholicism.com/?p=1576

Even More Radical and Controversial Advice for Elder Wannabe's

April 11th, 2008

Already following all sixteen points in my last post? Echoes of the Rich Young Ruler ought to be floating about in your head about now and rightly so. Don't know about the Rich Young Ruler? Turn your computer off and go read your Bible several times. Don't come back to any blog for a month or two. Just keep reading your Bible. Oh wait. I was supposed to provide a numbered list. Okay, well, anyway, that first one was a freebie.

Here are some more to think about implementing:

1) Go get a part-time job and give all the proceeds to your pastor without him knowing. Round your check off to the nearest twenty, put the cash in an envelope with a typed card that reads, "I'm so thankful you're my pastor". The amount is less important than making it completely anonymous but don't make it less than a hundred a week. Are you in one of those churches where your pastor makes way too much money? Get out. Or, alternatively, find someone who is financially hurting in your congregation and give them the money while still remaining completely anonymous. What?!? You don't have a job? Your living at home with Mommy? Quit reading this list. Go get a job or two, get your own place, and don't think about the ministry again EVER (or at least, not for another few years while you've been on your own and gainfully employed and promoted more than once). The last thing the Christian ministry needs is just one more slacker.

2) Learn everyone's name in your congregation. If you're in a congregation too big to do that, you're likely in a congregation too big to really learn how to do ministry or to really interact with elders who give a flying flip about you. Go find a smaller congregation–preferably one with less than a hundred people. Find one with lots of older people and an older pastor–the kind that you think is in decline or not worth your time. Truth is it will probably be much like the first congregation you pastor because older people have a lot of patience for someone who is likely going to really screw up the first time. Might as well get used to it early on and if you can't handle the bad music, the older folks, and especially your own failures–you're not even ready to think about ministry.

3) Invest in the lives of people you don't know and especially in the lives of people you don't like. Learn that their values and their understanding of things has good in it as well as bad. Do everything you can to understand issues and perspectives from their point of view. Give people the benefit of the doubt the first time around when conflict occurs. And the second. And the third. And the fourth. You get the idea, I hope.

4) Befriend the oldest person in your congregation. If that person is 29 or 35 go find a REAL church to minister in where people actually have gray hair. Take this person to get their medicines or get their medicines for them. Get to know them well enough to take them to the doctor or hospital whenever needed. Make them dinner. Clean their house even if they pay a housekeeper. Impose yourself gently upon them and put yourself on call for whatever they need. Pray for them and ask them how to pray for them.

5) Look for elderly widows in your congregation and do the same as #4 above. What was that verse about true religion? If you've never exercised any care for widows and orphans what makes you think you're really called to be a minister? Spend afternoons getting to know the widows of your church. Ask them about their lives, their children, their husband, and look at pictures with them. Tell them you want to know more and really want to know more. Be genuinely concerned with them and their future but don't stay so long that you make them tired when visiting. If you have kids, leave them at home unless they are thoroughly well-behaved. If they are riotous, undisciplined, and/or require constant attention from you–stop reading. Implement real parental discipline and get your family in order. Do not pass go and do not collect $200. Quit while you're ahead.

6) If you are married, ask your wife to follow in line with you doing numbers four and five above. If she's not already doing that with you or on her own or refuses, take some time to really consider if the ministry is for you and your family or not.

7) Abandon teaching an adult Sunday School class or other Bible Study you may be involved in. Go volunteer in the nursery (if your church has one) or teach primary grade children. Don't give into the temptation that others may present you with–any known ministerial candidate gets thrown into youth ministry. Don't do it. You don't have the skills and you're likely not mature enough to handle the real problems inherent in any church doing "youth ministry".

8) Tithe ten to twenty percent of your GROSS income to whatever church you are attending. Don't tell me you believe in ministry and ought to be a minister if you're not regularly giving to your church in the first place. As a minister, you're going to live your life off of the gifts of faithful Christians. You should know early what that sacrifice means on the part of your fellow Christians and learn to appreciate it.

9) Learn a trade or skill that will at the very least pay the bills when nothing else will. Consider the wisdom and place of bi-vocational ministry and remain open to it. Also, consider that if you're faithful, the ministry won't be a cakewalk and getting a secure position like a pastorate at a big church is likely never going to happen. You don't want a position like that anyway if you're a real minister.

10) Keep your desire to be in the ministry a real secret. Don't tell your pastor about it, don't ask him about what real ministry is like, don't ask people if they think that is what God's will is for your life, don't go around doing anything other than acting like a servant of the church. Keep Christ's footwashing of the disciples ever present in your mind and look for ways to serve others in the least rewarding and most humbling way possible. But, never let on that any of this has anything to do with thinking about or going into the ministry.

11) One caveat to number ten if you are married. Ask your wife what she thinks and learn to rely on her advice for the extent of your whole career. If she counsels against you entering the ministry–DON'T DO IT at least until she gives the go ahead without any pressure from you. Ask her if you are too selfish for the ministry–if you think you're doing it because you want to instead of other more appropriate reasons. Ask her where you fail and how you can do better. Ask her if she's ready to be a pastor's wife. Ask her if she can handle you not being around when she needs you and then ask yourself why you would want to sacrifice your family in that way. Talk with her about these things often and continually keep her advice and concerns in mind. If she's not for something, don't go there. Period.

12) Quit listening to Christian music and Christian radio. Tune your radio to other stations and listen to music you normally wouldn't on iTunes or elsewhere. Find the kind that really grates against your own musical tastes and ask yourself what the artist is trying to say and accomplish. Ask yourself how you would communicate the gospel to someone like that and what good is in that music.

13) Never go into a Christian bookstore again. Buy all your books online or used. Anything that's sold in a Christian bookstore today is likely garbage and not worth reading. Start cruising the Amazon lists of books to read by others but remember that many Christian bloggers and others easily fall into fashions and fads like any other group. Learn to read deeply into each of the major Christian traditions. Take the hit, buy the Eerdmans' Early Church Fathers set and actually READ the volumes on your shelf. Read Martin Luther. Read John Calvin. Not books about them. Not yet anyway.

14) Don't waste your money on Bible commentaries yet. You'll probably buy all the wrong ones anyway. Take the time to learn the original languages of the Bible instead and you'll be far ahead of anyone reading Bible commentaries. Bible commentaries are really for people who already know the biblical languages and can discern whether or not a commentator knows what they're talking about. Most of them don't.

15) Spend time in intimate conversation with God. Wherever you are, whenever you are. Especially when you're doing things you don't want to do or that are seemingly unpleasant at the time. Face the fact that things that are unpleasant for you to deal with are likely so because you are just exercising your own sinfulness. Go buy Brother Lawrence's The Practice of the Presence of God. Implement it in your own life. Don't forget to do the common things of human existence (and do them well) but do them with the presence of God in mind.

Filed under: Generally Speaking, Philosophy, Theology, and Faith, Prayer and Reflection
by Kevin D. Johnson |

something LATIN