That’s the question that the InternetMonk asks in a column over the weekend. His summary:

The Gospel is relevant. Our methods can’t be irrelevant, but they have to allow the relevance of Christ to come to the forefront.

Amen, brother.

That’s the question that the InternetMonk asks in a column over the weekend. His summary:

The Gospel is relevant. Our methods can’t be irrelevant, but they have to allow the relevance of Christ to come to the forefront.

Amen, brother.

That’s the question that the InternetMonk asks in a column over the weekend. His summary:

The Gospel is relevant. Our methods can’t be irrelevant, but they have to allow the relevance of Christ to come to the forefront.

Amen, brother.

Albert Mohler raises some questions today about Joel Osteen’s theology.

The first question is this — Would anyone watching his television program, or sitting in his vast church facility, hear in Mr. Osteen’s message a clear and undiluted message of Gospel proclamation? Would this person have any reason, based on hearing Mr. Osteen’s message, to know himself as a sinner and to understand how the cross of Christ is the only ground of his salvation? Would he come to know that Jesus the Christ is fully human and fully divine, and that He came in order that we might have everlasting life — not just a good parking space?

My friend John watches (and apparently enjoys) Osteen from time to time, describing him as the “dinner mint” – light and unoffensive, a nice refresher after a heavier dinner. I haven’t watched enough of Osteen to really be allowed an opinion, but what bothers me more is that there are thousands of people for whom his saccharine sermons are the only spiritual food they ingest during the week. It’s not enough.

HT: Michael Spencer at Boar’s Head Tavern

Michael Spencer has Postcard To a Young Theologian #4 out today.

4. Determine to be part of a community where the concept of leadership is fully New Testament in its understanding of the relation of clergy and laity, and is free from the exaggerated and harmful adoration/veneration of personalities so common in unhealthy groups.

Parts 1 – 3.

Michael Spencer (aka iMonk) has a nice little series over at internetmonk.com entitled “Postcards to a Young Theologian”. There’s some good stuff there for theologians of all ages. It’s primarily aimed at Calvinists, but there’s stuff there for everybody.

Part 1: Introduction.

Part 2: Be suspicious of guilt that comes from crossing the perceived boundaries of a group.

Part 3: Be honest: Does the logic of a group eventually conclude that other Christians are, in fact, not true believers at all?

Worth the time to read.

I was thinking through some songs that we haven’t sung for a while in church, and this issue came to mind, so I thought I’d share it here. One of my main criterion when selecting songs for the church to sing (and I plan the music for almost every week) is that they be theologically sound. This manages to disqualify a substantive number of modern praise songs, and a suprising number of older hymns from our hymnal. I might go so far as to say that this is my primary criterion. Certainly there are others; singability is right up there. But theological correctness has got to be at the top of the list.

So we come to today’s topic: the old chorus “Create In Me A Clean Heart”. The text is pretty much straight from Psalm 51:

Create in me a clean heart oh God,
And renew a right spirit within me.
Create in me a clean heart oh God,
And renew a right spirit within me.

And cast me not away from Thy presence oh Lord,
And take not Thy Holy Spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation,
And renew a right spirit within me.

My theological nit is with the fifth and sixth lines. When David penned these words some 1500 years before Christ, the threat of having the Holy Spirit taken from him was quite a real one; he had seen a similar thing happen to Saul when Saul rebelled against God. At that time the Holy Spirit didn’t indwell all those who believed in God, but God specifically directed the Spirit to rest on certain people at certain times. But now we’re after Pentecost, and so those that believe are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit remains as a seal of our salvation. We’re not in danger of having God take it away.

So on to my theological question. While I love the submissive attitude of the first part of this chorus, I have real questions about singing those two lines, because I think they represent a fear or concern that we shouldn’t have. Is this an appropriate distinction to make? Or am I being overly picky? Your thoughts are appreciated.

I’ve been reading several different books recently, and a discussion with Becky last night brought a bunch of them together in a way that helped clarify my thoughts a bit. Hopefully I can bring some of that clarity into this post.

As a person who grew up within the church and has been a believer for as long as I can remember, one of the things that’s been most difficult for me to understand is this: why would a non-believer be motivated to become a Christian? What’s the appeal? Now, you Calvinists out there will tell me that God has ordained it and its irresistible. I don’t want to get into that argument. I don’t disagree with you… much. But I’ve just never understood the appeal of the message to non-believers who are living basic, normal lives.

Last night Becky and I were talking over the passage from Acts that had been part of our reading for the day. (I don’t want that to sound too much like we’ve got it all together – we’re trying once again to get daily devotions started, and it’s tough, as always.) Becky’s comment on Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was that it sounded wild, far-out, hard-to-believe… why would anybody be attracted to that story? It is a good question. Why would anybody be attracted to the story of a man who claimed to come from God, be God himself, who died, purportedly rose from the dead, etc? Qui bono? Who benefits?

That got me started thinking through some of the C. S. Lewis I’ve been reading lately. Actually, I’m reading The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi Jr. This Harvard professor compares and contrasts the lives and teachings of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud. It’s a good book, especially for those seekers who want to reason through the issues. Mostly it whets my appetite to go back and read Lewis again, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, God in the Dock… good stuff. Anyway, back to my thought process.

Readers of Mere Christianity will remember that Lewis’ starting point for reasoning that there is a God is an argument from conscience; he argues that each of us has an inborn moral compass that understands that there is a moral standard. Right along with that is the fact that each of us transgresses that moral standard on a regular basis, which causes us problems with our fellow man and internal guilt.

So what’s the appeal of the gospel message? I’m starting to think that I’d start it off like this: “Things aren’t right.” I think that’s a place we can all agree on to start. Things aren’t right in the world, and things aren’t right with me personally. This causes pain, grief, guilt, death. Now let’s look at the grand sweep of the redemptive story that runs from Genesis to Revelation. God creates everything. Man corrupts it. Things aren’t right. Now here’s the beauty of the message: the whole rest of the story is about God’s work to make things right again. That is the message of the gospel.

Once we understand that, then we can get into details. Sin requires a sacrifice. Jesus once for all became that sacrifice in our place, and then conquered death by rising from the dead. One day He will establish a perfect kingdom, one where sin is done away with and things are right.

Now that’s a story I can get excited about. And I can understand why that story would resonate with the unbelieving world. We all understand things aren’t right. May God allow those unbelievers around us to to understand that He holds the solution to the problem.

I’ve been reading several different books recently, and a discussion with Becky last night brought a bunch of them together in a way that helped clarify my thoughts a bit. Hopefully I can bring some of that clarity into this post.

As a person who grew up within the church and has been a believer for as long as I can remember, one of the things that’s been most difficult for me to understand is this: why would a non-believer be motivated to become a Christian? What’s the appeal? Now, you Calvinists out there will tell me that God has ordained it and its irresistible. I don’t want to get into that argument. I don’t disagree with you… much. But I’ve just never understood the appeal of the message to non-believers who are living basic, normal lives.

Last night Becky and I were talking over the passage from Acts that had been part of our reading for the day. (I don’t want that to sound too much like we’ve got it all together – we’re trying once again to get daily devotions started, and it’s tough, as always.) Becky’s comment on Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was that it sounded wild, far-out, hard-to-believe… why would anybody be attracted to that story? It is a good question. Why would anybody be attracted to the story of a man who claimed to come from God, be God himself, who died, purportedly rose from the dead, etc? Qui bono? Who benefits?

That got me started thinking through some of the C. S. Lewis I’ve been reading lately. Actually, I’m reading The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi Jr. This Harvard professor compares and contrasts the lives and teachings of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud. It’s a good book, especially for those seekers who want to reason through the issues. Mostly it whets my appetite to go back and read Lewis again, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, God in the Dock… good stuff. Anyway, back to my thought process.

Readers of Mere Christianity will remember that Lewis’ starting point for reasoning that there is a God is an argument from conscience; he argues that each of us has an inborn moral compass that understands that there is a moral standard. Right along with that is the fact that each of us transgresses that moral standard on a regular basis, which causes us problems with our fellow man and internal guilt.

So what’s the appeal of the gospel message? I’m starting to think that I’d start it off like this: “Things aren’t right.” I think that’s a place we can all agree on to start. Things aren’t right in the world, and things aren’t right with me personally. This causes pain, grief, guilt, death. Now let’s look at the grand sweep of the redemptive story that runs from Genesis to Revelation. God creates everything. Man corrupts it. Things aren’t right. Now here’s the beauty of the message: the whole rest of the story is about God’s work to make things right again. That is the message of the gospel.

Once we understand that, then we can get into details. Sin requires a sacrifice. Jesus once for all became that sacrifice in our place, and then conquered death by rising from the dead. One day He will establish a perfect kingdom, one where sin is done away with and things are right.

Now that’s a story I can get excited about. And I can understand why that story would resonate with the unbelieving world. We all understand things aren’t right. May God allow those unbelievers around us to to understand that He holds the solution to the problem.

I’ve been reading several different books recently, and a discussion with Becky last night brought a bunch of them together in a way that helped clarify my thoughts a bit. Hopefully I can bring some of that clarity into this post.

As a person who grew up within the church and has been a believer for as long as I can remember, one of the things that’s been most difficult for me to understand is this: why would a non-believer be motivated to become a Christian? What’s the appeal? Now, you Calvinists out there will tell me that God has ordained it and its irresistible. I don’t want to get into that argument. I don’t disagree with you… much. But I’ve just never understood the appeal of the message to non-believers who are living basic, normal lives.

Last night Becky and I were talking over the passage from Acts that had been part of our reading for the day. (I don’t want that to sound too much like we’ve got it all together – we’re trying once again to get daily devotions started, and it’s tough, as always.) Becky’s comment on Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was that it sounded wild, far-out, hard-to-believe… why would anybody be attracted to that story? It is a good question. Why would anybody be attracted to the story of a man who claimed to come from God, be God himself, who died, purportedly rose from the dead, etc? Qui bono? Who benefits?

That got me started thinking through some of the C. S. Lewis I’ve been reading lately. Actually, I’m reading The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi Jr. This Harvard professor compares and contrasts the lives and teachings of C. S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud. It’s a good book, especially for those seekers who want to reason through the issues. Mostly it whets my appetite to go back and read Lewis again, Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, God in the Dock… good stuff. Anyway, back to my thought process.

Readers of Mere Christianity will remember that Lewis’ starting point for reasoning that there is a God is an argument from conscience; he argues that each of us has an inborn moral compass that understands that there is a moral standard. Right along with that is the fact that each of us transgresses that moral standard on a regular basis, which causes us problems with our fellow man and internal guilt.

So what’s the appeal of the gospel message? I’m starting to think that I’d start it off like this: “Things aren’t right.” I think that’s a place we can all agree on to start. Things aren’t right in the world, and things aren’t right with me personally. This causes pain, grief, guilt, death. Now let’s look at the grand sweep of the redemptive story that runs from Genesis to Revelation. God creates everything. Man corrupts it. Things aren’t right. Now here’s the beauty of the message: the whole rest of the story is about God’s work to make things right again. That is the message of the gospel.

Once we understand that, then we can get into details. Sin requires a sacrifice. Jesus once for all became that sacrifice in our place, and then conquered death by rising from the dead. One day He will establish a perfect kingdom, one where sin is done away with and things are right.

Now that’s a story I can get excited about. And I can understand why that story would resonate with the unbelieving world. We all understand things aren’t right. May God allow those unbelievers around us to to understand that He holds the solution to the problem.