Minor Thoughts from me to you

The Bible is old and complex. How can I possibly expect to understand it? Every time a pastor gets up, he seems to teach something from the Bible that I've never even seen before. Why should I even bother trying to read it myself?

The truth is, I can learn to read the Bible for myself. It takes practice -- but I have my whole life to get it right. I don't have to develop into a theologian overnight. My church recently taught a session on how to read the Bible. I wasn't able to attend, but a friend did. I'll share a portion of her notes.

1. Begin with the context: historical - the writer - the audience - the culture - other events
2. Read headings before/after this chapter. What is going on? Whose life is being chronicled?
3. Is this a minor or major incident?
4. What else do we know about the people involved?
5. List questions that occur to you as you read this passage. Try to forget past messages you have heard or books and studies you have read about this. Read with fresh eyes and think about someone telling you this story. What would you ask them before you go on? What do you need further clarification on?
6. What?
7. Why?
8. When?
9. How?
10. Where?
11. Who?
12. Look for repeated words, details, unfamiliar terms.
13. What are differences/similarities between the original audience and us.
14. What principle(s) cross cultural divide? What is applicable to us in our culture?

I'm not a Bible expert. Answering the Who, When, What, Why questions can be tough. It can even be tough to know who the writer and audience are or what the culture was. Even with those principles, how can I really know what's going on?

I start with the realization that the Bible was written for me, but it wasn't written to me. I first heard this idea when Dr. John Walton spoke at Blackhawk. His sermon -- Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light helped me to see that the Bible doesn't necessarily speak in the way that I expect it to speak. I can't simply pick it up and read it the same way that I would read a novel or a science textbook. I have to read it the way that the original audience read it.

Fortunately, Dr. Walton helped me to do just that. He didn't personally help me, but one of his books did. Old Testament Today is an Old Testament overview that helped me understand the Old Testament in a way that I never had before. It has a very unique style:

Old Testament Today is unique among Old Testament surveys. It not only provides an orientation to the world of the Old Testament but also builds a bridge between the original audience and modern readers, demonstrating why the ancient message is important for faith and life today.

Old Testament Today goes beyond basic content to help students understand what the Scriptures mean and how to apply them personally. [T]his text takes the reader section by section through the Old Testament using a progressive, three-step format:

1. Original Meaning presents the details of the content, focusing on the story line, historical background, and literary information that address the original setting and audience.
2. Bridging Contexts focuses on theological perspectives and on issues of the authors purpose and the universal message of the text, building a bridge between the original audience and todays audience.
3. Contemporary Significance develops an understanding of the relevance of the Old Testament writings to todays Christian, showing how they can be applied in personal faith and practice.

It covers the major sections of the Old Testament: the Fundamentals of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, Historical Literature, Prophets, Wisdom Literature, Psalms, and a wrap-up. It really helped me to understand where each book fits and how the different parts of the Old Testament mesh together. (Google Books will give you a bit of a sneak peak at the book.)

After reading Old Testament Today and seeing how the three-step process worked, I wanted to get more than just an overview of the entire Old Testament. I wanted to understand each book, using that same method. The NIV Life Application Commentary series fills that need perfectly. Each commentary focuses on one book of the Bible and uses the same three step method (Original Meaning, Bridging Contexts, and Contemporary Significance) to explain what's happening in the text.

If you're like me -- you want to both read and understand the Bible, I'd highly recommend buying a few of these books.

As I've started actually reading my Bible more, I've become pickier about which Bible I read. Since this is my blog, I'm going to spend some time talking about what goes into my decision. Be warned: this is slightly long winded.

Translation

I prefer the English Standard Version. The ESV website describes the translation this way:

The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be "as literal as possible" while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence.

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

That's very important to me. I've read other translations that chose to emphasize readability and understandability instead of literalness. They weren't bad translations -- I liked them. But when it came to "difficult" passages (such as the issue of women in leadership), I felt like the translation was hiding the author's original meaning. After a while, that started to bother me. I feel that the ESV strikes a decent balance between being understandable in the 21st century and staying true to the original text.

Black Letter

Whichever translation I use, I want a black-letter edition of the Bible. Many popular editions of the Bible choose to print Jesus's words in red. I don't like that practice, for two reasons.

Printing the words of Jesus in red implies that they are more important than the other words in the Bible. It sets them apart from the rest of the text and draws extra attention to them. The publisher, in effect, chose to highlight those words for you. But I don't think that's what God intended. Paul and Peter explicitly say that all of the Bible comes from God.

[esvbible reference="2 Timothy 3:16" format="inline"]2 Timothy 3:16[/esvbible]

[esvbible reference="2 Peter 1:21" format="inline"]2 Peter 1:21[/esvbible]

Secondly, printing the words of Jesus in red assumes that the Gospel quotations are direct quotations. I don't believe that they are. First century writers weren't concerned with getting direct quotations or properly attributing every source. They didn't make material up, they just weren't as rigorous as we are about documenting it and relaying it precisely. We can also see that the quotations aren't exact. Compare Matthew 9:4-6 with Mark 2:8-11.

[esvbible reference="Matthew 9:4-6" format="inline"]Matthew 9:4-6[/esvbible]

[esvbible reference="Mark 2:8-11" format="inline"]Mark 2:8-11[/esvbible]

The differences are subtle but real. While the gist is the same, the exact words differ. Both texts were inspired by God, but related by men. I want a Bible that prints the Jesus's words the same as everybody else's words.

Not Distracting

I want a Bible that doesn't distract me from the meaning of the text. Chapter headings, subheadings, and chapter / verse divisions are all modern innovations. People throughout history created multiple different ways of breaking up and organizing the text. Our modern chapter and verse divisions first appeared in the Geneva Bible in 1599.

Chapter and verse divisions are necessary, to quickly locate a given passage. But they can break a text in the middle of a narrative, leaving the reader with a false impression about where a thought begins or ends. Headings and subheadings can be even more intrusive and distracting.

One example: the parable of the prodigal son. Many people are familiar with the parable, from [esvbible reference="Luke 15:11-32" header="on" format="link"]Luke 15:11-32[/esvbible]. Most Bible editions have a helpful subheader that indicates "The Parable of the Prodigal Son". But that subheader hides the fact that the parable was told as the third in a series.

In [esvbible reference="Luke 15" header="on" format="link"]Luke 15[/esvbible], the Pharisees complain about Jesus choosing to hang out with non-religious people. Jesus responds to them by telling three parables, each with a different point. Jesus intended each parable to be a partial response. We misread the text if we try to take the parables one at a time and read them separately.

I think we also risk misreading the text if the publisher formats the text in a verse-by-verse style instead of a paragraph-by-paragraph style. In a verse-by-verse style each verse starts on a new line. This unnecessarily -- and arbitrarily -- breaks up the text. It destroys the flow of the narrative and makes the text harder to read. Conversely, a paragraph-by-paragraph style combines multiple verses into one block of text. It is much more natural to read and helps to keep the text as a series of coherent thoughts.

Headers, subheaders, and intrusive verse divisions can encourage misreading. I prefer a Bible edition that formats the text into paragraphs and has few headers dividing up the text.

Readability

I want a Bible that's easy to read: not too heavy, not too thick, and easy on the eyes. I have two primary criteria for readability: single column pages with at least a 9pt font. I take this preference from J. Mark Bertrand. In this review of The Message: Remixed Bible, he explains his fondness for single-column layouts.

The fact that The Message Remix is laid out in single columns deserves a point all its own. This is what readers are accustomed to, and it makes more visual sense than the traditional double column layout. I don't know why so many publishers are committed to double columns. The practice creates all sorts of problems. For example, the ESV's narrow columns force unintentional line breaks on passages set in verse. The problem is solved in the standalone edition of the Psalms, which is set in a single column. But for some reason, the single column format that works so well in the ESV standalone editions of the Psalms and the Gospel of John is not available in a complete edition of the Bible. Designers take note: single-column formatting makes a world of difference in terms of the reader's experience.

If a Bible is going to have a single column layout, the lines need to be kept relatively short. Studies have shown that most people prefer reading text that has 60-75 characters per line. (About 12 words per line.) Using a larger font is the best to keep the lines short and the text easy to read.

As someone who loves to read, I prefer single column text. As someone who loves to read for long stretches of time, I prefer text that's large enough to read without requiring me to squint or strain to see the text.

Binding

Finally, I want a strong binding that will last for a while. My goal is to find a Bible that I'll use daily for the next 10-20 years. The binding should last as long as the Bible does. Ideally, I'd like pages that are sewn together, not glued together. Again, J. Mark Bertrand explains why:

This means that the pages are folded over into little booklets called signatures and then the signatures are stitched together. The individual page -- say page 993 -- is actually one of four pages that are printed together on a single sheet, then folded. What's the advantage of this? For one thing, the pages don't fall out with heavy use the way adhesive bindings do. For another, a sewn binding has the potential to be more flexible in the hand.

To be honest, I'm not yet sure what the Bible cover should be made out of. I'm not up on the differences between genuine leather, calfskin and TruTone materials. Rest assured, I'll have an opinion soon and I'll let you know what it is when I discover it.

Summary

Here's the short version of my "perfect" Bible checklist.

• ESV
• Black letter
• Paragraph layout, not verse layout
• 9+ pt font
• Single Column
• No subheadings
• Sewn, not glued, binding

Yes, that's very picky. As I write this, I'm incredibly grateful that I live in a society wealthy enough to enable me to be that picky about my copy of the Bible. I'm thankful that not only do I have access to a complete copy of the Bible -- something that many Christians worldwide still don't have -- but that I can be discriminating about what that copy looks like. As I read each day, I thank God for the text I have and the freedom I have to worship Him.

There are many non-Christians who don't understand either Christianity or Christians. To many skeptics, Christianity seems ludicrous and fanciful. Christians are mocked for being credulous fools, willing to believe anything.

Is it true? Not really. But it can be hard to explain exactly why faith makes sense. Enter Tim Keller's new book The Reason for God.

As the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, Timothy Keller has compiled a list of the most frequently voiced "doubts" skeptics bring to his church as well as the most important reasons for faith. And in The Reason for God, he addresses each doubt and explains each reason.

Keller uses literature, philosophy, real-life conversations, and reasoning to explain how faith in a Christian God is a soundly rational belief, held by thoughtful people of intellectual integrity with a deep compassion for those who truly want to know the truth.

The book's official website even features a video introduction by Tim Keller.

Dr. Keller has been talking about the book in venues across the United States. Recently, he made a stop at Google and talked about his book at the Google Author's Forum. The event -- about an hour long -- is a nice overview of the book and a great example of how to respond to people who are hostile to Christianity. I highly recommend watching it.

I've thought about Scott's comments all week long. He presented a contrast between preaching (reaching out to the unsaved) and teaching (reaching out to the saved).

As I thought about the discussion this week, I noticed something ironic: Blackhawk is Blackhawk Evangelical Free Church. The "E-Free" denomination is supposed to be about the good news of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, we can go many weeks without hearing the name of Jesus mentioned during a sermon. (For instance, Jesus wasn't mentioned in tonight's sermon and he wasn't mentioned in last week's sermon. Will he be mentioned in next week's sermon?)

Because of this, I agree with Scott. I think Blackhawk tends to reach out only to those who already know Jesus. It's right there in our mission statement: "Building a community...". The ultimate goal is for the Blackhawk community to reach out to the broader community (Madison) and present Jesus to Madison. The church community does present Jesus through our actions: the church is involved in multiple charities and service organizations around the city. But the teaching team does not often present Jesus from the pulpit. I think this is a problem.

I think it's a problem for two reasons: the teaching doesn't inform seekers who come in from the community about Jesus, and I think it misses the main thrust of the Bible. I won't spend much time talking about the first point -- it was the main focus of last week's discussion. But I do want to reiterate it: a non-Christian visiting Blackhawk would leave most Sundays without a clear idea of the gospel. As Tim Mackie discussed in the Jephthah sermon, "God" is a word with many different definitions. Ask a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, and a Wiccan who God is, and you'll probably get six different answers. The true, distinctive mark of the Christian faith is Jesus. As I said last week, we are what we are because of Jesus and only because of Jesus. That is the single biggest idea that differentiates Christianity from every other religion on earth. I believe that it must be preached on a regular basis.

I believe that Jesus must be taught on a regular basis. I believe it for three reasons:, it's important, we're forgetful and we need a model. It's important because Scripture says it's important:

[esvbible reference="1 Corinthians 2:1-5" header="on" format="block"]1 Corinthians 2:1-5[/esvbible]

I've always noticed that Paul said the gospel is of first importance. It's not the only important thing in the Bible. But he does think it's the most important thing in the Bible. Instead of telling someone the gospel right before they commit to Jesus, I think we should tell them the gospel on a regular basis, as the foundation of Christianity.

[esvbible reference="1 Corinthians 15:1-3" header="on" format="block"]1 Corinthians 15:1-3[/esvbible]

Notice that Paul says he is reminding the Corinthians about Jesus. We Christians are forgetful people. It's easy to forget how desperately wicked and evil we are apart from Jesus. It's easy to forget that Jesus is the only hope we have for ever seeing heaven. It's easy to forget that we can do nothing good apart from Jesus. I think the old hymn had a lot of wisdom:

Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it

Prone to leave the God I love

I think any good teaching has to lead us back to Jesus on a regular basis. We have to be (or I have to be, at least) regularly reminded of who we love, why we love him, and what he's done for us. Only then can we live the life of good works that he's called us to live.

We also need a model. It's easy to say that we (the Blackhawk community) should be the primary people to communicate Jesus to our friends and neighbors. It's even true: my friends, neighbors, and co-workers are going to trust me a lot more than they're going to trust a pastor from a random church. But how do I share Jesus? How do I relate him to the modern, secular world I live in? How do I tie Jesus to the moral principles that the world loves and yet still talk about the sin that Jesus hated? How do I tie Jesus to every page of Scripture? Pastors can model these discussions through their sermons. If Jesus is relevant to modern life, it should be possible to both effectively teach the Scripture and effectively present Jesus. Through a constant diet of Jesus-filled sermons, I can see how to present Jesus to people I interact with.

I want to see this happen at Blackhawk. I admit to being spoiled. For the past year, I've been listening to the sermons of Pastor Mark Driscoll at Mars Hill Church, Seattle. In every sermon -- every single one -- that he preaches, Pastor Mark presents Jesus as the sole solution to the problems we face. Every week, he presents sin as the root problem and Jesus as the only solution. He preaches practically, but grounds every message in the story of Jesus. It's powerful stuff. And, as I've listened, I've gained more of an understanding of both how to live and how to share Jesus.

Mark Driscoll does have one advantage over the Blackhawk teaching team: the average Mars Hill sermon is 65 minutes long. It's a lot easier to cover ground when you have that much time. I'm not arguing that Blackhawk should look and act exactly like Mars Hill. We live in a different community and in a different culture. But maybe we could learn something about how to present Jesus, even if it is every other sermon instead of every sermon.

Thoughts?

Alternate Title: Sheep Feeding or Adding to the Flock

Hi Joe,

I think your point is well taken, although I see it less as a theological issue at this time and based on the information and more an issue of preference. How do you like that for hedging:) But I'm of mixed minds about the issue, and appreciate the question, as well as the opportunity to respond.

Based on some of our prior conversations, I think it would be fair to say that there is a sentiment that Blackhawk does not consistently present the Gospel in its Sunday sermons that would allow a person with no, limited, or incorrect of Scripture to identify a) who Christ is, b) why it's important to know Christ in general and in the context of the message, and c) what you should do with the knowledge of Christ.

SHEEP FINDING (PREACHING)

I certainly think that it is typically for a sermon message to contain the elements in the above paragraph. It was at the church I grew up in and it is at the church my parents attend. Anyone who walks through the door will, assuming they've listened, heard something about the power of Christ before they've left. Evangelism is the primary goal of the Sunday sermon, or at least the last five minutes.

SHEEP FEEDING (TEACHING)

However, I don't think the absence of those elements make a sermon unsound. Sermons can and should be used to deepen the understanding of Scripture and relate it to our lives today, i.e. that it has meaning, that it does still translate in modernity, that our human condition has not changed. Fundamentally, Matt's sermon illustrates the continuing need for Christ in our lives, although this was not explicitly stated. I think Matt may make the assumption that many of those in attendance get the point.

FINDING AND FEEDING

I don't think the two subjects, finding and feeding, need to be mutually exclusive. A Sunday sermon can address both, but it may not be necessary that it does both, or one or the other, in the name of theological soundness. My concern is the imbalance.

If the message from the pulpit does not help people find Christ explicitly, then this duty should be held by someone and it should be exercised on Sunday during the sermon. Some pastors point out people in the back of the room that are waiting to talk and answer questions, while other churches have "Fireside Rooms" to invite newcomers or those with questions to hear about the Gospel more explicitly. Currently, I do not think that Blackhawk has excelled addressing this issue.

Alternatively, if the pulpit doesn't help people grow in Christ through the effective exposition of Scripture, then the flock can falter. While some would say that this is the purpose of Sunday school, and I would agree, there is a good and useful purpose to the pulpit being used to teach.

CONTINUING DILEMMAS?

I think that there is an imbalance at Blackhawk. The Gospel is not presented in a traditional way in each sermon. There is no Sunday school. There is no immediately visible (to me) means by which a seeker can gather more information and hear the Gospel without taking some risks. In the effort to be welcoming, we may simply be offering a place for a club to meet (not unlike many other churches, whether they preach the Gospel or not). How then is it best done and should it always fall on the pulpit, or should it fall on those that are fed? If so, what direction, motivation, and organization does the flock need to feed others that attend on a Sunday?

After writing last night's post, I sent an e-mail to a friend -- Scott Sager.

A couple of things were running through my mind as I listened to today's sermon.

Do you think I'm off base? I actually talked (very briefly) with Matt after the sermon tonight. He basically said that he wanted to go in a different direction. I'm not very good at actually confronting people, so I don't think I expressed myself as well as I could have. I wasn't mean or anything -- just timid. I'm not exactly sure how a lay person goes about bringing a theological concern to the teaching team.

Anyway -- do you think I have a point?

I've invited him to respond here. I'd like this to be the start of a (hopefully) edifying conversation.

Today's sermon at Blackhawk (in the "The B Team: Book of Judges" series) was on Samson. Matt Metzger preached a wonderful sermon illustrating that Samson was no action hero.

Samson was a narcissistic, selfish man. Everything he did was designed to feed his own ego and legend. He consistently ignored his religious vows and violated the agreement God had made with Israel. From wanting to marry a Philistine women to regularly visiting a Philistine prostitute, he had no respect for God's laws. More than that, he had no desire to use his God-given strength to help his own people. He only used his strength for his own amusement and vengeance.

At this point, Matt turned the message to us. We are no different from Samson. In our natural state, we seek to glorify ourselves not God. In our natural state, we want revenge for whatever wrong's we've suffered. In our natural state, we want to live only for ourselves.

But I don't like where Matt took the sermon next. He didn't point us to Jesus. He didn't tell the good news of the gospel. Instead, he invited us to stop looking out our own tiny story and look at God's big overarching story. He invited us to stop working for our own good and start working for the good of everyone around us. He invited us to join God, in the work of God's kingdom.

That's not bad -- we should work for the good of others. We should join the work of God on earth. We should focus more on the big story of God and less on the tiny stories of ourselves. But it's not the full story. The truth is, we don't have any choice. We all act like Samson. No matter how hard we try, we can never act any differently from Samson. We can try to look at God's big story. Inevitably, we'll find ourselves living out our own tiny stories again and again.

There's only one solution. We need a power stronger than ourselves. We need Jesus. We can only have salvation and change through Jesus's death and resurrection. That is the gospel -- the good news.

[esvbible reference="1 Corinthians 15:3-11" header="on" format="block"]1 Corinthians 15:3-11[/esvbible]

The good news is that Jesus died for our sins and that God brought him back to life. The good news is that Jesus gives us the strength to be different -- the grace of God. Or, put differently,

[esvbible reference="Ezekiel 11:19" header="on" format="block"]Ezekiel 11:19[/esvbible]

God changes us. God makes us different from what we were. God actually makes us into new people.

[esvbible reference="2 Corinthians 5:17" header="on" format="block"]2 Corinthians 5:17[/esvbible]

This is the power of the gospel. This is the power of Christ's death on the cross. We don't have to lift ourselves out of our own story. We don't have to move ourselves into God's story. Jesus will do that for us. Jesus will change us and make us new. Jesus will give us a heart that wants to glorify him, not ourselves.

Samson is not a Biblical hero. Samson is a cautionary tale. Samson lived the empty, meaningless, pointless, violent, lustful life that we all live. In spite of his "religious vows", Samson never actually had faith in God. Samson never once depended on God's strength. Without Jesus, we are all just like Samson.

Because of Jesus -- only because of Jesus -- we don't have to be like Samson. Because of Jesus, we can be reborn and be new men. Because of Jesus, we can look at the world with new eyes and serve the world with a new attitude. But it's only because of Jesus. If we forget that, we forget what makes us strong -- just like Samson.

From Redneck Peril, Lack of Realism in Evan Almighty Dept.:

And it came to pass, in the fourth day of the sixth month, that Noah settled in the land of Massachusettes. And behold, the LORD spake unto Noah and said, "Again hath the earth become wicked, and it repenteth me that ever I made man, and behold, I see the end of all flesh before me. In three years, I shall cause to open the floodgates of heaven, and every living thing that walks on the earth shall perish. But thou, Noah, shalt build thee an ark, and thou and thy family shall I save. Thou shalt take onto the ark two of every living kind of animal; male and female shalt thou take onto the ark with thee, and thus shall I replenish the earth when after I have caused the waters to recede and the dry land again to appear."

And God did give Noah plans for the ark. And God said, "On this day three years hence shall I come to you again. Be thou ready."

And it came to pass that on the appointed day God returned to Noah, in dark clouds and great wind. But Noah was found standing alone before his tent, weeping in dismay, for there was no ark.

And God waxed wroth, and demanded of Noah that he justify himself before God. And Noah pleaded for God's mercy, saying, "Oh LORD, thou knowest that I am now a stranger in the strange land of Massachusettes. And I began to build the ark as thou didst command. But the rulers of this land demanded of me a building permit, and the marshall of fires required of me that I install a sprinkler system, and my neighbors did brandish before mine eyes the covenants of building and did show therein restrictions of height. Therefore did I seek justice from the Development Appeal Board; but they have scheduled my hearing for next month."

There's more. And I love the ending...

Last week, I read an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about church discipline. At the time I read it, I thought that it was more than a little unfair. Not only did the author present church discipline in an entirely negative light, but she somehow found only bad examples, of church discipline, to write about.

Unfortunately, I didn't have time to critique it with the seriousness that the topic deserved. Thankfully, one of the people interviewed for the article has critiqued it.

Confessions of a Pastor: A Wall-Street Journal Hatchet Job:

So when the WSJ reporter called me, I explained its biblical basis, its practical application, and its obvious benefits. I reasoned that, if sin is indeed harmful, the cruelest thing we can do is leave someone in it. Confrontation must always be motivated by a sense of compassion and a desire for reconciliation. Then, to prove the point, I gave her the name and number of a man whom our church disciplined. His testimony is that he would not even be alive today had we not dealt with him as we did. Within the past week Ms. Alter called and interviewed this man and he told her the whole fascinating story.

Notice that she refers to "a passage in the gospel of Matthew," but does not tell her readers that the words are from Jesus. All of her examples of discipline are negative. She did not include a single example which she portrays in a positive light. For this reason neither Buck Run nor I are mentioned in this article because we had nothing but positive things to say. Even the subject of our discipline says the action was not only deserved, but necessary and restorative. Not one word of that testimony is included.

The article is tantamount to being against spanking because some parents abuse their children, or criticizing "time out" because some parents lock their children in the basement.

I have little doubt that discipline is sometimes abused, but frankly the greater and far more frequent problem in contemporary churches is that discipline isn't even discussed--regardless of what Jesus taught. What a shame that a publication the stature of the WSJ would countenance so unbalanced a presentation of the facts.

5000 years of religion in 90 seconds, that is. This is pretty cool.

How has the geography of religion evolved over the centuries, and where has it sparked wars? Our map gives us a brief history of the world's most well-known religions: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Selected periods of inter-religious bloodshed are also highlighted. Want to see 5,000 years of religion in 90 seconds? Ready, Set, Go!

There's something both precious and painful about evenings out with my fellow teachers at school. All of us so clearly desire, and desire badly, to be friends, because we are all living in a foreign country far from home's shores, and we consequently know that the immediately available pool of English-speaking Christians from which we might draw fellowship is limited to -... uh, well, us.

But, we are a motley crew. Thus we are having some trouble clicking. Our only extrovert finds himself faced with the horrifying understanding (perhaps not yet dawned 'pon him; I am unsure) that these people by whom he is surrounded will likely not kick it with him on the weekends, at least to his standards. His two fellow men are introverted bookworms. They quietly wait on the sidelines of table conversation like players in a game to which they do not know the rules. And beside them sits a beautiful and intelligent young, ethnically Korean woman about their age, who - being a fresh graduate of hallowed Bob Jones University on her way to law school - is probably not up for dating, along with a woman (a) easily old enough to be all of their mothers and (b) way cooler than all of them, being a field-hardened missionary to Uganda.

Summarily, this is not the kind of group for which you want to pick a movie.

And then there are our theological differences, which really the LORD Jesus must be praised for, as they're the only reliable topic of conversation upon which we've yet stumbled.

The very fact that we all work for our school means we're each classifiable as Protestant, of course, but whereas the beliefs of the good Catholic are well-defined, "Protestant" is a widely-cast label - nearly as widely-cast as the word "Christian" itself. We run the gamut. The older woman who serves in Uganda is Charismatic. The gentleman hailing from North Carolina is, needless to say, not. Cue fun discussions of whether the Church is still given the gift of speaking in holy tongues or the gift of prophecy, etcetera.

Wherein I occasionally hear something interesting like this:

"Satan can't understand what you're saying to God when you speak in tongues. That's because tongues are of the Spirit and he (Satan) is darkness."

Now I first heard this tidbit of spiritual strategy, actually, from a Filipino teacher who doesn't usually eat out with us - and to be honest, my snooty reaction was to off-handedly dismiss it as a bit of quaint Third World tradition which had somehow latched itself to Christian doctrine. Y'know: "Oh, those backward Filipinos."

So to hear it from a missionary raised in California quite surprised me (less surprising was to hear within the same conversation her confident assertion that Satan, the Prince of Darkness, is a fallen angel - a plausible possibility, but simply not so settled a fact as most Christians seem to believe). What surprises me leads to research. What I research leads to this blog.

QED.

The Devil We Know, The Devil We Don't

To begin with, let's deal with the question of whether the Adversary can understand prayers spoken in tongues: the answer is "Perhaps!", with an understanding that leaning towards "Yes, he can!" is probably the safer bet. No Bible verse concretely addresses the question, which means, to quote my Old Testament professor Dr. Wallace: "We really only know two things: We know I don't know and we know you don't know."

But when "the devil can cite scripture for his purpose," as the Bard once put it (in an allusion to Satan's tempting of Jesus), when he can presumably understand every other language in the world, and when at least one book of the Bible finds him freely conversing with the LORD Himself in Heaven (Job 1-2), it's certainly not unreasonable to suggest he can hear Spirit-breathed language - especially if, as so many would claim, the Devil is a fallen angel, one of a host quite likely knowledgeable concerning any holy tongue. On what Biblical basis are contrary claims made by those who say the holiest of tongues lies on a devil-jamming frequency?

At least the popular concept of Satan as a rebel angel has (ahem) wings. In the Gospel of Luke we are told that our Lord "beheld Satan fall like lightning from heaven." Reference to "angels who sinned" can be found in 2nd Peter 2:4. Jude 1:6, too. And if you Protestants out there are willing to peer outside the canon a bit, you'll find reference to a fallen prince of angels named Satanael in the Slavonic Book of Enoch.

But the most popular passages of Scripture cited as proof of Satan's former archangelic status are useful only when displaced from their contexts. As Wikipedia's entry on "Lucifer" notes:

"Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 are directly concerned with the temporal rulers of Babylon and Tyre, rather than a supernatural being; allegorical readings of these and other passages were typical of medieval scholarship but are usually not considered legitimate in modern critical scholarship. Accordingly, in most modern English versions of the Bible (including the NIV, NRSV, NASB and ESV) the proper noun "Lucifer" is not found; the Hebrew word is rendered "day star", "morning star" or something similar."

It's worth noting, too, that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28:11-19 never refer to anyone as an archangel; if the latter passage was for some reason truly talking about Satan, then the Lord of Darkness would be a cherub.

Bereft of those sources, though, we are left without any canonical origin for the Adversary. In fact, all the Bible is willing to tell us is, ironically enough, that Satan definitely was never a good guy. Note 1 John 3:8, in which it is said that "the devil has been sinning from the beginning," and John 8:44, in which it is said that Satan "was a murderer from the beginning."

1 John 3:8: "He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work."

John 8:44: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

I won't suggest the above verses preclude a fall from Heaven. Revelation 12:9 clearly states otherwise:

"The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him."

So possibly Satan was tossed to Earth prior to "the beginning", as the phrase "the beginning" could just as easily refer only to Man's start rather than Satan's. Maybe it's even just a phrase (how often have we heard someone accused of being "against us from the start"?).

Regardless, here we've come to the Bible's last mention of angels in conjunction with "that ancient serpent". The phrasing might understandably get any member of the Satan As Ex-Angel camp excited; after all, there it is, in black and white. Satan has angels. Michael has angels. They're fighting. Even though the text does not clearly stipulate Satan to be an angel, one can put two-and-two together without a long leap, right?

Well, before we get too carried away, let's remind ourselves what the word "angel" means in both Hebrew and Greek: "messenger". The word implies status rather than race, much like the word "god" itself (a general term we Christians use pretty much exclusively for the LORD of Israel because we don't consider any other being truly worthy of the title, but don't forget that even Moses was once described as "god" to Pharoah). If Satan can be described as "god of this world" (2 Corinthians 4:4), why might his disciples not be described as his own "messengers"? And if the "messengers" herein are indeed fallen servants of the one, true God, does it still necessarily follow that Satan is an angel?

Logically, the answer is "no" - but, of course, that doesn't mean Satan isn't a fallen angel.

It's frustrating, not knowing the answers to the maddening mysteries the Bible often presents us; as unexpected and seemingly contradictory as his presence is in a universe ruled by our Creator, Satan is one of the most tempting targets for which to contrive an explanation. We should never the less resist the urge. False information represented as true is, after all, a lie - and we can be sure that the father of lies will not hesitate to turn new ones about himself to his advantage.

I've made no secret of the fact that Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church Seattle is one of my favorite people to listen to. I've learned a fantastic amount through his sermons and the Holy Spirit has really used him to clarify a lot of ideas for me.

That's why I'm so interested in hearing his upcoming sermon series, tentatively titled "Ask Anything".

Last year, as I was preaching through the book of 1 Corinthians, I was struck by the fact that Paul's letter was in large part a series of answers to various questions he received from the church.

Members of the church at Corinth were so distressed about various factions, controversies, and false doctrines in the church that they visited Paul to seek his counsel (Acts 16:17; 1 Cor. 1:11; 8:1; 11:18). The Corinthian church also sent Paul a letter with a number of questions that they wanted his opinion on. The situation at Corinth escalated so greatly that Paul had Timothy deliver his letter of responses on his behalf (1 Cor. 4:17; 16:10).

Throughout the letter, Paul frequently quotes directly from the letter he received from the Corinthians (e.g., 6:12, 6:13, 8:5, 10:23). He also notifies the reader of when he is transitioning from answering one question to another with the simple phrase "now" (e.g., 7:1, 7:8, 7:25, 8:1, 12:1, 16:1, 16:12).

Paul's example got me to consider what it would be like to do something similar. The result is the upcoming preaching series with the working title Ask Anything. I invite you to get involved and also get the word out by visiting http://askanything.marshillchurch.org/about.

Here are the details:

1. Ask a question about anything you want. There is a 200-character limit for each question, but you can ask as many as you want.
2. Vote for your favorites. You are limited to ten votes per day (which can be given to ten different questions, a single question, or anything in between).
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 until November 1st at 5 PM, PST. At the conclusion of the preliminary stage, no more questions can be submitted; the fifty highest vote-getting questions will then move on to the final stage of voting and carry with them the amount of votes received during preliminary voting.
4. Vote for the top nine questions you want answered. All voting concludes December 14th at 5 PM, PST, and the top nine questions will be confirmed.
5. Come to a Mars Hill campus beginning in January 2008. I will answer the top nine questions in the form of a sermon series: one sermon per question. (sermons will be available for free via podcast, vodcast, and download at www.marshillchurch.org).
6. The questions and answers will also eventually be published as a book I will write for Crossway.

My coverage of several extremely important news stories has prevented me until now from replying to the recent posts of my friend and webmaster Joe - but much like my standing up for terrorists' rights earlier this week, I now find myself wishing I'd acted far more quickly. Perhaps I could have saved Joe some embarrassment.

Embarrassment like this picture.

Or the substantially different but equal embarrassment of my correcting him when he declares, in reaction to news that America's Christian conservatives are considering forming a new party, that

"I’d love to see legitimate competitors to the Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, that would take an election cycle or two to fully emerge. Until then, the only thing a new party would do is pull votes away from Republicans and towards Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama... [and] the next election could have big consequences... Right now, I’ll take a candidate who merely promises to appoint originalist justices to the Supreme Court."

Alas.

The problem with Joe and The Anchoress's assertion that lack of conservative unity in '08 will lead to the Socialist States of America is one of perspective. Is saving our freedom important? Well, it's certainly not a non-issue, but it was never the primary focus of the Christian as portrayed in the New Testament. Despite living lives far more imperiled by an oppressive (and foreign) government than today's Americans, the Christ of the Gospels and His followers in Acts never bothered to chase the political freedoms for which so many of their fellow Jews longed. Jesus pointedly refuses to get caught up in an ongoing tax debate (Matthew 22:21). And if compelled (likely by Roman soldiers, many scholars say) to accompany a man one mile, Jesus recommends in Matthew 5:21 the faithful go with him two.

Clearly, Jesus and His early disciples placed far greater importance on social change "from the ground up" - fixing people's souls rather than fixing the system under which the people lived. Small wonder, too, if one considers their ministry within the context of the Bible's other teachings on the nature of Man; after all, when God has made clear that men are not capable of saving themselves, how useful can a government system created and run by men really be? When God has made clear that the war for Man's immortal self is an internal struggle, rather than dependent on external factors, why expend our limited resources in ultimately fruitless endeavors to sustain a safe environment in which to live?

And they are fruitless endeavors. We American Protestants probably need to be reminded of that more than anybody. Although we rarely say so anymore, many of us still vaguely believe the U.S.A. to somehow be a holy land - a God-loving, God-blessed sidekick to Israel. Its divinely-inspired protector. Its big, protective buddy in the cell block.

This is why in Christian fiction about the end of the world, such as the Left Behind series, the U.S. is usually defeated by the Antichrist rather than a party - or Heaven forbid, the vehicle - to his ascension. This is also why the U.S.A., in some form or other, always happens to still exist in Christian fiction during the end of the world; few of us consider the likelihood that much like the Romans, we're likely little more, ultimately, than a particularly bright flash in the pan, and one which will grow progressively dimmer as History marches farther and farther - who knows how far, before Judgment Day? - past our crumbling remains.

Because we think we're special, a nation-state worth preserving in God's sight. But we aren't. And if the concept of the U.S.A. isn't worth preserving, then why do we American Christians (not "Christian Americans", note) spend so much of our God-given time and energy trying to preserve it?

The answer is, I am told: so we can defend the Church.

After all, in the United States the Church is currently free from persecution, and capable of supporting other churches in more dangerous countries because of that. Children may be educated about their LORD Jesus without fear; so may adults. Surely, any reasonable person might claim such a state of affairs is worth saving.

Which is why it's a good thing people like me are around to provide an alternative to reasonable people - because sometimes they're wrong. Such a state of affairs is not worth having, at least not unconditionally, as its proponents basically suggest when they present us the false dilemma of choosing 'twixt two evils. It makes no sense to seek protection of our spiritual kingdom at the cost of our spiritual integrity; it makes no sense to gain even the whole world, if we lose our souls (Mark 8:36).

So what must we as followers of the Christ do? Dr. Dobson himself actually put it very well in a recent (albeit sickeningly fluffy) interview on Townhall.com.

"You start with a moral principle. You have to make your decisions about who’s going to lead you not on the basis of pragmatics—not on the basis of who can win or who’s ahead in the polls or who has the most money or who’s the most popular. You begin by saying what are the irreducible minimums that I believe in, that I care about; what are the biblical values I cannot compromise."

After that, you don't let a bunch of Chicken Littles scare you into budging from those values. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, President Hillary Clinton will steal what meager treasure you have amassed here on Earth, you remind them that the only treasure you consider important waits for you in Heaven. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, Democrats will decide how to run your health care, you remind them that government-run health care is scarcely persecution of the saints. Should they suggest that if you don't vote Republican, pro-abortion judges will sit on the Supreme Court, you remind them that what they are asking you to do is consider voting for a pro-abortion candidate.

Because it ultimately doesn't matter if the very fate of America is indeed at stake in 2008. Jesus doubtlessly knew His own chosen people were to be crushed and scattered by Rome within fifty years of His ministry's end. Even faced with that looming darkness, however, He did not sacrifice the purity and focus of His ministry.

He did not, and you will not, because you both know that whatever the situation today, you will scarcely remember it an eternity from now, when you walk in the fields sprung up from an old world's ashes.

Jesus set us free from the Law, as any good Christian can tell you (and as any totally awful Christian will most certainly tell you).

So why do we keep making up new ones in its place?

This thought did not come to me because my contract prohibited me from sipping a spot of wine with my meal tonight. Really. I had the hankering for a Coke. But it reminded me anyhow of the basic trap that we as humans repeatedly fall into when given such an alien gift as spiritual freedom.

That is: we think to ourselves, "OK. I'm free! I don't want to sin anymore. So let's see... What's a sin? Well, the Bible says not to get drunk. So that's not right. Now, I know I'm a flawed man, so how am I going to insure that I don't screw up here? I know! I'll make it a rule that I can't even drink a sip of alcohol. After all, it's not like the stuff's essential to one's diet anyway, right? So there's no harm in drinking it... which means that if you want to drink any of it, in fact, you surely are in a manner sinning, because you are unnecessarily courting disaster! And when Jesus said to flee from Sin! Terrible drinkers of alcohol! Mired in their sinful lifestyles!"

Now, ya see? Badabing, badaboom - all of a sudden, the free Christian has created a brand-spankin'-new, iron law, and one preempting something which even Jesus Himself most certainly enjoyed now and then (unless you want to take the laughable position that Jesus and His disciples sipped Welch's).

Though the "free" Christian won't stop there, mind you, oh no; he or she will continue to draw the widest possible radius around every sin in The Book, and eventually term all that he or she has successfully included within the safety circumferences "sin", having of course eventually forgotten to distinguish between his or her safeguards against sin and the sin itself. Now anything which may or may not be unwise, according to one's conscience, is evil.

Smoking a cigarette? That's not just unhealthy and foolish, it's a sin.

Enjoying a waltz with a member of the opposite sex? Good Heavens, People, you're touching each other! Are you trying to tempt the sexual impulses?! Sinners!

Now you're married and having sex - with birth control?

Sinners! Sinners! Sinners!

And - well, I could go on, all the live-long day, but I sincerely doubt I have to. Odds are, you can think up a dozen examples of your own without me.

The Law returns from the grave into which Jesus tossed it when we create a system of draconian rules everyone must follow because, hey, after all, it does solve the problem of alcoholism if nobody is allowed to ever touch alcohol, right? And what about our weaker brothers? "It's only Christian to set a good example!"

As if anyone can seriously believe that's what Paul meant. If Paul truly believed one should exchange one's own entire lifestyle for his or her weaker brother's, He would have recommended Gentiles, in the name of their weaker brothers the Jews, adopt Judaic laws. But he didn't. QED.

Now, nobody is saying that rules do not have their place. Non-adults should be ruled by their parents, as non-adults by very definition lack the necessary discernment to be entrusted with their own spiritual health. Personal rules are certainly OK, too; if you have a strong history of alcoholism in your family, it is probably a very good idea that you steer clear of any fire water, and I'll abstain from drinking in your company to help you out. And authorities should certainly impose those rules necessary for order and safety, in the church and elsewhere. But all of this is a far cry from the rampant reinstatement of legalism we've been seeing for some time now from various parts of Jesus' Kingdom on Earth.

We need to care enough about our good Lord Jesus and ourselves to set boundaries against temptation, yes, but we also need to remember how the Law became so crushing a presence in the first place. The Pharisee law lovers of the New Testament were men and women devoted to the LORD; the mistakes for which Jesus put them on notice are not as alien to us as we'd like to pretend.

Trying to win our own salvation via Law is very tempting, even to those passionate for the Christ. How could it not be? Being free is such a truly strange, and perilous, state in which to find ourselves.

But we should safeguard it anyway, perhaps even as much as our own purity.

It is, after all, what Jesus paid for.

How profane was Paul and what does the command in Exodus 20:7 mean?

Well, Paul could be really profane when the situation warranted and the study of Pauline Scatology is dedicated to understanding how and why he was profane.

"Taking God's name in vain" actually means something entirely different than you think it does. Prosperity preachers, friends of sneezers, and speakers of religious-ese -- watch out!

Pastor C. J. Mahaney, on conflict and how to resolve it.

Cravings and Conflicts

I am so glad that when it comes to relational conflict God doesn't provide mere generalities. He gives us so much more information than, "Sin has occurred" and "It's worse than you think." Now that is accurate and even quite valuable, but it doesn't suggest a solution any more than does "Check Engine" or "Error has occurred." No, God provided James 4:1-2 so that we can identify and confess our specific cravings, receive forgiveness, and begin to weaken our cravings and cultivate righteousness.

Douglas Moo, in his commentary on the letter from James, writes the following:

"With penetrating insight ... James provides us with a powerful analysis of human conflict. Verbal argument, private violence or national conflict -- the cause of them all can be traced back to the frustrated desire to want more than we have, to be envious of and covet what others have, whether it be their position or their possessions" (The Letter of James, p. 184).

This passage offers hope. Our lives need not be an endless, inevitable cycle of unresolved quarrels and fights. Instead, God provides insight and discernment so that we can put to death the sinful craving at the root of every relational conflict.

Between Two Worlds: The Dangers of Culture Warfare Imagery

There is a spiritual component to this battle; and therefore, all our intellectual efforts must express our faithfulness to Christ and must be bathed in prayer. We must never use the weapons of unbelief -- dishonesty, slander, name-calling, and so on. The second danger, related to the first, is that we can forget that the unbeliever is not the person we're fighting against; rather, he is the person we are fighting for: that is, the purpose of all this is to free people from their slavery to the Devil. The third danger that arises is that we can forget that any Christian -- and any Christian church -- always has only a partial grasp of a fully Christian worldview; and even those parts that we grasp rightly, we practice only partly. So some of our "warfare" ought to be against our own imperfections!

Pastor Tim Keller describes sin and idolatry.

Sin isn't only doing bad things, it is more fundamentally making good things into ultimate things. Sin is building your life and meaning on anything, even a very good thing, more than on God. Whatever we build our life on will drive us and enslave us. Sin is primarily idolatry.

...

I do it this way, I take a page from Kierkegaard's The Sickness Unto Death and I define sin as building your identity -- your self-worth and happiness -- on anything other than God. Instead of telling them they are sinning because they are sleeping with their girlfriends or boyfriends, I tell them that they are sinning because they are looking to their careers and romances to save them, to give them everything that they should be looking for in God. This idolatry leads to drivenness, addictions, severe anxiety, obsessiveness, envy of others, and resentment.

Making an idol out of something means giving it the love you should be giving your Creator and Sustainer. To depict sin as not only a violation of law but also of love is more compelling. Of course a complete description of sin and grace includes recognition of our rebellion against God's authority. But I've found that if people become convicted about their sin as idolatry and misdirected love, it is easier to show them that one of the effects of sin is to put them into denial about their hostility to God. In some ways, idolatry is like addiction writ large. We are ensnared by our spiritual idols just like people are ensnared by drink and drugs. We live in denial of how much we are rebelling against God's rule just like addicts live in denial of how much they are trampling on their families and loved ones.

Please do read the whole thing. I found it both thought provoking and convicting.

Jesus Made in America. Did you know there's a Jesus action figure? And that American Christians are snapping it up, apparently oblivious to what this says about the depth of their faith? Intervarsity Press is publishing a book about the trivialization of Jesus, through commercial culture.

Beliefnet: Are Mormons Christian?. Dr. Albert Mohler and Orson Scott Card are debating whether or not Mormons are Christians. So far, both agree that they think the other side is completely wrong. That's actually refreshing to see. Both are arguing that they're side is the only true form of Christianity. It's truly encouraging to see two people agreeing that someone has to be wrong, rather than trying to pretend that everyone can be right.

Web Space Where Religion and Social Networking Meet - New York Times. Did you know that there's a Christian version of MySpace? Or that there's Muslim and Jewish versions? More evidence that many Christians seek to withdraw from culture (while imitating it!), rather than engaging it.

Texas Supreme Court Backs Pastor Over His Publicizing of Affair - New York Times. The Texas Supreme Court has upheld the concept of church discipline. This is a good precedent. Churches need to be free to discipline their members. If they can't, the entire concept of church membership and church discipline becomes meaningless.

Several weeks ago, Pastor John Piper preached a message entitled The Triumph of the Gospel in the New Heavens and the New Earth. I started listening to it yesterday. One portion in particular really caught my attention. I'm guilty of not taking sin anywhere near as seriously as it should be taken. This message really gives me something to think about.

The Unendurable Sight of Suffering

So the big picture in outline form: God created the universe out of nothing; it was all very good the way he made it; it had no flaws, no suffering, no pain, no death, no evil; then Adam and Eve did something in their hearts that was so horrifyingly evil -- so unspeakably wicked, preferring the fruit of a tree to fellowship with God -- that God not only sentenced them to death (Genesis 2:17), but also subjected the entire creation to what Paul called "futility" and "bondage to corruption" (Romans 8:21-22).

In other words, whereas once there was no suffering or pain or death, now every human dies, every human suffers, animals suffer, rivers overflow their banks suddenly and sweep villages away, avalanches bury skiers, volcanoes destroy whole cities, a tsunami kills 250,000 people in one night, storms sink Philippine ferries with 800 people on board, AIDS and malaria and cancer and heart disease kill millions of people old and young, a monster tornado takes out an entire Midwestern town, droughts and famines bring millions to the brink -- or over the brink -- of starvation. Freak accidents happen, and the son of a friend falls into a grain elevator and dies. Another loses an eye. And a baby is born with no face. If we could see one ten-thousandth of the suffering of the world at any given moment, we would we would collapse under the horror of it all. Only God can endure that sight and carry on.

The Horror of Sin Pictured in Creation's Futility

Why did God subject the natural order to such futility because of the sin of human beings? The natural order did not sin. Humans sinned. But Paul said, "The creation was subjected to futility." The creation was put in "bondage to corruption." Why? God said, "Cursed be the ground because of you" (Genesis 3:17). But why? Why are there natural disasters in creation in response to moral failures in man? Why not just simple death for all the guilty offspring of Adam? Why this bloody kaleidoscope of horrific suffering century after century? Why so many children with heart-wrenching disabilities?

My answer is that God put the natural world under a curse so that the physical horrors we see around us in diseases and calamities would become vivid pictures of how horrible sin is. In other words, natural evil is a signpost pointing to the unspeakable horror of moral evil.

God disordered the natural world because of the disorder of the moral and spiritual world -- that is, because of sin. In our present fallen condition, with our hearts so blinded to the exceeding wickedness of sin, we cannot see or feel how repugnant sin is. Hardly anyone in the world feels the abhorrent evil that our sin is. Almost no one is incensed or nauseated at the way they belittle the glory of God. But let their bodies be touched with pain, and God is called to give an account of himself. We are not upset at the way we injure his glory, but let him injury our little pinky finger and all our moral outrage is aroused. Which shows how self-exalting and God-dethroning we are.

The Trumpet Blast of Physical Pain

Physical pain is God's blast with a physical trumpet to tell us that something is dreadfully wrong morally and spiritually. Diseases and deformities are Satan's pride. But in God's overruling providence, they are God's portraits of what sin is like in the spiritual realm. That is true even though some of the most godly people bear those deformities. Calamities are God's previews of what sin deserves and will one day receive in judgment a thousand times worse. They are warnings.

O that we could all see and feel how repugnant, how offensive, how abominable it is to prefer anything to our Maker, to ignore him and distrust him and demean him and give him less attention in our hearts than we do the carpet on our living room floor. We must see this, or we will not turn to Christ for salvation from sin, and we will not want heaven for any reason but relief. And to want heaven for relief is to be excluded.

Wake Up! Sin Is Like This!

Therefore God, mercifully, shouts to us in our sicknesses and pain and calamities: Wake up! Sin is like this! Sin leads to things like this. (See Revelation 9:20; 16:9, 11.) Preferring television to fellowship with God is like this. Desiring relief in heaven, but not desiring the Redeemer, is like this. The natural world is shot through with horrors that aim to wake us from the dream world of thinking that demeaning God is no big deal. It is a horrifically big deal.

I preached this truth at Bethlehem on the fourth anniversary of Nine-Eleven, knowing that there were people in our church dealing with terrible suffering. Two or three weeks later, I was in a pre-service prayer meeting with our folks, and one of the young mothers of a severely disabled child prayed, "Dear Lord, help me to feel the horror of sin the way I feel the horror of my son's disability."