In his book “Forgotten God: Reversing Our Tragic Neglect of the Holy Spirit” (book/DVD) Francis Chan says there are two big things that tend to inhibit our relationship with God and our reliance on the Holy Spirit:

1. Comfort (maybe our lives are too safe)

In his experience, as in mine, we feel closest to God when nearness to him is a necessity rather than an option. The Holy Spirit is described in the Bible as the “Helper” and the “Comforter”. But what reason could we have to rely on a helper or a comforter if our lives are carefree and comfortable? Sometimes cares and discomfort are what’s needed to push us into a space we should be but refuse or delay going to.

This disruption of our quest for permanent but artificial comfort is the work of the Holy Spirit. He is calling us to a life of reliance and, often, insecurity – and it is an exciting life! Many people resist this because they’ve adopted safety and security as an idol. This needs to change.

A.W. Tozer:
“To expose our hearts to truth and consistently refuse or neglect to obey the impulses it arouses is to stymie the motions of life within us and, if persisted in, to grieve the HS into silence”

2. Volume (maybe our lives are too loud)

Multitasking anyone? When was the last time you experienced one uninterrupted hour? In our distraction culture we are training ourselves to accept as normal the opposite of what God requires for relationship – long, sustained, uninterrupted periods of time.

When we are accustomed to constant brain activity via email, text messages, Facebook, Twitter etc. we find it difficult to spend quiet, uninterrupted time with God and others with whom we are supposed to be in a relationship.

Our lack of intimacy with God is often due to our refusal to unplug. Jesus didn’t have electronic media distractions to deal with but he regularly had mobs of people following him, and yet he was disciplined about taking time to be alone with God. As with everything else, we need to follow his example in this.

The Bible tells us to make good use of our time. We are to work hard, and to be about our Father’s business. It is not evil to be busy, but it is evil to be too busy.

I’ll never forget the day I read this paragraph from Eugene Peterson’s book “The Contemplative Pastor: Returning to the Art of Spiritual Direction” for the first time:

The adjective busy set as a modifier to pastor should sound to our ears like adulterous to characterize a wife or embezzling to describe a banker. It is an outrageous scandal, a blasphemous affront.

I am busy because I am vain. I want to appear important. Significant. What better way than to be busy? The incredible hours, the crowded schedule, and the heavy demands on my time are proof to myself — and to all who will notice — that I am important.

BUT, he goes on

How can I lead people into the quiet place beside the still waters if I am in perpetual motion? How can I persuade a person to live by faith and not by works if I have to juggle my schedule constantly to make everything fit into place?

I as a Pastor am not immune to this curse of busy-ness.

How can the “still small voice” of the Spirit compete with all of the distractions in our lives? He doesn’t try to. He just keeps speaking, waiting for you to turn down the volume of everything else and listen. When everything else is turned down and you can hear him he’ll tell you “This is the volume at which you were meant to live.” Keep turning down the volume on your life until you hear him. The problem is likely NOT that he’s not speaking, but that the volume of the rest of your life is so loud that you can’t hear.

The Holy Spirit filled those first disciples and equipped them in every way to be fruitful participants in the mission of God. If we will open our hearts and lay down our lives they way they did, he will do the same for us.

N.T. Wright:
“The point of the HS is to enable those who follow Jesus to take into all the world the news that he is Lord, that he has won a victory over the forces of evil, that a new world has opened up, and that we are to help make it happen.”

After watching Collision, I suspected that I might have found a new hero in Douglas Wilson, and indeed I have. Solid, opinionated, clever, and  intelligent, Wilson’s online writings are the ones I least frequently skip.

For example, here are 7 tips he recently offered other writers about reading. I’m sure that he would agree with me though that there is a danger of “Intellectual Obesity.”

Below are the highlights. Stroll on over to Blog & Mablog to read more.

1. The first thing is that writers should in fact be voracious readers.
We live in a narcisstic age, which means that many want to have the praise that comes from having written, without the antecedent labor of actually writing, or the antecedent labor before that of having read anything.

2. Read widely.
Reading shapes your voice, and if you want a wide, experienced voice, you have to get out more.

3. Read like a reader, and not like someone cramming for a test.
If you try to wring every book out like it was a washcloth full of information, all you will do is slow yourself down to a useless pace. Go for total tonnage, and read like someone who will forget most of it.

4. Read like a lover of books, and not like someone who wants to be seen as knowledgable, or well-read, or scholarly.
Read because you want to, not because you need to. Actually, you need to as well, but you need to want to. You also need to want to need to, but I am rapidly getting out of my depth.

5. Pace yourself in your reading.
A little bit every day really adds up. If you only read during sporadic reading jags, the fits and starts will not get you anywhere close to the amount of reading you will need to do.

6. As a general pattern, read quality, and go slumming occasionally to remind yourself why quality matters, and what quality is.

7. Read boring books on writing mechanics.
Read grammars, dictionaries, writers’ memoirs, books of proverbs, books of cliches, books on how to write dialogue, books on how not to write dialogue (“I dropped my toothpaste!” he said crestfallenly.), and books about finding good agents and how to blow away the readers of query letters. Writing is a vocation, and there is a body of professional literature out there — which is uneven in quality, just like every other kind of book. Read a lot of it anyway.

(Yes, Kevin Abell, this is aimed at you)

In The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible, Scot McKnight explores, explains, defends, and rebukes the various ways Christians read the Bible.

He spends the early pages of the book unfolding his hyper-conservative upbringing – the type that basks in phrases like “God said, I believe it, that settles it for me!” He, like many of us, was eventually shocked to discover that we all pick and choose some parts of the bible to believe literally and others that we don’t.

“What I discovered,” McKnight says, “is that we all pick and choose. I must confess this discovery did not discourage me as much as it disturbed me, and then it made me intensely curious… The discoveries and disturbances converged onto one big question: How, then, are we to live out the Bible today?”

After recounting his journey from a hyper- (and hypocritical) literalism to an admitted pick-and-choose method, McKnight explores the questions: – What is the Bible? What do I do with the Bible? and How do I benefit from the Bible? He then proceeds in the last third of the book to examine the issue of women in church ministries today using the methods of Biblical learning and perspective described in the first two-thirds of the book.

McKnight’s purpose in writing the book is well described in the following quotation:

“I believe there is an inner logic to our picking and choosing, but I believe we need to become aware of what it is.  Until we do, we will be open to accusations of hypocrisy. It’s that simple, and it’s that lethal. If you tell me you believe the Bible and seek to live every bit of it, and if I can find one spot that you don’t – especially if that spot is sensitive or politically incorrect or offensive – then we’ve all got a problem.”

I have challenged a few Christians this way myself over the years, the type whose logic is so skewed that – if followed to it’s logical end – would require them to stone a homosexual to death.  This is the type of dilema we create for ourselves if we claim that we don’t pick and choose.

If you’re a dedicated complimentarian, you’ll reject McKnight’s egalitarianism.
If you’re already convinced, this might add a bit of clarity.
If you’re on the fence, I’ll venture to say that McKnight will convince you of his position.

This is after all who the book is aimed at: the undecided.

I highly recommend this book. Even if you disagree with the application of McKnight’s ideas, the first 2/3 of the book should be required reading for anyone wishing to be thought of as an intelligent and informed Christian. I recommend putting this book into the hands of the youngest person you can find who will read it. Many an over-zealous, judgment –launching attitude may be changed by McKnight’s thesis.

Scot McKnight is a professor of religious studies at North Park College in Chicago, Illinois and the source of one of the most widely-read Christian blogs, The Jesus Creed.

Other book reviews on this site:

Tim Challies – The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment

William P. Young – The Shack

Rob Bell – Jesus Wants to Save Christians

  1. Always start with scripture, I prefer the ESV online (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/)

2. Type the word or topic you want to study into the search box

3. Make sure you have pen and paper handy

4. Start reading through the verses returned by the search. Some of them may not really contribute much to your study; it’s ok to skip those for now, but certain verses will ‘click’ in your brain or ‘land’ on your heart. For those, write down where the verse is, go into your paper bible and read the whole chapter or section

This is a lengthy process, but very rewarding

5. Once you have read it deeply (this is in the truest sense ‘meditation’) write down any thoughts or questions that come to mind. This is the Holy Spirit working in your heart and intellect.

At this point you might be thinking: This seems like a lot of work. It is – but it is seldom rewarding unless YOU DO IT THE LONG WAY!

6. Once you’ve done that for all the relevant passages, look over your notes and look for recurring questions, statements, etc.

7. Now it’s time to pray and seek the wisdom of others. This can be in person or via commentaries – preferably both. If you find via your notes that a particular book of the Bible talks a lot about anger, get a commentary for that book

That should be enough to get you started.

How do these steps line up with your study practice? Have I missed any?

This is a guest post by Edgar de Blieck, who blogs at Sincere Ignorance and Conscientious Stupidity

________________________________
   If you look at the bible passages which deal with creation (not just Genesis, by the way) then it is clear that the bible says that God made and directed the making of everything. In other words, from nothing, God’s will had to do with the *becoming* of something, in fact, everything.

In the bible’s book of Job there is an elaborate bit of rather dramatic discourse in which the author depicts God asking Job a bunch of picturesque questions, along the lines of
“Well, smarty pants, answer me this!” (Job was complaining, because he didn’t like the way things were going for him, even though he had been morally upright.)

If you have a look at the things God is depicted as saying in reply, you get a clear view of what the author of the text believed that God had done. Firstly, he imagines God as a sort of cosmic builder:

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
Who stretched a measuring line across it?

On what were its footings set,
or who laid its cornerstone-

while the morning stars sang together
and all the angels shouted for joy?”

Then he uses another literary device – that of anthropomorphism – to paint a picture of the way that God organised things so that the earth would have seas and water, earth and fertile land, night and day, and moral organisation. Here we see God as midwife, tailor, ruler, letter writer, and voyager:

“Who shut up the sea behind doors
when it burst forth from the womb,

when I made the clouds its garment
and wrapped it in thick darkness,

when I fixed limits for it
and set its doors and bars in place,

when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
here is where your proud waves halt’?

“Have you ever given orders to the morning,
or shown the dawn its place,

that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?

The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.

The wicked are denied their light,
and their upraised arm is broken.

“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

Have the gates of death been shown to you?
Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death?

Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth?
Tell me, if you know all this.”

The picture in the bible is of a God who is intimately connected – and personally involved with creation, to the extent that moral identification with God’s character is something which the creation has imprinted within it.

In other words, what the bible doesn’t allow, in terms of Darwin’s theory, is a view of evolution as a mechanism beyond ultimate control. “Does the bible allow for any sort of evolution,” you ask.  ”No” is the answer – if you believe that evolution means that that God had nothing to do with making the earth, or that God could never be sovereign over so random-seeming a scheme, or that the mechanism precludes the possibility of absolutes of right and wrong.

Now, what should really melt your melon here is not the idea that God creates things. Rather it should probably be the thought that a good God, by literal application of that principle, just became responsible for making the parasite that eats the baby’s eye. In other words, God causes calamities – he “creates” them. But that’s also what the bible says.

The bible has not a lot to say about the science of it all. Why would it?

Modern science answers the questions that boil down to: “How does this happen?”

The theologians were more writing answers to the other question: “Why does this happen?”

“Why” and “How” both have to do with causes, but the “why questions” have something to do with transcendent causes, whereas the scientific “how questions” are within the province of natural – i.e. created causes: the realm of, for want of a better word, the physical.

Nobody in the ancient near east was reading the bible’s text to discover the scientific truth about how the world came to be. Similarly, nobody in the ancient near east was writing a narrative of HOW the world came to be, in the strictly physical sense.

They were reading it to discover why we are here, and what we should do about it. Let’s face it, before you even know the secrets of many metals, the type of science you are able to pursue is pretty basic. But the human soul has an inbuilt propensity to ask the why questions. Every person is created in God’s image – in the sense that we are more than bodies, we are souls and bodies, life and breath.

In the Genesis narrative, they would have been startled to discover not some limited dualistic theology, but an unlimited all-powerful God who doesn’t wipe out everyone and start again from scratch.

The essential point the bible makes is that God is the one who created us and everything else, for his own reasons.

The bible doesn’t really go into the mechanisms he used, because God didn’t inspire the writers to understand the mechanisms.

Besides, I bet most of us are way too dumb to think God’s thoughts after him like that. (A few years of struggling through high school chemistry and physics certainly makes me believe that to be true of myself…) On the other hand, it’s rather good to discover that God does do things for a beneficent reason, when the world and we are in such a mess.

Edgar is a husband and father, and a youthworker, working for a mainstream evangelical church in Scotland. He knows just enough about God to make him dangerous. He blogs the bible a wee bit at a time over at http://caughtnottaught.blogspot.com/

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.

This town is a gold mine. I bought the stack below at a mall -  A MALL! And I only went through half of what they had so I’ll be going back today. I didn’t pay more than $4.99 for any of these.

 Top book is by Ratzinger (BXVI).  I’ve skimmed it and his writing is fantastic.

There are three in the stack by Erwin McManus… I picked up another of his last week in London so I’m pretty close to have all of his.

“The Sacred Way” is by TonyJones. We’ll see about that one.

“Favorite Psalms” is by John Stott

Bottom book (“The Sprit of Revival”) is by R.C. Sproul and is subtitled “Discover the Wisdom of Jonathan Edwards”

Stay tuned… I’m going to Baker Books today.

I always buy a lot of books at this time of the year.  Tomorrow we’re heading for Grand Rapids where I’ll buy a few dozen more.  Below are spine pics of some that I bought this week.

I picked these up one night at a thrift store and at Chapters in the discount section:

I picked up the ones in the next few pics in various shops in London:

These next few are ones I already have, so these will be to give away:

Here is the finished product (as a PDF or Word Doc) of the project I started with this post.

Enjoy, critque, ignore… your choice.

From a two-part interview with Darryl Dash:

How do we change in order to contextualize without changing the gospel?

That is the practical question in ministry. If you under-contextualize your ministry and message, no one’s life will be changed because they’ll be too confused about what you are saying. But if you over-contextualize your ministry and your message, no one’s life will be changed because you won’t really be confronting them and calling them to make deep change.

If this scares you and you say, “Well then let’s not even try it,” then you have to remember something: to over-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of their culture, but to under-contextualize to a new generation means you can make an idol out of the culture you come from. So there’s no avoiding it.

There’s far more to say about this subject, but I’ll just give you one bit of advice. The gospel is the key. If you don’t have a deep grasp on the gospel of grace, you will either over-contextualize because you want so desperately to be liked and popular, or you will under-contextualize because you are self-righteous and proud and so sure you are right about everything. The gospel makes you humble enough to listen and adapt to non-believers, but confident and happy enough that you don’t need their approval.

*See this post for explanation and ground rules, commentary on vv 18-20 and this post for commentary on v 21.

 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

They chose to ignore the wisdom of God, yet continued to seek knowledge and wisdom.  But this is rather like trying to know everything about a novel after having removed the main character from the events of the plot.  All that remains is a series of decontextualized events around which a matrix of new fictitious ideas must be wrapped.  Removing God from their worldview the gaps left needed to be filled.  This becomes foolishness very quickly.  Only by reinstating the main character of the story will the story ever cease to be foolishness.

(see also 2 Corinthians 4:4 – “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.”)

In v 23 we see the result of removing God from the story.  What is left without God is what God has created… I guess we could call these parts of his visible attributes, or at least clues to the existence of his INvisible attributes.  At any rate, since they are snubbing God, the next best thing they can find to worship is “images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.”

The exchanging of the glory of what is immortal for that which is mortal is a grievous sin and a result of a) rejecting God and b) attempting to recreate truth with your own details.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

“Therefore” indicates that what he is about to say is because of the preceding ideas. BECAUSE they claimed to be wise while rejecting the truth of God, they became fools. And so, having made themselves fools, God “gives them up” or “hands them over” to fully pursue that which they are already pursuing.

Series index:
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:22-25

Your turn.

________________________________________________________________

Click here to subscribe to Michael Krahn: A Mind Awake

(What does “subscribe” mean?)

*See this post for explanation and ground rules, commentary on vv 18-20 and this post for commentary on vv 22-25.

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

They knew who God was but rather than accepting his righteousness (right standing) they are content to “go it alone”, to, in a sense, make a go of it without God – not because they do not believe he exists but because they believe they can do better for themselves.

They suppress (hide, keep out of sight) the truth.  Now they cannot live otherwise since they think themselves wiser than God.  Because of this suppression of the truth a void is left in their reality; remove truth and the void it leaves must be filled.  A comprehensive fiction was necessary to fill this void.  The fiction is self-salvation.

Suppressing the truth obviously means you exclude it from any times of meditation or reflection.  This is what causes one to become futile in his thinking, and what follows is a darkness of the heart.  This makes sense… suppress the light of truth and darkness follows.

Series index:
Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:22-25

Your turn.

________________________________________________________________

Click here to subscribe to Michael Krahn: A Mind Awake

(What does “subscribe” mean?)

Join me for an experiment in collaborative scripture study. I am studying Romans 1:18-25 for a term paper.  My first task for an assignment of this type is to simply read the passage and process the thoughts that naturally arise.

The ground rules for your feedback are as follows:

1. I’ve done the following without consulting commentaries – I expect you to do the same.

2. Don’t be afraid to put your ideas out there.  No doubt by the time I’m done this paper I will see some of things differently.  We should all feel free to give our insights without fear of reproach (reproachful comments will be edited).

3. If you’re more comfortable doing this privately, email me at michael.krahn@gmail.com

*4. (UPDATE) This could be a unique discussion between Christians, Atheists, Agnostics and everything between.  Keep that in mind when you comment.

So here we go.  First the full text we’ll be studying (ESV):

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

Look at vv 18-20.  Here is the initial Krahn Commentary:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

Against ALL ungodliness… does this include when Christians act in an ungodly way?  It says that those who suppress the truth do so “by their unrighteousness”.  The Christian is righteous in standing if not in practice. Will have to dig into commentary and word meaning of “unrighteousness” in this instance.

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.

How has God shown it to them?

20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

This is a tricky part… “His invisible attributes… have been clearly perceived.”

“Invisible” = they cannot be seen, “Attributes” = the characteristics of his personality, “Clearly” = without at doubt, without blur or murkiness, “Perceived” = seen or sensed

So to restate vv 19-20: “The invisible qualities of his character have been seen in a way that leaves no doubt about their truth. This is plain to them because God has shown it clearly. This leaves them without excuse.

Your turn.

Series index:

Romans 1:18-20
Romans 1:21
Romans 1:22-25

________________________________________________________________

Click here to subscribe to Michael Krahn: A Mind Awake

(What does “subscribe” mean?)

The gutsy Reformer Martin Luther was no fan of the book that James the brother of Jesus wrote, calling it “an epistle of straw” in his 1522 preface to the New Testament. And yet in his translation of the Bible the book of James remained.

“Faith,” Luther wrote, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.”

“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead,” James says in his book, “so also faith apart from works is dead.”  The first part of the verse seems easy enough to understand: if a human body has no spirit, no breath, it remains a body, but it is no longer alive. Works, in the same way, are a part of faith like breathing is a part of life.

James shows us what faith is in the example of Abraham. Abraham believed God, and because he believed God he trusted him.  This is faith: believing God and trusting what he says to be true. Abraham proved his faith (trust) in God by preparing to sacrifice his son Isaac.  Since God promised that through Isaac future generations would come, Abraham trusted that God would either provide an escape or bring Isaac back to life after he was dead.

James shows us that merely saying you believe is not enough.  “You believe in God – good for you!” James says, before he adds, “but demons believe too, so what good is belief by itself?”  Faith that is just lip service to God is not the faith that saves us. Saying you trust God but never taking any action that proves that trust is like calling a dead body alive.

Faith that never shows itself in works is useless, like a body without breath. It’s the kind of faith that will die, decompose, and result in nothing.  But here’s some good news from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.  He tells them that we are God’s “workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.”  If you are a child of God, he has things for you to do!  Will you show that you trust him by doing the things he has prepared for you?

Works are a part of faith like breathing is a part of life.

Start breathing.

________________________________________________________________

Click here to subscribe to Michael Krahn: A Mind Awake

(What does “subscribe” mean?)

Available here.

I am way backed up on writing… I have a lot of hand written notes and some audio from the Why Everything Must Change conference and Desiring God 2008 conference.

It will all make it here eventually, but for now enjoy the DG08 audio and video.

Yes, I love Google… and it’s a much cheaper obsession then being an Apple fanboy.  And I love audio, both spoken-word and music.  So this is exciting:

 http://labs.google.com/gaudi

It looks like its not fully functional yet but this is very promising.

(HT: Justin Taylor)

1. Online Bible Resources and Tools for Study
2. Christian Sermon Links

3. 212 Christian Blogs Worth Viewing

(HT: Matt Dabbs )

These came from a book sale in a mall

Rob Bell – Velvet Elvis

Dan Kimball – Emerging Worship

Dan Kimball – The Emerging Church

Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones (editors) – An Emergent Manifesto of Hope

David F. Wells – Above All Earthly Powers

And these are from Baker Book House (round one!)

Scott M. Gibson – Preaching the Old Testament

C. J. Mahaney – Humility

Ed Stetzer – Planting Missional Churches

John Stott – Between Two Worlds : The Art of Preaching in the Twentieth Century

B. B. Warfield – The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible 

Tim Challies is finally putting words down on paper. The Oakville, Ontario author is better known as a prolific and widely-read blogger and chronicler of various Christian conferences than a book author. Making a successful transition from blogger to published author is, so far, a rare occurrence but one that seems natural for bloggers who think of themselves as serious writers in training.

In The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment, Challies wears his influences on his sleeve, quoting Evangelical theologians and pastors like Albert Mohler, John Piper, J.I. Packer, and John MacArthur. If the aforementioned authors are familiar to you, you are almost guaranteed to find this a useful book.

Challies wisely avoids explicit prescriptions and lists of what is allowable or off-limits for Christians. Instead, he works and reworks the passages of scripture that teach the principles of discernment in an effort to show readers how to discern for themselves. This strategy is more likely to ensure both the timelessness and prolonged usefulness of this book.

In ten balanced chapters, he develops his subject well; exploring various aspects of discernment and providing practical strategies for applying what is learned. “Where evangelism is a gift that is offensive in nature, taking the battle to new regions,” he says, “discernment is a defensive gift that protects the ground that has already been taken.”

The last chapter of the book – The Practice of Discernment – is especially useful as a summary of the book and an action plan for discernment. In addition, a study guide is included at the back of the book which makes it a good resource for bible studies and small groups.

You can read Tim Challies’ blog and order his book at www.Challies.com

Tim Challies’s new (and first!) book The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment arrived in the mail today.  I’ve already started reading it and will post a review when I finish.

Earlier this week I sent a suggestion to Tim that he blog about his experiences as a first-time published author for the benefit of those who hope to someday publish their own books. Well, Tim put up a lengthy post today defending himself against some comments made by, of all people, Steve Camp (yes, THAT Steve Camp, all you CCM aficionados) on Justin Taylor’s blog, Between Two Worlds about, of all things, the blurbs on the back of Tim’s book.  Is this sounding a little surreal to anyone else?
This wasn’t exactly what I had in mind from Tim, but it’ll do for now.  Go get the book and read it!