Did the Hebrews Worship an Imperfect God?

Is God perfect?

In an astounding article in the New York Times, Yoram Hazony argues not only that God is not perfect but also that the writers of the Old Testament also believed in an imperfect deity. Hazony is president of the Institute for Advanced Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem and the author of The Philosophy of Hebrew Scripture.
Hazony's extraordinary claims are worth examining in detail, so I'll provide extensive excerpts from his article to provide context for my rebuttal.

Is God perfect? You often hear philosophers describe "theism" as the belief in a perfect being --- a being whose attributes are said to include being all-powerful, all-knowing, immutable, perfectly good, perfectly simple, and necessarily existent (among others). And today, something like this view is common among lay people as well.
A God who is perfectly powerful can not also be perfectly good. There are two famous problems with this view of God. The first is that it appears to be impossible to make it coherent. For example, it seems unlikely that God can be both perfectly powerful and perfectly good if the world is filled (as it obviously is) with instances of terrible injustice. Similarly, it's hard to see how God can wield his infinite power to instigate alteration and change in all things if he is flat-out immutable. And there are more such contradictions where these came from.

Hazony makes two shockingly controversial claims in his opening paragraphs.
The first, his assertion that a perfectly powerful and perfectly good God is a "contradiction", isn't relevant to his article, so I'll let it pass without much comment. A study of the philosophy of religion over the past few decades, however, will show that the question is not nearly as "unlikely" as Hazony seems to think.
The second claim is a supposed contradiction that appears to be based on a misunderstanding about the definition of "immutable." Immutability does not mean, as Hazony seems to imply, inactivity, immobility, or idleness on the part of God, but rather that his nature is unchangeable. Unfortunately, such philosophical and semantic confusions form the basis of Hazony's argument for an imperfect God.

The second problem is that while this "theist" view of God is supposed to be a description of the God of the Bible, it's hard to find any evidence that the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible (or "Old Testament") thought of God in this way at all. The God of Hebrew Scripture is not depicted as immutable, but repeatedly changes his mind about things (for example, he regrets having made man). He is not all-knowing, since he's repeatedly surprised by things (like the Israelites abandoning him for a statue of a cow). He is not perfectly powerful either, in that he famously cannot control Israel and get its people to do what he wants. And so on.

The claim that "the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible" did not believe God was immutable or all-knowing is directly contradicted by the prophets and scholars who wrote the Hebrew Bible. For example, in Malachai 3:6 we find, "For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."
If we're looking for a statement about God's immutability, it is hard to find one better than God saying, "I the Lord do not change." However, in the very next verse we also find, "Return to me, and I will return to you, says the Lord of hosts." In one verse we find God saying he does not change and yet in the next he appears to be saying that he will, if Israel acts, change his attitude toward them. Should we believe that Malachai is such a poor writer (and prophet) that he isn't even aware that he is transcribing a contradiction?
Not at all. In verse 6 God is saying who he is does not change, while in verse 7 he is saying he will relate differently to a people who are capable of changing. There is no contradiction here, or anywhere else in the Old Testament, between God's immutable nature and the anthropomorphic figures of speech used to describe God's apparent "change of mind."
Other scriptures that reference God's immutability are:
Numbers 23:19 - "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"
1 Samuel 15:29 - "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."
Psalms 33:11 - "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of his heart to all generations."
Psalms 102:25-27 - Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away, but you are the same, and your years have no end."
Isaiah 46:10 ". . . declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . .'"
Similarly, the assertion that God is not all-knowing is also contradicted by scripture. For example:
Job 37:16 - "Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge, . . . "
Psalms 147:5 - "Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure."
Psalm 139:4 - "Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely, O LORD"
Hazony continues:

Philosophers have spent many centuries trying to get God's supposed perfections to fit together in a coherent conception, and then trying to get that to fit with the Bible. By now it's reasonably clear that this can't be done. In fact, part of the reason God-bashers like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are so influential (apart from the fact they write so well) is their insistence that the doctrine of God's perfections makes no sense, and that the idealized "being" it tells us about doesn't resemble the biblical God at all.

Hazony claims that one of the reasons Dawkins and Harris are influential is because "their insistence that the doctrine of God's perfections makes no sense." While it may be true that the arguments of the New Atheists look plausible to the gullible and uninformed, they are not respected by the knowledgeable theologians or philosophers of religion.
Indeed, Dawkins has developed quite a reputation for repeating erroneous claims even when it is repeatedly pointed out to him that he doesn't know what he's talking about. The perfections of God is a prime example.
An example of Dawkins' misunderstanding, which Hazony seems to share, is the idea that for God to exist he must be metaphysically complex. In this view, there is a distinction between God and his attributes, that is, that God's existence is separable from his attributes (such as immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, etc.). But this is not the view of classical theism.
The view of classical theism, shared by Jews (Maimonides), Christians (Aquinas, Calvin), Muslims (Avicenna) and Greeks (Plotinus), is the doctrine of divine simplicity. As the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy explains, divine simplicity means:

. . . God is radically unlike creatures in that he is devoid of any complexity or composition, whether physical or metaphysical. Besides lacking spatial and temporal parts, God is free of matter/form composition, potency/act composition, and existence/essence composition. There is also no real distinction between God as subject of his attributes and his attributes. God is thus in a sense requiring clarification identical to each of his attributes, which implies that each attribute is identical to every other one. God is omniscient, then, not in virtue of instantiating or exemplifying omniscience --- which would imply a real distinction between God and the property of omniscience --- but by being omniscience. And the same holds for each of the divine omni-attributes: God is what he has. As identical to each of his attributes, God is identical to his nature. And since his nature or essence is identical to his existence, God is identical to his existence.

To see why this is relevant to Hazony's claim, we need to turn to the next section of his article.

So is that it, then? Have the atheists won? I don't think so. But it does look like the time has come for some rethinking in the theist camp.
I'd start with this: Is it really necessary to say that God is a "perfect being," or perfect at all, for that matter? As far as I can tell, the biblical authors avoid asserting any such thing. And with good reason. Normally, when we say that something is "perfect," we mean it has attained the best possible balance among the principles involved in making it the kind of thing it is. For example, if we say that a bottle is perfect, we mean it can contain a significant quantity of liquid in its body; that its neck is long enough to be grasped comfortably and firmly; that the bore is wide enough to permit a rapid flow of liquid; and so on. Of course, you can always manufacture a bottle that will hold more liquid, but only by making the body too broad (so the bottle doesn't handle well) or the neck too short (so it's hard to hold). There's an inevitable trade-off among the principles, and perfection lies in the balance among them. And this is so whether what's being judged is a bottle or a horse, a wine or a gymnastics routine or natural human beauty.

The first thing that must be noted is that Hazony is once again making claims about the Old Testament that are directly contradicted by the Old Testament. For example, there are two word-groups in the Hebrew Bible that are translated "perfect" or "perfection": tamam and calal. Here are a few instances where those terms are used:
Deuteronomy 32:4 - "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice."
2 Samuel 22:31 - "This God---his way is perfect; the word of the LORD proves true . . ." (which is repeated in Psalm 18:30)
Job 37:16 - "Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge, . . ."
Hazony says that "when we say that something is 'perfect,' we mean it has attained the best possible balance among the principles involved in making it the kind of thing it is." While that may be true if we are talking about perfection in creation, that is not at all what is meant classical theists when they talk about God. Since the doctrine of divine simplicity means that God is not comprised of either material or metaphysical parts, it would be incoherent to claim that for God to be perfect his parts (attributes, essences) must be in "the best possible balance."
Hazony's claim may be relevant to certain forms of theism (such as theistic personalism), but it has no bearing on the understanding of God of classical theism.
Hazony also has an additional objection:

Yet the biblical accounts of our encounters with God emphasize that all human views of God are partial and fragmentary in just this way. Even Moses, the greatest of the prophets, is told that he can't see God's face, but can only catch a glimpse of God's back as he passes by. At another point, God responds to Moses' request to know his name (that is, his nature) by telling him "ehi'eh asher ehi'eh" ---"I will be what I will be." In most English-language Bibles this is translated "I am that I am," following the Septuagint, which sought to bring the biblical text into line with the Greek tradition (descended from Xenophanes, Parmenides and Plato's "Timaeus") of identifying God with perfect being. But in the Hebrew original, the text says almost exactly the opposite of this: The Hebrew "I will be what I will be" is in the imperfect tense, suggesting to us a God who is incomplete and changing. In their run-ins with God, human beings can glimpse a corner or an edge of something too immense to be encompassed, a "coming-into-being" as God approaches, and no more. The belief that any human mind can grasp enough of God to begin recognizing perfections in him would have struck the biblical authors as a pagan conceit.

Once again we can see how Hazony's rejection of divine simplicity affects his understanding of God. If God is composed of different parts, then when humans get a "partial and fragmentary" view of him, we could not make a judgment about his perfection. But because God is identical to each of his attributes, we are able to see from any revelation the perfection of God. Indeed, as the Biblical authors make clear, we can recognize his perfection by seeing that his works are perfect. (Deut. 32:4, 2 Sam. 22:31, Psalm 18:30)
Next we turn to his exegesis of Exodus 3:14. Even if we concede that "ehi'eh asher ehi'eh" should be translated as "I will be what I will be," it is a curious interpretation of the grammar to say that this is "exactly the opposite" of "I am that I am." (The exact opposite would be, "I am not that I am not.") Saying "I am the person I have always been" and "I will be the person I have always been" mean exactly the same. God's immutability is consistent with either translation.
It is also shocking to hear that the biblical authors would consider God's perfection a "pagan conceit" considering that they are the ones we get the concept from. What Hazony is really asking us to do is to accept---like Christian open theists---a pagan conception of God. He thinks that the best we can do is "hope that God is faithful and just" (emphasis in original). This is, once again, completely contrary to the way the Biblical authors portray God. Moses doesn't just hope that God is faithful; he is absolutely certain about God's character: "Know therefore that the Lord your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations . . ." (Deut. 7:9). We also find God's justice and faithfulness praised in Psalms, Lamentations, Proverbs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 1 Kings, etc. (On almost every claim Hazony makes about the Bible, the evidence supports the exact opposite conclusion.)
Hazony believes that since theism is rapidly losing ground across Europe and among Americans as well" that we should reconsider the claims about God's perfection. "Surely a more plausible conception of God couldn't hurt," he says. But such a false conception of God will cause great harm. What Hazony is offering is an idol, an imperfect god for a postmodern people, not the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What is needed is not a more plausible conception of God but the most plausible conception of God, which can only be found in Jesus.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/12/03/did-the-hebrews-worship-an-imperfect-god/

God's plan in the midst of chaos

happy monday!

Luke 1: God's Plan through the Chaos from CCV on Vimeo.

5 Signs You Glorify Self

It is important to recognize the harvest of self-glory in you and in your ministry. May God use this list to give you diagnostic wisdom. May he use it to expose your heart and to redirect your ministry.

Self-glory will cause you to:

1. Parade in public what should be kept in private.

The Pharisees live for us as a primary example. Because they saw their lives as glorious, they were quick to parade that glory before watching eyes. The more you think you've arrived and the less you see yourself as daily needing rescuing grace, the more you will tend to be self-referencing and self-congratulating. Because you are attentive to self-glory, you will work to get greater glory even when you aren't aware that you're doing it. You will tend to tell personal stories that make you the hero. You will find ways, in public settings, of talking about private acts of faith. Because you think you're worthy of acclaim, you will seek the acclaim of others by finding ways to present yourself as "godly."
I know most pastors reading this column will think they would never do this, But I am convinced there is a whole lot more "righteousness parading" in pastoral ministry than we would tend to think. It is one of the reasons I find pastors' conferences, presbytery meetings, general assemblies, ministeriums, and church planting gatherings uncomfortable at times. Around the table after a session, these gatherings can degenerate into a pastoral ministry "spitting contest" where we are tempted to be less than honest about what's really going on in our hearts and ministries. After celebrating the glory of the grace of the gospel there is way too much self-congratulatory glory taking by people who seem to need more acclaim than they deserve.

2. Be way too self-referencing.

We all know it, we've all seen it, we've all been uncomfortable with it, and we've all done it. Proud people tend to talk about themselves a lot. Proud people tend to like their opinions more than the opinions of others. Proud people think their stories are more interesting and engaging than others. Proud people think they know and understand more than others. Proud people think they've earned the right to be heard. Proud people, because they are basically proud of what they know and what they've done, talk a lot about both. Proud people don't reference weakness. Proud people don't talk about failure. Proud people don't confess sin. So proud people are better at putting the spotlight on themselves than they are at shining the light of their stories and opinions on God's glorious and utterly undeserved grace.

3. Talk when you should be quiet.

When you think you've arrived, you are quite proud of and confident in your opinions. You trust your opinions, so you are not as interested in the opinions of others as you should be. You will tend to want your thoughts, perspectives, and viewpoints to win the day in any given meeting or conversation. This means you will be way more comfortable than you should be with dominating a gathering with your talk. You will fail to see that in a multitude of counsel there is wisdom. You will fail to see the essential ministry of the body of Christ in your life. You will fail to recognize your bias and spiritual blindness. So you won't come to meetings formal or informal with a personal sense of need for what others have to offer, and you will control the talk more than you should.

4. Be quiet when you should speak.

Self-glory can go the other way as well. Leaders who are too self-confident, who unwittingly attribute to themselves what could only have been accomplished by grace, often see meetings as a waste of time. Because they are proud, they are too independent, so meetings tend to be viewed as an irritating and unhelpful interruption of an already overburdened ministry schedule. Because of this they will either blow meetings off or tolerate the gathering, attempting to bring it to a close as quickly as possible. So they don't throw their ideas out for consideration and evaluation because, frankly, they don't think they need it. And when their ideas are on the table and being debated, they don't jump into the fray, because they think that what they have opined or proposed simply doesn't need to be defended. Self-glory will cause you to speak too much when you should listen and to feel no need to speak when you surely should.

5. Care too much about what people think about you.

When you have fallen into thinking that you're something, you want people to recognize the something. Again, you see this in the Pharisees: personal assessments of self-glory always lead to glory-seeking behavior. People who think they have arrived can become all too aware of how others respond to them. Because you're hyper-vigilant, watching the way the people in your ministry respond, you probably don't even realize how you do things for self-acclaim.
Sadly, we often minister the gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of our own glory, not for the glory of Christ or the redemption of the people under our care. I have done this. I have thought during the preparation for a sermon that a certain point, put a certain way, would win a detractor, and I have watched for certain people's reactions as I have preached. In these moments, in the preaching and preparation of a sermon, I had forsaken my calling as the ambassador of the eternal glory of another for the purpose of my acquiring the temporary praise of men.

Next week we'll look at five more signs the pursuit of self-glory shapes your ministry.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/12/02/5-signs-you-glorify-self/

7 Ways to Live Positively in a Negative Culture

FROM David Murray Nov 30, 2012 Category: Articles

We live in an increasingly negative culture and it’s easy to be dragged down with all the discouraging and depressing events that flood our hearts and overwhelm our minds.

I believe Christians have a huge opportunity to be counter-cultural missionaries in this dark day by demonstrating the positive power of the Gospel in their lives. But how is this possible? How do we maintain a positive life and witness in the face of so much negativity? Let me suggest seven areas to work on in our lives, in our families, and in our ministries:

1. More God than man: Keep God in the foreground rather than human beings. Think and talk more about God than about anyone else. Bring Him into every conversation and every area of your life. When human words and deeds are dragging you down, turn your thoughts towards God’s gracious Word and God’s glorious deeds.

2. More truth than lies: Although we must identify, expose, and warn about error, the greater proportion of our words should be about promoting the truth. There are so many lies around that we could easily spend all our time combatting them, only to find another seven appear for every one we decapitate. We, and those we minister to, need to hear God’s truth positively expounded and applied.

3. More objective than subjective: I love to talk, write, read, and hear about the heights and depths of Christian experience. However, if our subjective experience begins to push out the objective facts of the gospel, we are doomed to sink. Sanctification is wonderful, but justification is even more wonderful.

4. More future than past: Christianity is a religion of history. Without the facts of history, we have no Christ to believe in and no cross to atone for our sins. We cannot look back at that history enough. However, we can often look back at our own personal history too much - a history of disappointing failure and deep frustration. That’s why we have to keep a future orientation to our faith. The best truly is yet to be. We have a great hope waiting to be realized. Look forward more than backward.

5. More heaven than hell: As we look forward, two destinations rise on the horizon - heaven and hell. We cannot ignore or deny either reality. Thinking about both have a vital place in the Christian life and in motivating service and evangelism. However, if we are to maintain a positive outlook, our thoughts and words should be more taken up with heaven than hell. Is that true of your sermons, preacher?

6. More New Testament than Old Testament: I love the Old Testament and believe that it teaches the same way of salvation as the New Testament: salvation by grace alone through faith alone in God’s promised Messiah alone. But, no matter how brightly the gospel shines there, relative to the New Testament it is still in the shadows. We can sometimes see more in the shadows than in the bright light, but as a rule we want to spend more time in the sun than in the shade.

7. More victory than struggle: If you are a preacher, what would a word cloud reveal about your view of the Christian life? Would the words “trial, suffering, struggle, persecution, backsliding, defeat, temptation, etc.,” be in big font, while the words, “victory, growth, maturity, progress, usefulness, fruit, service, opportunity, advance, encouragement” be so small that they are unreadable? If so, don’t be surprised if your hearers are mourning more than celebrating.

Notice that in all of the above it’s not an “either/or” contrast I’m arguing for; it’s a “more than” balance I’m aiming at. And I hope that these seven bullets will help you target and kill any negative imbalances in your life, allowing the positive gospel of grace to revive and refresh you; and many others through you too.

women in ministry by mark driscoll

Declaring/Defending the Deity of Christ

Just thought I'd share

Faith and work

Does Monday morning excite you? If so, good for you(!), but that's not where many of us live.

Our jobs challenge and (threaten to) consume us. So what does devotion to Jesus Christ look like in competitive---and often cutthroat and insecure---workplace environments? How about in painfully mundane ones?

In his new book, Every Good Endeavor: Connecting Your Work to God's Work, Tim Keller (with Katherine Leary Alsdorf) applies characteristic insight to the realm of our vocations. Exploring the meaning, purpose, and significance of work, Keller brings the gospel "world-story" to bear on our frustrations and dreams---and on pressing questions like:

• What is the purpose of my work?
• Why is my job so difficult? Is there anything I can do about it?
• How can I find meaning and serve customers in a cutthroat, bottom-line-oriented workplace?
• Can I stay true to my values and still advance in my field?
• How do I make the necessary, difficult choices in the course of a successful career?

I corresponded with Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, about "working for the weekend"; how the counternarrative of the gospel addresses our propensity to idolize or demonize, to overwork or underwork; how to counsel discouraged employees; and more.

****************

Instead of viewing work as something we must get done in order to move on to the really important stuff of life, you suggest our vocation is actually the main arena in which we discharge our calling to serve our neighbor and partner with God in his loving care for the world. What's wrong with working for the weekend? 

The phrase "working for the weekend" ordinarily expresses a view of work as a necessary evil, but God put work into the Garden of Eden, so work must be an enormous good, something that fits and fulfills part of our design. The phrase also may mean working just for the money necessary to enjoy yourself in your leisure time. But work throughout the Bible is seen as service---service to God and our neighbor.

"Without an understanding of the gospel," you write, "we will be either naïvely utopian or cynically disillusioned." How is our heart's tendency to idolize or demonize particularly manifested in our work?

The gospel includes the news that the problem with the world is sin---sin in all of us, sin marring everything---and the only hope is God's grace. That prevents us from locating the real problem in any created thing (demonizing something that is God-created and good) or locating the real solution in any created thing (idolizing something limited and fallen). Also, the Bible lets us know that while Christ's kingdom is already here, it is not yet fully here. We are saved, but still very imperfect, yet we live in the certainty that love and goodness will triumph in the world and in us.

In short, we have no reason to become too angry or too sanguine about any trend or object or influence. We have no reason to become too optimistic or too pessimistic. In the book we argue that this balanced gospel-view of life has an enormous effect on how we work. Christian journalists should not be too cynical, nor should they write puff pieces or propaganda. Christian artists should be neither nihilistic and unremittingly dark (as so much contemporary art is), nor sentimental, saccharine, or strictly commercial (doing whatever sells). Christians in business should avoid both the "this company will change the world" hype or cynically "working for the weekend."

You observe that when "our identity is untethered to our job, we experience a new freedom both from our work and in our work." How can Christians ground their identity rightly and so be liberated from both overwork and underwork---and actually "set free to enjoy working"?

It is quite possible to believe that your deepest identity should be in Christ, but still have a heart functioning as if it is grounded in your work. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who was originally a physician, said "there are many whom I have had the privilege of meeting whose tombstones might well bear the grim epitaph . . . 'born a man, died a doctor.'" It is one thing to believe you are justified by Christ's righteousness, not your own achievements---and it is another thing to let the doctrine truly shape your affections, the way your heart works.

How do you change your heart? That question deserves either a week's answer or a sentence. So here's the sentence: "The holy Scripture and prayer--the one is the fountain of living water, the other the bucket with which we are to draw" (John Newton, Works, vol 1, p. 141).

Martyn Lloyd-Jones once remarked, "To me the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most gracious calling to which anyone can ever be called." Was Lloyd-Jones mistaken to elevate one calling above all others?

Maybe he was. I don't think Luther would agree with him. He argued forcefully and convincingly that since all callings are from God, and all human callings get God's work done, that they all have equal dignity.

But I'm still sympathetic to Lloyd-Jones's statement, especially when he says preaching is the most "gracious" calling. Maybe he would argue that all callings have equal dignity before God, but they don't all help people in equally powerful ways. Of all the gifts you can give people, what could be greater than revealing to them the saving grace of God?

In the end I have to side with Luther theologically---but I have to admit that often when I'm preaching with God's help I feel exactly the way Lloyd-Jones did.

What is the significance of Sabbath rest in relation to our work?

It has always been enormous, because it is one of God's ten basic commands for human life. But if possible it may be more important for our frantic, work-without-boundaries, manic culture. The Sabbath was radical in the time of ancient Israel, because it meant that work and profit-taking has limits, like a river that must not burst its banks. Life is not only about work and about making money. Bodies and minds need rest.

But the New Testament makes it clear that the practice of the Sabbath points to the deeper "Sabbath rest" of the gospel, in which we learn to rest in Christ for our salvation rather than in our works. This is the "rest under the rest" that we need in order to keep modern work from driving us into the ground with its endless demands for increasing profits and productivity.

How would you encourage a believer for whom work feels like pure drudgery, who thinks, There's just no way I'm making a difference?

Look at Ephesians 6:5-9 and Colossians 3, where Paul is talking not to professionals but to servants, telling them to transform the drudgery of their work by "working as unto the Lord." Lots of good commentaries and sermons out there on this Ephesians text help us understand the sweeping implications of this principle.

You remark that people "long for their pastor to be interested in learning more about the situations they face on a daily basis." How can pastors better empathize with, encourage, and equip their people in regard to their work?

At one point in my ministry here I regularly visited my members at their workplace---either eating lunch with them in their office or just going by to see them there. Usually these visits had to be brief---20 to 30 minutes. But this made it possible to learn quite a lot about their work-issues and the environment in which they spent so much of their time.

Another thing to do is gather some people from your church who work in the same field and ask them to come up with a set of issues or questions they have about how to integrate their Christian faith with their particular kind of work. Then try to answer those questions with biblical theology and pastoral wisdom.

Of course another thing to do is to preach often on passages of the Scripture that relate directly to our work in the world, but also about work from passages not directly on the subject. Always ask, "Does this text have anything to say to people in their work?"

Matt Smethurst serves as associate editor for The Gospel Coalition and lives in Louisville, Kentucky. 

(http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/11/12/when-the-gospel-invades-your-office-tim-keller-on-faith-and-work/)

Have a nice rest of the week everyone!! :)

 d

The Joyful Pursuit of Multi-ethnic Churches

Forming multi-ethnic churches seems to be appealing at first, but unless believers grasp the profound joy of pursuing diversity, the challenges of this type of ministry will quickly deflate them.

Churches that desire a more multi-ethnic membership desire a good thing, but it's not easy. Some churches are located in areas with virtually no ethnic diversity. Other churches across the spectrum still have leadership or laity who actively fight against any mixing ethnicities in their congregation. Still more churches may have the desire but lack the resources to effectively pursue multi-ethnicity.
While these problems are real, the right motivation can help churches persist in the call to multi-ethnicity. But people often have the wrong motivations. Guilt can be a motivation---this is especially true for people in the racial majority. The argument goes: "Whites have marginalized and oppressed blacks for so long, churches need to make it right by 'reaching out' to different races and ethnicities." While guilt has its place, this emotion will hardly give churches the determination they need to persevere through the difficulties of becoming multi-ethnic.
Another common motivation is fear. Christians fear lots of things about being in a mono-ethnic church. We fear that as neighborhood demographics change we will lose people. We fear that we will become irrelevant in the community. We fear being racist, or classist, or elitist. Fear, too, has its place. But that won't keep churches moving toward a multi-ethnic vision.
We need to be reminded of the joy of diversity. We need to keep that joy before us so it can motivate us for the marathon that is multi-ethnicity ministry. Here are six joys of pursuing a multi-ethnic make-up in churches.


1. You become more racially, ethnically, and culturally savvy.
In a healthy multi-ethnic church it becomes acceptable to talk about differences in race, ethnicity, and culture. Continual interactions with people different from you makes you into a person who is more sensitive and aware of culture and ethnicity. You make fewer missteps and feel less awkward when engaging people across racial and cultural gaps.

2. Your church becomes a safe haven for lots of different people.
Regardless of one's ethnicity, everyone wants to worship in a place that feels "safe." As an African American who longs for biblical teaching and preaching I do not feel at home in church that has erroneous theology but is more culturally familiar. Nor do I feel comfortable in a church with sound theology but is culturally distant. A multi-ethnic church becomes a place where I can get both sound doctrine and an accessible cultural experience. What is true along racial lines is also true along economic, linguistic, and other lines. Multi-ethnic churches communicate that it's all right to be different, and then lots of different people start coming.

3. You begin to understand what is primary and what is preference.
In a multi-ethnic church you have to constantly work to address the diverse needs of several ethnic groups. So you start having lots of conversations about what elements of worship are primary and which ones are preference. Churches that do this well begin to hone in on the essential truths of the gospel and communicate them more clearly while at the same time demonstrating flexibility and wisdom regarding culturally conditioned opinions about worship.

4. You want to invite people to church.
How many times have you hesitated to invite a person to church out of concern that the person wouldn't "fit in"? In many churches there is an unspoken expectation that people will wear a certain type of clothes, speak a certain way, know certain songs, have a certain background, and the like. Multi-ethnic churches make it easier for different people---folks with purple hair and earrings in their eyebrows, folks who can't afford a suit and tie, folks who have never been to church and don't know how to pray, folks of a different color---to feel at home. This, in turn, makes you bolder and more confident to invite people to church.

5. Your church becomes an authentic witness in your community.
Ethnically diverse churches authentically witness the gospel's power to reconcile people to God and each other. In a society shredded by sectarian interests---political, ideological, racial, you name it---churches that demonstrate unity in diversity attract attention. Multi-ethnic churches demonstrate that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

6. You get a glimpse of God's kingdom come.
Revelation 7:9 gives a concise depiction of the heavenly kingdom: "After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands." Scripture teaches that an essential aspect of the heavenly congregation is racial and ethnic diversity---Christ is calling people from all nations to himself. Multi-ethnic churches excite God's people because they truly reflect God's people.

The Joy of Unity in Diversity

We delight in multi-ethnic churches because they reflect the essential nature of God himself. God reveals himself in the three persons of the godhead--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Yet these three are one. The Trinity gloriously displays the unity and diversity of God. And God has so ordered the congregation of his people to reflect his three-in-oneness.
Although imperfect and incomplete, we can truly enjoy this reflection in our churches. The joy we feel in a multi-ethnic gathering of worshipers is the joy of feeling God's pleasure as we glorify him in his triune being. May God's church joyfully pursue diversity through our unified faith in Christ.

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/11/13/the-joyful-pursuit-of-multi-ethnic-churches/

Put in the Fire for the Sake of Prayer

"And meanwhile the devil is whispering all over this room: “The pastor is getting legalistic now. He’s starting to use guilt now. He’s getting out the law now.” To which I say, “To hell with the devil and all of his destructive lies. Be free!” Is it true that intentional, regular, disciplined, earnest, Christ-dependent, God-glorifying, joyful prayer is a duty? Do I go to pray with many of you on Tuesday at 6:30 a.m., and Wednesday at 5:45 p.m., and Friday at 6:30 a.m., and Saturday at 4:45 p.m., and Sunday at 8:15 a.m. out of duty? Is it a discipline?You can call it that. It’s a duty the way it’s the duty of a scuba diver to put on his air tank before he goes underwater. It’s a duty the way pilots listen to air traffic controllers. It’s a duty the way soldiers in combat clean their rifles and load their guns. It’s a duty the way hungry people eat food. It’s a duty the way thirsty people drink water. It’s a duty the way a deaf man puts in his hearing aid. It’s a duty the way a diabetic takes his insulin. It’s a duty the way Pooh Bear looks for honey. It’s a duty the way pirates look for gold."

Speaking of prayer... We have prayer meetings every Tuesday at 7:30 pm ! Come join us!

Dever on gifts:)

Christianity.com: Have the miraculous gifts like tongues and prophecy ceased?-Mark Dever from christianitydotcom2 on GodTube.