My take on the Rob Bell controversy over at my other blog. Here’s an excerpt:

When the current Love Wins hype is over and the book completes its guaranteed run as a bestseller, Rob Bell will be able to release a book twice as controversial in the future and receive less than half the fanfare. HarperOne should enjoy the flood of free publicity from the power writers of the Evangelical blogosphere this time around. Next time out the bait will be a much tougher sell.

Read the rest here.

__________________

The “other blog” that features only my longer pieces of writing, some of which have been published in print and others that are waiting to be published. The post frequency is about once a week. So, if that’s the kind of thing you’re looking for…

Go and take a look at the new site here.
You can subscribe by email by clicking here.
You can subscribe by RSS by clicking here.
The Facebook group for the new blog is here.

Enjoy!

There was an excellent post at Desiring God a few days ago called “Embracing the Ordinary“. The posts consists of a quote by Carl Trueman in Republocrat followed by six implications – three for churches and three for pastors. First, Carl Trueman:

[The] Lord has blessed the church of today with some remarkably talented individuals who have been used to do remarkable things. The danger is that, in focusing on such men, we create unrealistic expectations. The evidence that the church models developed by these men can be transplanted with success elsewhere is highly equivocal; more likely, their success is rooted in God’s using their own remarkable gifts and contexts—the right men in the right place at the right time for something great, if you like. The life of Don Carson’s father, outlined so movingly in his Memoirs of an Ordinary Pastor, is more likely to be closer to the norm for most churches and pastors than that of Redeemer in New York (38-39).

Bingo! This, as I have pointed out ad nauseum, is the major failing of Willow Creek’s “Leadership Summit” event. The “leaders” they present as authorities bear little to no resemblance to the average attendee of the event. Unless you are trying to build an empire with the same look and size (which is actually the goal of many), it makes no sense to idolize these leaders.

They are the exception, not the rule and by defining leadership success by their accomplishments implies that a majority of pastors and other leaders are losers and failures.

The post at DG then considers these six implications (Shortened here. Read the full post for the expanded points):

Three Implications for Churches

1. Listen (attentively and expectantly) primarily to your pastor’s sermons
2. Listen to extraordinary preachers (unless he’s your pastor) sparingly
3. Lower your (likely unrealistic) expectations of your pastor. While he may not be (and likely isn’t) extraordinary, he is (for you and your church) likely the right man in the right place at the right time.

Three Implications for Pastors

1. Broaden your diet of your favorite preachers
2. Be content being an ordinary pastor and preacher
3. To give you proper perspective (and deep encouragement) as you aspire and cope with your newly embraced “ordinariness,” read Carson’s Memoirs annually

Posts like this is one of the reasons I continue to read content at Desiring God written by John Piper and others. Piper’s church is  mega-church size without mega-church BS. Theologically, you may have a few bones to pick with him, but you have to admit that there’s a refreshing lack of mega-church thinking.

There is far too much free-lance pastoring going on, and that’s where this post hits a bit of a paradox. Desiring God and other large ministries put out so much content, with increased influence being the primary goal. Still, I like the “proceed with caution” attitude displayed in the post.

Sometimes people need to be told “That’s a nice thing to say, but that guy’s not your pastor,” and also “If you want him to be your pastor, here’s the address of his church and a membership transfer form.”

My favorite weeks are the ones when I’m preparing to preach. Last week was one of those weeks.

During the week Darryl Dash posted a “preaching cheat sheet” based on Haddon Robinson’s book “Biblical Preaching: The Development and Delivery of Expository Messages”

I have two of my own that I, like Darryl, have posted beside my desk. One is based on John Piper’s article The Marks of a Spiritual Leader, the other is from a section of John Stott’s book “Between Two Worlds: The Challenge of Preaching Today“. You can view these three resources either by blog post or PDF by using the links below posted below.

Haddon Robinson (blog post | PDF | order the book)
John Piper (blog post | PDF)
John Stott (blog post | order the book)

Now, go work on a sermon… my next one is in two weeks. The passage is Galatians 6.

From John Piper’s article The Marks of a Spiritual Leader, here’s a section where he seeks to give some of the essential characteristics of a good teacher. These have been helpful to me in preparing to preach and teach.

• A good teacher asks himself the hardest questions, works through to answers, and then frames provocative questions for his learners to stimulate their thinking.

• A good teacher analyzes his subject matter into parts and sees relationships and discovers the unity of the whole.

• A good teacher knows the problems learners will have with his subject matter and encourages them and gets them over the humps of discouragement.

• A good teacher foresees objections and thinks them through so that he can answer them intelligently.

• A good teacher can put himself in the place of a variety of learners and therefore explain hard things in terms that are clear from their standpoint.

• A good teacher is concrete, not abstract; specific, not general; precise, not vague; vulnerable, not evasive.

• A good teacher always asks, “So what?” and tries to see how discoveries shape our whole system of thought. He tries to relate discoveries to life and tries to avoid compartmentalizing.

• The goal of a good teacher is the transformation of all of life and thought into a Christ-honoring unity.

Download as a PDF.

(If you are reading this via email or RSS and you don’t see videos below, click here)

How to plant a church and avoid “The Wrath of Piper”. This video tells you everything you need to know:

This one gives you a worship service play-by-play:

Satire – life can be pretty dull without it.

And finally, a preacher’s worst nightmare:

Just read the following sentence on a blog:

“The issue between gospel exclusivists on the one hand and either agnostics or accessibilists on the other is logically only a dispute between monergists. For synergists, gospel exclusivism is incoherent.”

That’s a lot of 10-dollar words right there, but the post itself is quite interesting and addresses a passage of scripture I’ve written about in the past – Romans 1:18-25. (You can read those posts here, here, and here).

The post I’m putting snippets of here is a review of John Piper’s “Jesus: The Only Way to God: Must You Hear the Gospel to be Saved?” by Terrance L. Thiessen. The entire review can be found here.

Thiessen agrees with most of Piper’s ideas in the books and lands roughly (in disagreement) where I do on an issue related to Romans 1:18-20:

When Piper reads Romans 1:18-20, for instance, he concludes that natural revelation leaves everyone without excuse but it does not save (11). But that is an over-reading of the text. Paul says that the wrath of God is revealed against all who suppress the truth in unrighteousness but he does not say that the Spirit of God never illumines the minds of some people whose only access to God’s self-revelation is in nature or history, so that they acknowledge God as Creator and are thankful. Indeed, we have examples of such people. Piper says that natural revelation “does not overcome this suppression. Only the gospel does” (11). But even the gospel does not, as external revelation, overcome people’s sinful tendency to suppress God’s truth. An accompanying work of the Spirit (illumination and enabling) is needed for special revelation to have saving effect. Paul does not say that such work of the Spirit is never done in connection with natural revelation so that it elicits justifying faith.

In short, Scripture clearly states that all who believe and obey God’s revelation are saved and that all who reject God’s revelation remain under condemnation. In numerous texts (such as John 3), gospel exclusivists hear a judgment of those who do not believe, where Scripture is speaking only of those who receive the particular revelation, not of those who are ignorant through no fault of their own.

*****

Those who, by the Spirit’s gracious illumination and enabling, have believed appropriately to the nature of the revelation they had received, will meet Christ at death with joy, recognizing him instantly as the one for whom they were looking. I’ve wondered whether that should be identified as the moment of their justification but, currently, I think it better to grant that God justifies immediately people who have the faith of Noah or Job or Abraham or Melchizedek or Jethro, if they have only received the revelation available to those individuals, regardless of the progress of redemptive history of which they are then ignorant.

.

You were expecting to see Rick Warren in running shorts here, weren’t you? Sorry, my photoshop skills aren’t THAT good. Rick in a Hawaiian shirt floating eerily in a pool with a maniacal look on his face was the best I could come up with.

Ok, I admit it: the title of the post is inflammatory and manipulative, but it was “Purpose-Driven” so all is forgiven, right? It’s not Rick who’s running a half-marathon – it’s me! I am however going to see Rick the weekend after I run.

Here’s the deal: on September 26th I’m going to run my first half-marathon; the following weekend I’m taking a roadtrip to Minneapolis to attend Desiring God 2010. This year’s line-up of speakers includes Big Rick, Francis Chan, Al Mohler, John Piper, Kevin DeYoung, and N.D. Wilson.

I’ve created two ToDo lists for myself for the two trips. Let me know if you have any suggestion for my prep work for either event.

This week I began reading Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. I’m using this as my morning study book. I’m about a quarter of the way though and I can already say “You should read this!” The authors (including Piper, David Powlison, Al Mohler, C.J. Mahaney  Mark Dever, and others) take neither the shock route (a la www.xxxchurch.com) nor the “we don’t talk about that” route.

What you’ll find in this book is frank and up-front writing about Biblical sexuality, the goodness of sex, sexual sin, and sexual restoration.

A couple of quotes from chapters one and two by John Piper:

“If the Scripture teaches that truly knowing God – truly knowing Christ – guards and guides and governs our sexuality in purity and love, then we may be sure that a pastor, or anyone else, whose sexuality is not governed and guarded and guided in purity and love does not know God – at least not as he ought.“

Echoes of C.S. Lewis: “My conviction is that one of the main reasons the world and the church are awash in lust and pornography is that our lives are intellectually and emotionally disconnected from the infinite, soul-staggering grandeur for which we were made. Inside and outside the church Western culture is drowning in a sea of triviality, pettiness, banality, and silliness.“

“It is inevitable that the human heart, which was made to be staggered with the supremacy of Christ, but instead is drowning in a sea of banal entertainment, will reach for the best natural buzz that life can give: sex.“

Order Sex and the Supremacy of Christ  here.

At our Saturday service this week our speaker for the night (Bill Harder) took on the parable of the sheep and the goats. In the discussion groups that followed afterward there was a bit of confusion that I want to clear up.

First, Bill was saying that this parable is referring (when it says “the least of these”) to other Christians. So this parable in particular is focused on believers caring for other believers in need.

Second, Bill was not saying that this is the only thing commanded in scripture. We ARE commanded to good to all.

There are two places you can do further reading on this. One is an earlier post here, and another is below where I’ve pasted some highlights from a sermon by John Piper, the entirety of which can be found here. Highlights from Piper’s sermon below. Comments welcome:

Here I want to make two points. One is that we are drawn to show mercy to some people because they are Christians. The other is that we are drawn to show mercy to some people because they are not Christians. We are drawn to show mercy to Christians because we see Christ in them, and we are drawn to show mercy to unbelievers because we want to see Christ in them. We help suffering believers because they bear the name of Christ. And we help suffering unbelievers in the hope that they will come to bear the name of Christ.

Galatians 6:10 puts it like this: “So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.” The “especially” is because there is the added delight of affirming in them what God has already done in saving them. So in the complexities of urban trouble and ministries of mercy we are carried by two motives: on the one hand, the desire to confirm and honor the Christ-exalting faith of a brother or sister who is suffering by giving them relief and help; and on the other hand, the desire to waken Christ-exalting faith in suffering unbelievers by giving them relief and help in Jesus’ name and with Jesus’ gospel.

Ministries of Mercy to Believers

Consider two teachings of Jesus. First, the teaching of Matthew 25:31-46, the great judgment when Jesus comes and separates the sheep and the goats and sends one group of people to hell and the other to heaven. Verse 46: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

What’s the difference between these two groups? The difference Jesus focuses on is how they treated his brothers, that is his disciples. And the issue is ministries of mercy, most of which are concentrated in the urban centers of the world: Verse 35ff: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger [refugee] and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Then in verse 40 Jesus explains how they were touching him: “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,you did it to me.’”

His brothers are his disciples. This is not everybody. This is not every suffering person. Jesus does not call his enemies his brothers. Matthew 12:49-50, “And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’” When Jesus says in Matthew 25:40 that doing ministries of mercy to the least, namely, his brothers, is doing them to him, he means, doing them to his disciples is doing them to him.

We see the very same teaching in Mathew 10:42, “Whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward.” In other words, Jesus says that true Christians do ministries of mercy to Christians because they are Christians. And that’s one of the main ways that your Christianity is shown to be real—which is why heaven and hell hang on it.

James explains how this fits with faith as the way of salvation: James 2:15-17, “If a brother or sister [a disciple] is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” If we don’t ever bear the fruit of practical love toward brothers and sisters—the least of them—our faith is dead and we are not saved. That’s Jesus’ point.

So ministries of mercy—many of which are concentrated in the city—must flow toward Christians because they are Christians, or we are self-deceived.

Ministries of Mercy to Unbelievers

Does that mean then, that unbelievers should not get our mercy? No. In fact Jesus was very strong on this matter. He said that if we only love those who love us, if we only do good to those who do good to us, we are no different than unbelievers. So yes, show mercy to your brothers and sisters when they suffer. This is what true families do. But if you only love your family, if you only sacrifice to relieve the suffering of your family, you are no better than an unbeliever.

Listen to Luke 6:27ff where Jesus says,

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. . . . 31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them. 32 If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. . . . 35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Conclusion

So I conclude: If we are a true church, if we are true disciples of Jesus, then we will be drawn to show mercy to some suffering people precisely because they are Christians. And we will be drawn to show mercy to other suffering people because they are not Christians. We will be like our Heavenly Father, when we love his children and love our enemies. And that love means “doing good” to them.

It is not always easy to know what the good is in complexities of urban pain, or what mercy should look like in Haiti or Florida or Sudan or your loved one’s hospice. But Christ never said it would be easy. He simply said, Love your neighbor as you love yourself. And then he died and rose again to cover all our sin and make mercy possible.

Resisting writing about this was the greatest temptation during my writing break.

Piper’s invitation to Warren doesn’t infuriate me or upset me and I find the spectrum of reactions quite amusing. I love that Piper is upsetting some of his followers, causing them to turn away from his leadership. Those who would make him judge and king over Christendom act as if they’ve had their hopes dashed by yet another false messiah.

I doubt that he was oblivious to the potential consequences of inviting Warren to his conference. So this is not a mistake but rather a strategic move to sift the harsh and unruly band of followers who claim Piper as their king.

Piper invited Warren to his conference, therefore Piper endorses every word that Warren has ever said and everything Warren has ever done – so goes the logic for some.

I hope this does send Piperettes running for the exits. Please go… go find a messiah who actually desires your unmitigated affection.

John Piper is not that messiah.

Andrew Jones (Twitter), a recognized long-time leader in Emerging Church circles responds to my post from earlier this week. Here is an excerpt:

The EC leaders John Piper has met are, most likely, upper-middle-class people with Seminary degrees and salaries and mortgages and new cars so I can see why he would say that. But in fact the opposite is true, esp. when you look at the global movement, and I find the statement quite insulting to the many EC leaders who have given up their comfortable salaried pastoral positions in the traditional church (like I did) for the downwardly mobile lifestyle of ministry among the postmodern generation and in new forms of church where a salary is unheard of and probably not even considered. Most EC leaders cannot afford to attend Seminary, and nor can they get time off from their job at Starbucks to attend Christian conferences where people like John Piper and the upper-middle-class tiny minority of EC hang out.

Has the emerging church movement, as popularized by the American publishing industry and Christian conference business, degenerated from a grass-roots renewal movement, reforming voice, missional conscience and sustainable church planting movement to a theological discussion for an upper-middle-class Seminary grads with too much time? Well, thats another question.

You can read the rest of Andrew’s post here and join the conversation or jump into the conversation already underway on my post here.

Let’s review:

In Part 1 Naysaying and the Naysaying Naysayers Who Naysay we looked at the practice of naysaying and second-hand naysaying and examined how it works

In Part 2 The “Anti-Book” we looked at the “anti-book”, which is a scrapbook of sorts that claims to be authoritative on all matters relating to the one(s) who have been issued “nay” status.

In Part 3 I offer the following advice for dealing with widely naysayed materials:

1. Go ahead: read the scout’s report

If it’s a report from a scout you trust, by all means take his advice. A trusted scout is one whose reviews you usually agree with after having read the same books yourself. You may both be completely out to lunch of course, but at least you know you think the same way and will probably process future books in a similar way.

2. Seek balance

Read at least one positive review of the naysayed book, especially if you can find one from an unexpected source. An unexpected source is someone who usually falls in line with the naysay posse but occasionally breaks away.

3. Don’t pretend

Go ahead and warn others off of reading the book if you’ve chosen not to read it based on a trusted scout’s report. But make sure you point them to a review by someone who’s actually read the book – DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE BOOK AS IF YOU’VE READ IT YOURSELF. This is dishonest and misleading.

4. Obey the rules of context

You may quote passages from the book if you have at least read the entire chapter from which the quote is taken.

5. Never, never, never publish an anti-book

If you have that much time on your hands, spend it telling people what you’re for, not what you’re against.

6. Don’t be a sycophant

No one, regardless of his status among those you trust, is infallible. Absolute trust in any man leads very quickly to cultish devotion. And that goes for Piperettes* as much as McLarenites**.

* A Piperette is someone who puts more faith in John Piper than in Jesus Christ

** A McLarenite is someone who puts more faith in Brian McLaren than in Jesus Christ

(part 3 of a miniseries on the emerging church – see part 1 and part 2)

Unfortunately, both sides (Emerging and mainstream) suffer from rejecting the other. Some of the old guard resists new life, ensuring the continuation of their own slow death. The emerging generation discounts the contribution of the previous generation – largely on the basis how little life change it sees – and thereby denies itself access to a great repository of solid theology and a heritage of belief.

One side needs to talk more about global issues while the other side needs to guard their theology a bit more.

I had the wonderful opportunity about a year ago to be at Brian McLaren’s “Why Everything Must Change” conference one weekend and being in Minneapolis at John Piper’s “Desiring God” conference the next. There was something at both that wasn’t at the other; there was something missing at both that the other addressed.

At WEMC, belief in the gospel was either buried under a torrent of concern for global humanitarian issues, or redefined as being the concern for those issues. These are not inappropriate or unimportant concerns.

At Desiring God ‘08 there was no mention of a current global issue at all. It was all gospel, all theology, all talk. I left there with my theological beliefs strengthened, which is a good thing. But where is the concern for global suffering and injustice? Connect the dots for us: how does this theological clarity lead us into a biblical concern for the poor and the action that must follow?

In my opinion, the best thing an organization like DG can do to stem the flow of young people going to the theologically unsteady regions of the EC is to talk more about practical application of the great truths they teach. In Piper’s own words, he does not “aim to be immediately practical but eternally helpful.” I think he should reconsider this and try for both.

A full gospel is both theological and social; it is belief and action.

I was given a book recently called “Faith Undone: The emerging church – a new reformation or an end-time deception” by Roger Oakland. This is an “anti” book. By that I mean its sole purpose is to tell you, with a good amount of hyperbole, about the many, many things the author is against.  In this case, all of those things are related to what the author sees as the “Emerging Church” (EC).

I have actually seen this book before, and I did a deep skimming of it and saw it for what it is: a tabloid-style, pick-and-choose hatchet job on people who, while not executing perfectly, are valuable leaders in today’s North American church.

Books like this are basically supermarket tabloid gossip rags without the pictures. To put it more bluntly:

This is a strange sort of theological pornography for people who see their calling as hunting heresy by identifying leaders with theological weaknesses (some perceived, some real) and telling others about what they’ve found.

That itself is not an unbiblical pursuit, but taken to the level of out-of-context tabloid journalism it becomes sin.

This is not to say there is no truth in Oakland’s book. I can agree with and affirm many of the things in the book; the problem is that there is page after page after page of short quotes followed by commentary. There are even quotes of reporters who say something about somebody and these are taken as damning evidence against the person who is the target.

Rick Warren in particular (not surprisingly) takes a beating throughout the book. As a side note, in the way that Oakland perceives the EC, grouping Rick Warren in with the EC  is a bit ridiculous, kind of like claiming that John Piper and Joel Osteen are kindred spirits and are going to be sharing a pulpit at some point in the near future.  Rick Warren does big; the EC is mostly about regionalized, contextualized solutions.  Rick Warren works on a global scale; the EC is about incarnational witness. The EC is (mostly) anti-megachurch; Rick Warren IS the megachurch.

But I’m with Ed Stetzer on this; we need both. We need big solutions and big churches and small solutions and small churches. Which is why in one sense the EC can be very broadly defined as every church that is not dying due to lack of activity.

Even Dan Kimball, who apparently committed the sin of asking non-believers what their perception of “church” is is mocked for daring to suggest that the American church might be able to have a more authentic testimony. Gasp. How can he say this?!?! I can’t think of any examples of American Christian leaders who have disgraced the name of Christ in very visible ways. This is the type of behavior, mostly on a smaller scale, that Kimball explores.

I’ll close with a quote from C.S. Lewis. In Mere Christianity (p. 118):

Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out.

Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t quite so bad as that,’ or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible?

If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally we shall insist on seeing everything — God and our friends and ourselves included — as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred.

I think that a book like this is exactly what the Lewis quote above is about.

John Piper has a handle on what these terms mean, and shows it in this post. I’m not in total agreement with his analysis but pretty close. The point is, he has taken the time to investigate and, as usual, comes out ahead of guys like MacArthur in showing some balance and compassion where its due.

Highlights:
Emergent seems to be a reaction—among younger believers primarily, 20- and 30-somethings—to several things. In my judgment it’s not a very healthy reaction, though I can understand why it might happen. [MK - in addition, Emergent is centered around a specific site/organization]

Emerging might be used by some people—like Mark Driscoll—to describe a proper reaction that is taking place against some of the negative things going on in the church, but a reaction that doesn’t throw away the doctrines.

So be careful, when you’re talking emerging or emergent, to know which group you’re talking about.

The word “missional” is kind of the “in” word today. And a church that is missional tends to be a church where everything is thought about in terms of making an impact on people around the church who are not Christians. You design everything to think that way. And I think that is a good thing.
___________________________________

I’m working on a longer post of my own thoughts about this that I will try to get up later today.

Piper is not the only one defining the terms this way. I could have used various other modern church figures to make my point, but part of my current mission is to tear down people’s perceptions of Piper as cog in the old world who is interchangeable with the current crop of strident hyper-fundamentalists (not to mention any names – oops, I already did in the opening paragraph).

In my experience, having watched, engaged in, and written about the movement, this is the way the terms are defined and understood by others who have done the same.

Defined this way, I think we can all comfortably call ourselves emerging. Yes?

***You might find this post about a book being co-authored by Brian McLaren and John MacArthur of some interest as well. :-0

We can define immutability in general terms by saying that it is “the quality of being incapable of mutation.” In theological terms, it is defined as “the doctrine of classical Christian theism that God cannot change; this has been variously interpreted to mean either that God’s nature cannot change but that God can, or that God himself cannot change at all.”

In this post, I will interact with the idea as Wayne Grudem defines it: “God is unchanging in his being, perfections, purposes, and promises, yet God does act and feel emotions, and he acts and feels differently in different situations.”

Support From Scripture

Numerous references to the concept of immutability are found in scripture:
- Psalm 102:25-27 speaks of God outliving the universe he created, comparing it to a garment that will wear out in comparison.
- In Malachi 3:6 God establishes his trustworthiness by telling Israel that they are not consumed because he does not change; his promises remain, regardless of the faithfulness (or faithlessness) of those to whom he made the promise. This provides “a solid foundation for his people’s faith and hope.”
- In James 1:17 God is called the “Father of lights” – indeed, the very source of light – and is not outshined by any other light that it might cast a shadow by him. This is similar to Psalm 102 in that it refers to that which we find glorious as something less significant when compared to God.
- 1 Sam 15:29 is somewhat problematic in saying that God will “not lie or have regret” since in the same chapter it says that God regretted making Saul king (vv. 11 and 35). Notes in the ESV Study Bible explain as follows: “Thus the term as used in 1 Sam. 15:11, 35 describes God’s own feeling of sorrow or regret that Saul had turned out as he did… while in v. 29 God will not regret or change his mind concerning a decision once he has made it.”
- In Hebrews 6:17-18 God demonstrates the unchangeable character of his purpose by guaranteeing it by two unchangeable things: himself and an oath.
- Hebrews 13:8 is distinguished from the other references in that it alone refers to the person of Jesus, saying that he is “the same yesterday and today and forever.”

Although…

In seeming contrast to these examples, the following passages show that while God himself does not change, a divine change of mind is possible:
-    Gen 6:6-7 records that God was sorry that he had made man on the earth
-    1 Sam 15:11,35 (see notes above re: 1 Sam 15:29)
-    In 2 Sam 24:16 God relents from destroying Jerusalem
-    Joel 2:13 again describes God as slow to anger and one who “relents over disaster”
-    In Jonah 3:9-10 it says that “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”

We can conclude from these contrasting passages that when God describes himself as unchanging, he is referring to his essential character and not a complete set of predetermined actions, decisions, and events.

God himself never changes even though he may change his mind about a matter. In human terms, changing our minds about a matter may change us – for better or worse – since a change of mind often occurs after new evidence is discovered or a new insight realized. This of course is not the case for God since he knows all, and since he knows all there are no new insights for him to realize.

Questions

So if, as Grudem holds, God does not change but his “attitude or expression of intention” will change if the situation changes, this seems to call into question his foreknowledge of a given event.  An example of this is found in the story of the prophet Jonah in chapter 3, verse 10: “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it.”

If God decides not to do something that he previously decided he would do, doesn’t he already know he is not actually going to do it from the beginning? How can God both know what will happen in the future and change his mind because of the actions of man?

In addition to this, if God knows or has predetermined what will happen in the future, why pray? John Piper addresses the issue as follows:

It is not the doctrine of God’s sovereignty which thwarts prayer for the conversion of sinners. On the contrary, it is the unbiblical notion of self-determination which would consistently put an end to all prayers for the lost. Prayer is a request that God do something. But the only thing God can do to save a lost sinner is to overcome his resistance to God. If you insist that he retain his self-determination, then you are insisting that he remain without Christ. For “no one can come to Christ unless it is given him from the Father” (John 6:65,44).

In Piper’s view then, when we pray we ask God to interrupt the depraved and rebellious self-determination of a sinner and then to cause him to turn to God. This makes some sense of the matter but still leaves the question of whether or not we have any input in the determination of our fate.

It is via this foothold that “open theism” climbs into the picture. “Open theism”, according to Piper, contends that “God has made himself ‘open’ to a future that is yet to be determined by both his and our choices. The ‘open’ future is largely indeterminate until God and his free creatures collaborate in forming it.” Passages such as Jonah 3:10 could certainly lead one to believe the same.

Summary

In summary, whether we believe that God has predetermined every action, decision, and event, or we believe that God determines the future I collaboration with out choices, his immutability God applies to those things in which we can place our faith: his promises. That God is sovereign and will on occasion change his mind according to his good purposes is not a matter that should decrease the confidence of our faith. That God might change his mind when we pray should be a matter of great comfort rather than a matter of disappointment or disillusionment.

Although we may not be able to reconcile the idea of foreknowledge on one hand, and changing his mind based on a change of circumstances on the other hand, surely both are taught in scripture and as such both must be believed.  His immutability is firmly taught in scripture, although not without some problematic passages.

A couple of weeks ago, Driscoll was in the New York Times, now it’s ABC’s Nightline. (*UPDATE: here is a direct link to the segment or watch below)

Driscoll is getting a lot of attention because of his recent sermon series on The Song of Solomon called “The Peasant Princess” (see series website)  in which he preaches on and discusses issues of sexuality.

The characterizations in the recent wave of media attention are somewhat dated in that they focus on Mark’s reputation as a punchline-loving jock. This is still true to an extent, but if you are a member of Driscoll’s church or a regular listener you know that such characterizations are more representative of an earlier version of Driscoll.

Unfortunately, the old title “Cussing Pastor”, made famous in Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz, still gets thrown around, even though what may have led to this title happened a decade or more ago and no audio of Driscoll actually cussing has been delivered. His language can be harsh, and has occasionally been unnecessarily offensive, but a label such as “Cussing Pastor” is misleading.

Driscoll has repented of things he’s said before,  and he’ll probably give himself occasion to do so again. But listen to a more recent sermon – you’ll hear the heart of a young, fiery, maturing pastor who is more concerned with evangelization and tending his flock than with delivering punchlines.

Download and listen to a recent Driscoll sermon called “Trial: Trial and Sin” or listen to it below.

Download audio file (20090111_trial-and-sin_audio.mp3)

The ABC writeup does include this quote from Driscoll at the end of it:

“I think, to be honest with you, humility is something that, by God’s grace, I’m learning,” he said. “I would not pretend to be an expert in humility.”

For those familiar with Driscoll, this quote is where the real story is.

These are from the post “Being Pro-Life Christians Under a Pro-Choice President” by John Piper:

1. Are you willing to explain why a baby’s right not to be killed is less important than a woman’s right not to be pregnant?
2. Or are you willing to explain why most cities have laws forbidding cruelty to animals, but you oppose laws forbidding cruelty to human fetuses? Are they not at least living animals?
3. Or are you willing to explain why government is unwilling to take away the so-called right to abortion on demand even though it harms the unborn child; yet government is increasingly willing to take away the right to smoke, precisely because it harms innocent non-smokers, killing 3,000 non-smokers a year from cancer and as many as 40,000 non-smokers a year from other diseases?
4. And if you say that everything hangs on whether the fetus is a human child, are you willing to go before national television in the oval office and defend your support for the “Freedom of Choice Act” by holding in your hand a 21 week old fetus and explaining why this little one does not have the fundamental, moral, and constitutional right to life? Are you willing to say to parents in this church who lost a child at that age and held him in their hands, this being in your hands is not and was not a child with any rights of its own under God or under law?

Read the entire post and comment there or comment below.

Update

Related content: this post by Justin Taylor 

Also this post re: Roe vs. Wade

Join the conversation here.

Ok, I’m done now… I told Anne Marie not to let me go out again.

Here’s the academic stack:

…and the other stack. You’ll notice I out the Bell and Pagitt books between some more solid theological works.  I tried to put them closer to MacArthur but there were sparks.

By the way, we’re going Rob Bell’s church (Mars Hill) tomorrow morning. I’ll put up a post about that sometime next week.