The BBC reported recently, concerning the recent revelations of more sex abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, "It is like a tsunami." Elke Huemmeler said “About 120 cases had come to light so far in Munich, about 100 of them at a boarding school run by monks.”

Hans Küng, long-time Roman Catholic critic of his own church (whose right to teach theology the church rescinded), has posted a challenge to the Pope. In it he says, “In Germany 86 percent of Roman Catholics charge the church's leadership with insufficient willingness to come to grips with the problem.”

Then he asks and answers these four questions:

1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church?

2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other?

3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame?

4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk.

He concludes quoting Bishop Tebartz van Elst of Limburg, “Conversion and repentance begin when guilt is openly admitted, when contrition is expressed in deeds and manifested as such, when responsibility is taken, and the chance for a new beginning is seized upon.”

HT: Carl Trueman

Today is David Livingstone’s birthday. He was born March 19, 1813. He gave his life to serve Christ in the exploration of Africa for the sake of the access of the gospel.

On December 4, 1857, he spoke the sentence that has made the greatest impact on me. It is one of the clearest applications I have seen of Jesus’ words in Mark 10:29-30. Jesus said,

Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Here is what Livingstone said to the Cambridge students about his “leaving” the benefits of England:

For my own part, I have never ceased to rejoice that God has appointed me to such an office. People talk of the sacrifice I have made in spending so much of my life in Africa. . . . Is that a sacrifice which brings its own blest reward in healthful activity, the consciousness of doing good, peace of mind, and a bright hope of a glorious destiny hereafter? Away with the word in such a view, and with such a thought! It is emphatically no sacrifice. Say rather it is a privilege. Anxiety, sickness, suffering, or danger, now and then, with a foregoing of the common conveniences and charities of this life, may make us pause, and cause the spirit to waver, and the soul to sink; but let this only be for a moment. All these are nothing when compared with the glory which shall be revealed in and for us. I never made a sacrifice.

(Cited in Samuel Zwemer, "The Glory of the Impossible" in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, Ralph Winter and Stephen Hawthorne, eds. [Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1981], p. 259. Emphasis added.)

A Song for Molly and Abraham
On Seeing Baby A and Baby B

We cried,
“How long, O Lord, how long
   will we be made to wait, and swallow jagged shards
      of that unchristened chalice
         of whose warm wine we never took a taste
            and all we drank was emptiness unplanned?”

And he replied,
“Until you learn the song
   that only sorrow sings, of how my soul regards
      your ev’ry wound, and malice
         has no place in my design, but all is paced
            to come with double blessings in my hand.”

Don’t limit your understanding of God’s absolute sovereignty to five points in a mnemonic device (TULIP). Do start there, or at least cover that terrain in due course, but know that there is so much more to the full biblical worldview sometimes called Calvinism.

In the introductory essay that I referred to yesterday, J. I. Packer says, “it would not be correct to simply equate Calvinism with the ‘five points.’” He continues, (paragraphing added)

Calvinism is something much broader than the “five points” indicate.

Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world’s Maker and King.

Calvinism is the consistent endeavour to acknowledge the Creator as the Lord, working all things after the counsel of His will.

Calvinism is a theocentric way of thinking about all life under the direction and control of God’s own Word.

Calvinism, in other words, is the theology of the Bible viewed from the perspective of the Bible—the God-centred outlook which sees the Creator as the source, and means, and end, of everything that is, both in nature and in grace.

Calvinism is thus theism (belief in God as the ground of all things), religion (dependence on God as the giver of all things), and evangelicalism (trust in God through Christ for all things), all in their purest and most highly developed form.

And Calvinism is a unified philosophy of history which sees the whole diversity of processes and events that take place in God’s world as no more, and no less, than the outworking of His great preordained plan for His creatures and His church.

The five points assert no more than that God is sovereign in saving the individual, but Calvinism, as such, is concerned with the much broader assertion that He is sovereign everywhere.

Read Packer's full essay.

In his introductory essay to John Owen’s The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, J. I. Packer writes that Calvinism and Arminianism are “two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other. The difference between them is not primarily one of emphasis, but of content.”

Packer continues, (paragraphing added)

One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God who enables man to save himself.

One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind—election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Spirit—as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly.

The other view gives each act a different reference (the objects of redemption being all mankind, of calling, those who hear the gospel, and of election, those hearers who respond), and denies that any man’s salvation is secured by any of them.

The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms.

One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on a work of man; one regards faith as part of God’s gift of salvation, the other as man’s own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory of saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God, who, so to speak, built the machinery of salvation, and man, who by believing operated it.

Plainly these differences are important, and the permanent value of the “five points,” as a summary of Calvinism, is that they make clear the points at which, and the extent to which, these two conceptions are at variance.

Psalm 58 is an imprecatory psalm. David asks God to tear out the fangs of his enemies, blunt their arrows, melt them like a snail in the sun.

We sometimes stumble at these psalms because Jesus said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” (Luke 6:27).

Can humble, obedient, loving Christians ever pray Psalm 58 and mean it the way the psalmist did?

Yes. Here is one possible scenario.

The wicked in view “deal out violence on the earth” (v. 2). They have resisted every remedial effort. They are entrenched and unwilling to listen—like cobras who stop their ears lest they be charmed into meekness (vv. 4-5).

So day after day their violence destroys the poor and the weak. Now there are two groups to be loved: the slaughterers and the about-to-be-slaughtered.

You see them coming to your town with their machetes. They have hacked hundreds of women and children to pieces in previous towns. They are terrifying to watch. What do you pray?

Of course you desire that they lay down their machetes, repent, and become your brothers. You have prayed that many times. You may have risked your life to offer that. But now fierce violence is in their eyes and they are about to chop the hands and legs off the children, and disembowel the women.

How does love for the women and children pray? It may well pray ,

Knock the fangs out of their mouths, O Lord (v. 6). May they disburse like water running away (v. 7a). May their machetes be dull and never find their mark (v. 7b). May the rising sun melt them like a snail, too slow to do its deadly work (v.8a). May they arrive at the house of the innocent like a stillborn child (v. 8b). O God, save the poor from the violence of the wrong.

And what if God answers? What if, by some amazing intervention, instead of dismembered babies, the violent themselves lie fallen in the street?

What will the righteous do? They will rejoice (v. 10). The red blood of those who slaughtered the innocent will be like the sunrise on a day of deliverance. The righteous will bask in its warmth (v. 10b).

And, if they have eyes to see, the world will say, “Surely there is a God who judges on earth” (v. 11). The innocent have been well loved.

When it says the righteous rejoice at the destruction of the enemy (v. 10a), it does not say what else they may feel. There may be sorrow as well—human beings in the image of God had destroyed and been destroyed—both horrible. It is possible to rejoice and weep over the same event.

According to the New York Times “The Tea Party leaders . . . deliberately avoid discussion of issues like . . . abortion. . . . [They] argue that the country can ill afford the discussion about social issues when it is passing on enormous debts to future generations.”

Let me see if I understand this term “ill afford”.

Is this it? Enormous debt will hurt our children and grandchildren. Therefore don’t talk about the lawfulness of whether they can be killed.

Something like that?

Suspected Islamist militants stormed an office of a U.S.-based, Christian aid agency [World Vision] in Pakistan on Wednesday, killing six Pakistani aid workers after singling them out and then blowing up the building. (Read full article from Reuters)

From the World Vision website:

Please pray for World Vision's staff members in Pakistan, and the friends and loved ones of those who were attacked. Pray for God's protection on our workers there, and pray that our relief and development efforts in this country can continue soon.

On September 13, 1980, Charles Malik gave an address called “The Two Tasks” at the opening of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College. He was the Lebanese Ambassador to the United States. The message was so seminal that in 2006 (his centenary) it was republished with a collection of essays built around it. What strikes us as he stands to speak is the personal dimension and the public scope of his Christian commitment.

I speak to you as a Christian. Jesus Christ is my Lord and God and Savior and Song day and night. I can live without food, without drink, without sleep, without air, but I cannot live without Jesus. Without him I would have perished long ago. Without him and his church reconciling men to God, the world would have perished long ago. I live in and on the Bible for long hours every day. The Bible is the source of every good thought and impulse I have. In the Bible God himself, the Creator of everything from nothing, speaks to me and to the world directly, about himself, about ourselves, and about his will for the course of events and for the consummation of history. And believe me, not a day passes without my crying from the bottom of my heart, ‘Come, Lord Jesus.’

Charles Malik (1906-1987), Lebanon's ambassador to the USA (1945-55), President of the UN General Assembly (1958-59), professor of philosophy at the American University of Beirut (1962-76). Quoted from “The Two Tasks” in The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar: Redeeming the Soul, Redeeming the Mind, eds. William Lane Craig and Paul M. Gould (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007), p. 55.

Scott Simon interviewed the Jesuit priest James Martin on NPR Saturday morning, March 6. Martin just published The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything: A Spirituality for Real Life (Harper One, 2010). The last question Simon asked was this: “If there is a God, why do little children suffer?”

Martin answered, “That is the hardest question, and I think the answer is, we don’t know.” To his credit, Martin did go on to say that, for the Christian, Christ has entered into our suffering and gives consolation. He also asks wisely, “Can we believe in a God whose ways we don’t understand?” He answers Yes.

I am glad that Martin pointed to Christ’s sufferings. And I am glad he affirmed that we can believe in a God whose ways may be inscrutable to us. But the Bible does not want us to say “We don’t know,” when the overarching Why questions are asked about suffering and death.

It is true, we may not know for sure why any particular child suffers in this particular way. But the Bible wants us to speak what it says about death and suffering.

Why do little children suffer and die? We ask it with the awareness that it is happening this very moment by the hundreds, and we ask it through tears of personal experience and empathy. Here is one biblical answer: “Just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—” (Romans 5:12).

Death came into the world through sin.

That is the fundamental biblical answer for where all suffering and death came from. Or to use the words of Romans 8:20, “The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope.”

In other words, because of sin, God subjected the entire creation to the futility of mortality with all its suffering and death. The whole creation groans under the judgment.

If the interviewer says, “That seems a bit harsh, to bring the whole creation under the judgment of suffering and death, including little children, because of one man’s sin?” we answer,

“That is how outrageous sin against an infinitely wise and good and holy God is. We don’t measure the outrage of our suffering by how insignificant we think sin is; we measure the outrage of sin by the scope of suffering.

The really amazing thing is that you and I, as sinners, are sitting here talking, when we deserve to be in hell. God is remarkably patient. And he gave his Son to die in our place so that everyone who believes may escape from this judgment and have eternal life.”

I just read Numbers 7 on my annual way through the Bible. I read every word. It is one of the longest, most repetitive chapters in the Bible.

From verse 12 to verse 83 Moses describes the offerings that each of the twelve tribes of Israel brought to the tabernacle when it was first dedicated to the Lord.

But here’s the amazing thing. There are 93 words in the description of what each tribe brought as an offering. And all 93 words are repeated verbatim for each of the 12 tribes. Twelve times he says exactly the same thing. Twelve times! Exactly the same 93-word description for each tribe’s offering!

Why?

Gordon Wenham answers: “It seems likely that a theological purpose underlies his wordiness.”

The purpose he says is “to emphasize as strongly as possible that every tribe had an equal stake in the worship of God, and that each was fully committed to the support of the tabernacle and its priesthood.” (Numbers, p. 93)

Yes. But let the method of emphasis sink in. Moses could have used Wenham’s words and saved time, space, and tedium. He could have said, “Every tribe has an equal stake in worship and all are to be fully committed to the tabernacle.” That’s 18 words. But he used 12 x 93 = 1,116 words.

Here are some lessons:

• There are times when you look into every child’s eyes and say the same important thing. You don’t say the precious thing to one and then sweep over the others: “That applies to all of you.”
• These tribes are not equal. Some are larger. Some have sordid legacies. But everyone heard every word of God’s plan for their approach to God. Every one. Every word. Identical.
• Efficiency is not always the highest value. Slow, long, repetitions are sometimes the best way to make an impact.
• Patience in reading God’s word may be a test of the frenzy of our pace and our demanding attitude toward the Bible that it be the way we want, not the way God made it.

The video below is a message I gave last Monday in chapel at Westmont College. It is a rethinking of an old idea. I used to ask, How is it loving for God to make so much of himself and do everything for his glory? Now I ask: Why does God reveal his love for us in such a way that it turns out to be for his glory?

Or: I used to say: Do you feel more loved when God makes much of you or when he frees you to enjoy making much of him? Now I say, “Why does God make so much of us in a way that winds up making much of him?”

It may not sound very different. But I think many will feel a significant shift. See if it helps.

William Wilberforce was driven in his political, emancipation efforts by a clear doctrinal understanding of what Christianity was. Pray that those today who care deeply about social justice will be as vigilant to righteous action in right thinking.

He was especially jealous to keep clear the right relationship between good works and justification. Notice especially his third statement below about what Christianity is.

Wilberforce said, "Christianity is:

• a scheme "for justifying the ungodly" [Romans 4:5], by Christ’s dying for them "when yet sinners" [Romans 5:6-8],
• a scheme "for reconciling us to God"—when enemies [Romans 5:10];
• and for making the fruits of holiness the effects, not the cause, of our being justified and reconciled."

William Wilberforce, A Practical View of Christianity, ed. Kevin Charles Belmonte (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), p. 64. Emphasis added, but the capitalization is his emphasis.

Genesis chapters 37-41 only tell the low and high points of Joseph’s Egyptian slavery and imprisonment. But he spent at least 12 years there before he suddenly became Prime Minister. And during that terribly lonely, desolate time, things seemed to go from bad to worse.

This imaginative reflection takes place about 9 years into his sojourn.

*               *               *

Darkness had swallowed the light again. Joseph dreaded the night in this foul Egyptian hellhole. It was hard to fight off the relentless hopelessness as he awaited the escape of sleep.

Day after monotonous day passed with no sign of change. The familiar desperation surged hot in his chest. His youth was seeping out the cracks of his cage. He was pacing in his soul. Joseph wanted to scream.

Fists to his forehead he pleaded again with God in the dark for deliverance.

And he remembered. It was the remembering that kept his hope alive and bitterness at bay.

He rehearsed the stories of God that had filled him with awe as a child. God had promised Great-grandfather, Abraham, a child by his barren wife. But he made them wait an agonizing 25 years before giving them Grandfather Isaac. And God had promised Grandmother Rebekah that her older twin, Uncle Esau, would serve the younger twin, Father Jacob. But God had mysteriously woven human deception and immorality into his plan to make that happen.

Jacob’s smile filled Joseph’s mind. O Father. He covered his mouth to choke back his sobs. It had been 9 years since he last saw that dear face. Would he ever again? Was Father still alive?

He felt something crawl across his leg. Leaping up, he brushed himself off. He shook out the mat. A shiver ran down his spine. Joseph hated spiders. 

Laying back down he remembered how Father Jacob had been caught in his Uncle Laban’s manipulative web for 20 long years. Yet God was faithful to his word and eventually delivered Jacob and brought him back to the Promised Land a wealthy man.

And then there were those strange dreams. They had been unusually powerful, unlike any others before or since. He felt ambivalent about them. They likely were the reason he was now in Egypt. His brothers’ envy of his father’s favor turned homicidal when he inferred that he had God’s favor as well.

Distant screams let Joseph know another fight had broken out in the barracks. It made him grateful for his private cell, the favor bestowed on the chief scribe to the warden.

He smiled at the irony of this “favor.” His brothers would love this if they knew. He seemed about as far away from what those dreams foretold as he could be.

Yet, as foolish as it seemed right now, Joseph could not shake the deep conviction that God meant to bring those dreams to pass. And he could not deny the strange pattern he saw in God’s dealings with his forebears. God made stunning promises and then ordained time and circumstances to work in such ways as to make the promises seem impossible to fulfill. And then God moved.

The common thread Joseph traced through all the stories, the one thing God seemed to honor and bless more than anything else, was faith. Abraham trusted God’s word. Isaac trusted God’s word. Rebekah trusted God’s word. Jacob trusted God’s word. All of them ultimately saw God’s faithfulness to his promises, despite circumstances and their own failings.

Faith-fueled peace doused the anxious fire in Joseph’s chest. “I trust you, my God,” he whispered. “Like my forefathers, I will wait for you. I have no idea what my being in an Egyptian prison has to do with your purposes. But I will keep honoring you here where you have placed me. Bring your word to pass as it seems best to you. I am yours. Use me!”

*               *               *

In the biblical account it’s tempting to only see Joseph’s heroic character and achievements. But God does not want us to miss the largely silent, desperate years Joseph endured.

Imagine the pain of his brothers’ betrayal, the separation from his father, the horror of slavery, the seduction and false accusation by Potiphar’s wife, and the desperation he felt as his youth passed away in prison.

Sometimes faithfulness to God and his word sets us on a course where circumstances get worse, not better. It is then that knowing God’s promises and his ways are crucial. Faith in God’s future grace for us is what sustains us in those desperate moments.

We all love the fairytale ending of Joseph’s story. And we should, because Joseph’s life is a foreshadowing of a heavenly reality. God sent his Son to die and be raised in order to set his children “free indeed” (John 8:36). There is coming a day when those who are faithful, even to death (Revelation 2:10) will hear, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master” (Matthew 25:21).

Our current circumstances, however dismal or successful, are not our story’s end. They are chapters in a much larger story that really does have a happily ever after.

Some Bible passages make crystal clear what we must not assume when reading other Bible passages. For example, consider Exodus 33:13 where Moses prays to God,

If I have found favor in your sight,
please show me now your ways,
that I may know you,
in order to find favor in your sight.

What this verse prevents us from assuming is that, if God’s favor is conditional, it is therefore not unconditional.

Or to put it another way, the verse prevents us from assuming that, if God’s favor is unconditional, it is not therefore conditional.

Knowing God through knowing his ways is the condition of finding favor in his sight in the future. “Please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight.”

And finding favor in God’s sight is the unconditional ground of knowing God through knowing his ways. “If I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways.”

We may not assume that conditions of being in God’s favor in the future cancel out the truth that we are already in his favor, and that this is how we are able to meet the conditions of future favor.

Nor may we assume that the presence of conditions makes our future insecure! As if God’s prior unconditional favor will not guarantee that we meet the conditions.

O how precious are the strange and wonderful verses like Exodus 33:13!

And even more, how precious is the electing, calling, regenerating, all-providing, favor of God’s unconditional grace!

Is Colossians 1:15-20 the most important paragraph in the Bible for a Christian worldview?

[Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

In his latest post, Albert Mohler reviews Tiger Woods' recent public address, calling it "a remarkable statement of confession." Nonetheless, he is careful to also point out "the radical distinction" between the standard that Woods' newly reclaimed Buddhism calls him to and the salvation Jesus provides.

Indeed, Buddhism teaches the aim of emptying the self of all desire. As [Stephen] Prothero observes, “Buddhists observe that suffering arises from a 12-fold chain of interlocking causes and effects. Among these causes is craving. We crave this woman or that car because we think that getting her or it will make us happy. But this craving only ties us into an unending cycle of misery, because even if we get what we want there is always something more to crave — another woman or another man, a faster car or a bigger house.”

[...]

Christianity speaks honestly of desire and affirms that wrongful desires can and do lead to sin, destruction, and death. Nevertheless, Christianity does not teach that all desire is wrong. Indeed, the Bible affirms that God made us to desire Him. Even in our sinful state, something within us cries out for our need — and desire — for divine forgiveness and redemption.

Christianity does not teach that we should (or could) empty ourselves of all desire, but rather that we should desire the salvation that Christ alone has accomplished for us — the salvation that leads to divine forgiveness and the restoration of relationship we should surely desire. Once we know that salvation, our desire for God is only increased and pointed to eternity.

Watch John Piper talk about how God responds to atheists like Richard Dawkins:

(This excerpt comes from the 2008 Don't Waste Your Life Regional Conference, which is also a part of the Don't Waste Your Life DVD set.)

A couple weeks ago we concluded our Pastors Conference with a question and answer session featuring all of our conference speakers. As always, there was a handful of questions that we ran out of time for.

The following two questions about missions were addressed to Bob Blincoe, which he has now graciously answered in writing:

What is the connection between a gospel that is relevant to all people at all times, and the need to contextualize the gospel to a specific people you are trying to reach?

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, wrote, “I become all things to all people that by all means possible I might save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). Peter, the apostle to the Jews, could not have written that.

John, at the end of his life, wrote “In the beginning was the Logos” and “The Logos was with Theos.” This is a missionary text, written for the Greek speakers by a Jew. And what do we learn from John? We learn that words already filled with meaning in foreign cultures can be given new meaning if we, the presenters, control the definitions. Thus, “The Logos became flesh and dwelt among us” is about Jesus Christ, not about an inanimate philosophical principal.

And what do we learn from Paul? We learn that we missionaries, if we are going to “win” (kerdos in Greek) peoples of other cultures, must de-Judaize (or de-Europeanize, or de-Koreanize) our presentation of the gospel.

The goal is that the cross of Christ be the scandal about which men and women must decide, without making it difficult for newcomers to face the cross by their need to also accept our culture or language.

How would the world of missions change if every missionary embraced the truth that becoming a missionary is the most enjoyable thing they could possibly do with their lives?

Ah, good question. We are all “in the bread line” to get whatever our Father has for us, because He knows our needs. So let us be eager (eager!) to say “Not my will but Thine be done.”

Some missionaries would go home after they realize that their best future is to be with their families in their home country. That is good; but many more Christians are probably receiving the Father’s bread (I speak now of a missionary calling) and are distressed, being burdened with all the loss and grief they feel in giving up whatever it is that they are giving up.

I can help them a little to have faith, but the Bible and their church leaders are the means of grace for them to remain joyous in believing the “missionary advantage.” Wouldn’t you sell all in order to gain the Great Commission promise of Jesus Christ, “I will be with you to the end of the age?”

Are you so discouraged you don’t know what to do next? I want to help you get through this. Maybe this will help.

The following quote is from my journal dated November 6, 1986. I had been at Bethlehem 6 years. If you have ever felt like this, remember this is 24 years ago and I am still here.

The point is: Beware of giving up too soon. Our emotions are not reliable guides.

Am I under attack by Satan to abandon my post at Bethlehem? Or is this the stirring of God to cause me to consider another ministry? Or is this God's way of answering so many prayers recently that we must go a different way at BBC than building? I simply loathe the thought of leading the church through a building program. For two years I have met for hundreds of hours on committees. I have never written a poem about it. It is deadening to my soul. I am a thinker. A writer. A preacher. A poet and songwriter. At least these are the avenues of love and service where my heart flourishes. . . .

Can I be the pastor of a church moving through a building program? Yes, by dint of massive will power and some clear indications from God that this is the path of greatest joy in him long term. But now I feel very much without those indications. The last two years (the long range planning committee was started in August 1984) have left me feeling very empty.

The church is looking for a vision for the future—and I do not have it. The one vision that the staff zeroed in on during our retreat Monday and Tuesday of this week (namely, building a sanctuary) is so unattractive to me today that I do not see how I could provide the leadership and inspiration for it.

Does this mean that my time at BBC is over? Does it mean that there is a radical alternative unforeseen? Does it mean that I am simply in the pits today and unable to feel the beauty and power and joy and fruitfulness of an expanded facility and ministry?

O Lord, have mercy on me. I am so discouraged. I am so blank. I feel like there are opponents on every hand, even when I know that most of my people are for me. I am so blind to the future of the church. O Father, am I blind because it is not my future? Perhaps I shall not even live out the year, and you are sparing the church the added burden of a future I had made and could not complete? I do not doubt for a moment your goodness of power or omnipotence in my life or in the life of the church. I confess that the problem is mine. The weakness is in me. The blindness is in my eyes. The sin—O reveal to me my hidden faults!—is mine and mine the blame. Have mercy, Father. Have mercy on me. I must preach on Sunday, and I can scarcely lift my head.

I loved you by the bending tree
Where N plus J marks you and me.

I loved you outside Williston,
The year before God made us one.

I loved you in a paisley dress,
When everything in me said, Yes.

I loved you when your hair was long,
Like Mary and her sixties song.

I loved you in your wedding gown,
And how we tiptoed out of town.

I loved you on the balcony
Of our small flat in Germany.

I loved you when your heart was buoyed,
And even when you were annoyed.

I loved you when our first son came;
Yes, Karsten is a boy’s first name.

I loved you with the quiver full;
How could you carry such a bull!

I loved you for your leadership.
That hulk’s still sitting on your hip!

I loved you with your autumn bloom,
As if God said, “Talitha kum!”

I loved you subtle in your joy;
I loved you sweater-clad and coy.

I loved you beaming, eyes a-bright,
All formal black, and my delight.

I loved you on a mountain deck,
When I was dripping from the trek.

I loved you stokin’ at my back,
Or if you coasted with your snack.

I loved you when God took the stress,
And gave us peace at Inverness.

I loved you in the Blue Ridge trove
Near Asheville that they call the Cove.

I loved you when they made us wait.
“No charge!” they said, “the meal was late.”

I loved you when you joined with ease
To stare down all our enemies.

I love you still with mystery:
The mystery that you love me.

If you're tracking with a Bible reading plan, or for some other reason find yourself plodding through pages and pages of old covenant laws, here's some perspective to help keep you going.

It's a quote from J. G. Millar about our need to know the Old Testament in order to know the gospel. He mentions Deuteronomy in particular, but what he says applies to the whole Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible):

Much of the theological framework needed to understand the significance of Jesus' coming, life and death was put in place by Moses in his writing, and perhaps above all in Deuteronomy. For it is here that the theology of blessing and curse which lies at the heart of Jesus' sin-bearing work is first articulated. It is here that the hopelessness of humanity trapped in sin, even when chosen by God, is exposed. It is here that the prospect of a divine intervention so radical that it changes people at the very core of their being first appears. (New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, pp. 164-165)

Luke is picking up the pace when we get to Acts 8. Jesus' mandate that his disciples spread the word about him (Acts 1:8) is being fulfilled. The gospel has gone from Jerusalem to Judea and Samaria, and we are on the verge of seeing it break through to the Gentiles. But right in the middle of this advance we find a short narrative about Phillip being sent to the desert to meet an Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40).

Acts is full of allusions to the book of Isaiah, and this scene with the eunuch is one of them. Think back to Isaiah 56. In the place where the most explicit gospel content in the Old Testament is found, Isaiah prophesies that the salvation to come will include the conversion of the nations (Isaiah 56:1, 6-8). And in the thick of that content we read,

For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off." (Isaiah 56:4-5)

In these verses Isaiah pictures God-fearing Gentile eunuchs, and he says that the LORD’s salvation will come even to them. “The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, declares, 'I will gather yet others to him besides those already gathered'” (Isaiah 56:8). God will gather inhabitants for Zion from among the nations.

So Phillip meets an Ethiopian (Gentile) eunuch who is returning home from worshipping in Jerusalem (a God-fearer) and reading the prophet Isaiah (the same book that declares that God-fearing, Gentile eunuchs will be saved). Then, using Isaiah 53, he tells him the good news about Jesus (Acts 8:35), and this God-fearing Gentile eunuch believes.

What's the point of this little story? You see the connection: Luke is showing us that all the stuff Isaiah prophesied about is now taking place. Jesus has been crucified, buried, and risen. The Spirit has been sent. And the gospel is being proclaimed among the nations.

It's happening. God is doing his gathering work. Luke wants us to get that. Luke wants the story of this emasculated guy from East Africa to send us the message of where we’re at in the storyline. The church in Acts is on the brink of seeing God finish history—how much more the church today!

Here’s an incentive not to waste your life: we are the people upon whom the end of the ages has come.

God faithfully directs the paths of everyone who trusts in him with all their heart (Proverbs 3:5-6). But sometimes, as Moses experienced in Exodus 18, God directs us through a word of correction from someone else.

*               *               *

The reunion of Moses and Jethro was a sweet one. Moses was glad to have his wife and his two boys back with him. And Jethro sat astonished as Moses described the ten plagues, the pillar of God’s presence, the Red Sea deliverance, the provision of manna, and water from a rock. Jethro rejoiced in such unparalleled demonstrations of divine power and confessed God’s supremacy in everything.

Then Jethro observed his son-in-law at work. Clearly Moses was an extraordinary prophet, leader, and judge. But he was spending his whole day addressing one dispute or problem at a time. And the number of people waiting for a hearing only grew larger. Jethro could feel the rumblings of frustration. This looked like an eruption waiting to happen.

When Moses finally took a break, Jethro asked him a clarifying question: “Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?” (v. 14). Note that Jethro did not assume his perception was completely correct. Perhaps Moses had a good reason. Asking this question was both wise and kind.

This gave Moses a chance to explain the job God had assigned to him: The Lord instructed Moses regarding the law, and Moses was then to teach the people and help them apply it to their particular situations.

That was helpful. Moses understood his calling and he was working hard to serve everyone.

Understanding this, Jethro said to Moses, “What you are doing is not good. You and the people with you will certainly wear yourselves out, for the thing is too heavy for you. You are not able to do it alone” (v. 17-18).

In other words, Moses’ mission was right but his method was wrong. Bad systems can undermine the best intentions.

Now, Moses was used to being criticized. Some faction was almost continually calling his leadership into question. But Jethro was different. He saw a problem, sought to understand it, identified the core weakness, and offered a solution (in verses 19-23) that served both Moses’ calling and the people’s needs. Jethro really wanted Moses and the people to thrive.

In this world such a counselor is rare.

That said, I imagine this correction still might have stung Moses a little. It would have stung me. Our prideful fallen natures hate to have our mistakes or weaknesses pointed out.

But Moses’ response revealed his humility. He didn’t brush Jethro off as an outsider who didn’t understand. He didn’t try to protect his reputation by lying that he’d been thinking about doing that very thing himself. And he didn’t pull rank by reminding Jethro who, between the two of them, tended to hear from God more.  Rather, Moses humbly received and immediately implemented Jethro’s counsel.

In this world such a leader is rare.

There’s something else remarkable about Moses’ response. Though he received frequent direct and detailed revelation from God, he was not narrow in his understanding of how God speaks and directs. Since God ruled everything he could just as easily direct him through a father-in-law as through a cloud.

Moses was not swayed by human opinion. But he was a man whose ear was always listening for God. He had been transformed by the renewing of his mind and by testing was able to discern what was the will of God (Romans 12:2).

*               *               *

What Jethro has to teach us about bringing godly correction to someone else:

1. First, we should identify specific ways God is working in and through that person and authentically rejoice with him or her.
2. Second, we must have in mind the good of everyone involved and be able to describe what that is.
3. Third, we should ask clarifying questions before we critique or counsel in order to accurately grasp the situation.
4. And fourth, we should be graciously specific in our correction and, if possible, work with him or her to find a helpful solution.

What Moses has to teach us about receiving correction from someone else:

1. First, all of us, even the most gifted, have areas that need correction.
2. Second, correction is an opportunity to cultivate valuing God’s glory and other people’s good above our reputation. It helps us not think more highly of ourselves than we ought to think.
3. Third, God might bring correction through an unexpected person. We should keep our ears open and communicate to others receptivity to their input.

For the first time in its history the Desiring God Conference for Pastors, which took place last week, was devoted to the subject of Christian Hedonism—the teaching that God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.

In conjunction with the conference, it seemed good to revisit and remember some of those glad verses within the Psalter that command us to pursue our joy in God.

Delight yourself in the LORD; and He will give you the desires of your heart. (Psalm 37:4)

Be glad in the LORD and rejoice, you righteous ones; and shout for joy, all you who are upright in heart. (Psalm 32:11)

Sing for joy in the LORD, O you righteous ones; praise is becoming to the upright. (Psalm 33:1)

Let the nations be glad and sing for joy; for You will judge the peoples with uprightness and guide the nations on the earth. (Psalm 67:4)

Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth. Serve the LORD with gladness; come before Him with joyful singing. (Psalm 100:1)

For a fuller introduction to Christian Hedonism and its deep and broad biblical roots, I recommend checking out John Piper's Desiring God seminar (5 parts).