In my preparation for Sunday's sermon, I have been thinking about Romans 8:7-8 -- "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
In his commentary on this passage of Scripture, Martin Luther asks the question, "Where then is man's free will?" The more I meditate on it, the more I think Luther is right. The apostle Paul begins with a sheer statements of fact. Those who are "set on the flesh" (as contrasted with the regenerate person who is "set on the Spirit") have a mindset that is hostile to God. Although some might want to protest that "hostile" is too strong a word, that perhaps we know lots of people who are not Christians who do not "hate" God, the brute statement of Romans 8:7 remains, and it is echoed in passages such as Ephesians 4:17-19 and Jeremiah 17:9. But to the person who continues to protest, the apostle adds the statement that those set on the flesh do not submit to God's law and indeed cannot. There is an implicit question to the one who doubts his own hostility to God: Do you then do what He commands? And there is an implicit challenge: Try doing what He commands. You will find that you will not and cannot.
John Calvin writes in his commentary on Romans, "The heart is full of hardness and indomitable contumacy." And he is talking about my heart, apart from the life-giving work of the Holy Spirit attained for me through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the ever effectual voice of Jesus calling me to come and follow Him (Jn 10:27), apart from from the work of God's Spirit to open my eyes, unstop my ears, uncloud my conscience, soften my heart, and grant me faith and repentance (Jn 3:3-8; Eph 2:1-5; I Pet 1:3), I would never have believed. In fact, I not only would not have believed, I did not want to believe. I not only could not follow Jesus, I did not want to follow Him. I not only could not please God, I did not want to please God. Until I heard Christ's call and received the new birth, I was ever hearing but not understanding, ever seeing but not perceiving (Isa 6:9; Mk 4:12).
But now by God's grace, I can read Romans 8:9 and find hope: "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you." And does He dwell in me? He does if I am in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1-4). And who is in Christ Jesus? The one who has faith in Him (Rom 4:24-25; 5:1-2; 6:1-4). And how do I possess this faith? As a gift from God (Phil 1:29; Eph 2:8-9).
Everything that I have in Christ, every way in which I have ever pleased God, every ability and good work, the life that is at work in me to change me, the very faith that unites me to Christ -- all a free gift of God's grace! There is no room for pride in a heart that is captured by these truths. There is nothing to be proud about. Surely believing our own depravity and inability will help us see the heights of the grace of God, and seeing this grace will root out arrogance and cultivate humility within us. Within me.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Thoughts before I vote today
In a few hours, I will head to the polls and vote for candidates for a number of offices, from the local to the national level. I am told that as a pastor, I should not publicly endorse one party or one candidate, a stance with which I agree but for different reasons than those given by the IRS. I am less worried about my church's tax-exempt status than I am about becoming beholden to one party over another, or wedding spiritual concerns too closely to political processes, or encouraging the flock with which I have been entrusted and for which I will be held accountable to see solutions to moral and spiritual problems coming from government.
So there will be no endorsements appearing on this blog. But I do have a few thoughts that I would like to share.
First some general convictions:
Every Christian in a democracy has an obligation to vote. This form of government makes its citizens part of the governing process. Those who govern are appointed by God and have the obligation before Him to govern well (Psa 72:1-4; Rom 13:1-7). God's people are also called to do good and seek the welfare of the place that they live (Jer 29:7). By implication, Christians in a democracy are appointed by God to vote responsibly and with an eye toward doing justice for the wicked and the righteous, for the lowly and the powerful.
All Christians have an obligation to pray for and submit to those in power (I Tim 1:1-2; I Pet 2:13-17), regardless of whom we voted for. Our prayers are the most effective weapon we have for influencing the course of affairs for our nation.
Christians should weigh the issues and vote their conscience. But not all issues are created equal. There are "weightier matters of the law" (Matt 23:23). That means that although we may evaluate Candidate A to be stronger on more issues than than Candidate B, if Candidate B is stronger on the weightier matters, or on the weightiest matter of all, then a Christian's conscience should be moved to vote for Candidate B. Go to this short essay-in-the-form-of-a-dialogue for an example of how this reasoning might work (HT: JT).
And now some personal convictions:
I wish I did not have to choose between key issues: the right to life of the unborn; justice for "the alien, the fatherless, and the widow"; stewardship of the created order; national security; economic policy. But choose I must. Opting out is not an option at all.
I am frightened of the prospect of the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act. But I am also aware that our national culture regarding beginning of life issues has changed since 1973. Until the church through our lives, actions, and words has a greater impact for the sake of the gospel, passing and defeating legislation has an important but limited role in seeking justice for the unborn.
I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. I do not see how just war theory can be used to justify the invasion. But I am also aware that the situation in Iraq and its neighboring countries has changed since 2003. Leaving too soon could be worse than having invaded in the first place. Leaving too late could keep an independent and stable government from emerging. Anyone who says they know exactly what to do and when to do it in Iraq is foolish.
I do not need the Kyoto Protocol to tell me that stewardship of the created order is a good idea. Nor do I need an advocate of drilling in the ANWR to tell me that greater energy independence is wise. And some might accuse me of being naive or idealistic, but I also do not see a reason that stewardship and energy independence should be mutually exclusive concerns.
Try for a moment to step back from this particular election and these particular candidates. I would be delighted to vote for someone of a different ethnicity than mine. I would even say that having an African-American as my country's president would delight me.
In the end, the injustice of almost 50 million dead unborn children overwhelms any other injustices that I see in the political realm, not merely in this election but in any election. Though I largely agree with this essay by John Piper, I would not define myself as a single-issue voter. But some matters are so weighty that they open and close doors for further matters to be evaluated. The right to life is such an issue, the right not merely to live in a just world, but to live at all.
So there will be no endorsements appearing on this blog. But I do have a few thoughts that I would like to share.
First some general convictions:
Every Christian in a democracy has an obligation to vote. This form of government makes its citizens part of the governing process. Those who govern are appointed by God and have the obligation before Him to govern well (Psa 72:1-4; Rom 13:1-7). God's people are also called to do good and seek the welfare of the place that they live (Jer 29:7). By implication, Christians in a democracy are appointed by God to vote responsibly and with an eye toward doing justice for the wicked and the righteous, for the lowly and the powerful.
All Christians have an obligation to pray for and submit to those in power (I Tim 1:1-2; I Pet 2:13-17), regardless of whom we voted for. Our prayers are the most effective weapon we have for influencing the course of affairs for our nation.
Christians should weigh the issues and vote their conscience. But not all issues are created equal. There are "weightier matters of the law" (Matt 23:23). That means that although we may evaluate Candidate A to be stronger on more issues than than Candidate B, if Candidate B is stronger on the weightier matters, or on the weightiest matter of all, then a Christian's conscience should be moved to vote for Candidate B. Go to this short essay-in-the-form-of-a-dialogue for an example of how this reasoning might work (HT: JT).
And now some personal convictions:
I wish I did not have to choose between key issues: the right to life of the unborn; justice for "the alien, the fatherless, and the widow"; stewardship of the created order; national security; economic policy. But choose I must. Opting out is not an option at all.
I am frightened of the prospect of the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act. But I am also aware that our national culture regarding beginning of life issues has changed since 1973. Until the church through our lives, actions, and words has a greater impact for the sake of the gospel, passing and defeating legislation has an important but limited role in seeking justice for the unborn.
I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. I do not see how just war theory can be used to justify the invasion. But I am also aware that the situation in Iraq and its neighboring countries has changed since 2003. Leaving too soon could be worse than having invaded in the first place. Leaving too late could keep an independent and stable government from emerging. Anyone who says they know exactly what to do and when to do it in Iraq is foolish.
I do not need the Kyoto Protocol to tell me that stewardship of the created order is a good idea. Nor do I need an advocate of drilling in the ANWR to tell me that greater energy independence is wise. And some might accuse me of being naive or idealistic, but I also do not see a reason that stewardship and energy independence should be mutually exclusive concerns.
Try for a moment to step back from this particular election and these particular candidates. I would be delighted to vote for someone of a different ethnicity than mine. I would even say that having an African-American as my country's president would delight me.
In the end, the injustice of almost 50 million dead unborn children overwhelms any other injustices that I see in the political realm, not merely in this election but in any election. Though I largely agree with this essay by John Piper, I would not define myself as a single-issue voter. But some matters are so weighty that they open and close doors for further matters to be evaluated. The right to life is such an issue, the right not merely to live in a just world, but to live at all.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wittenberg's Cathedral Door
Desiring God has an excellent post on Martin Luther. Today is the 491st anniversary of the posting of the 95 Theses, a key event in God's work for His church to recover the biblical gospel through the Reformation.
As I read the post, I was struck by something written there. Martin Luther wanted a debate, not a public scandal. So he posted his theses in Latin. Someone else got hold of them, translated them into German, and published them more broadly.
I observe two things from the way history played itself out. First, under the providence of God we do not always know whom He uses to accomplish His purposes. And it does not seem to matter if we know. We remember Martin Luther. But he was not looking for anything like what happened. Someone else did the translating and publishing that sparked the Reformation. In heaven, I would like to find that person and thank him. But I will have to wait till them, because until then I will not know who it was.
And second, under the providence of God we do not always know how God is going to accomplish His purposes. Luther was an Augustinian monk. He did what scholastic types did when they wanted to debate by nailing his 95 Theses to a cathedral door in Latin. Maybe I should give him more credit, but I doubt very seriously that he had any inkling of what would eventually happen.
I am the pastor of a small church. I do what pastors do -- preaching, teaching, praying, counseling, studying, discipling. I wonder sometimes about the impact I am having. A few generations after I have died, odds are that no one on this sphere will remember me or my ministry. But it is the business of the triune God to build the church (Isa 56:8; Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22-23). I do not know through whom or how He will do it. Martin Luther and his anonymous translator remind me of that and give me both joy and hope.
As I read the post, I was struck by something written there. Martin Luther wanted a debate, not a public scandal. So he posted his theses in Latin. Someone else got hold of them, translated them into German, and published them more broadly.
I observe two things from the way history played itself out. First, under the providence of God we do not always know whom He uses to accomplish His purposes. And it does not seem to matter if we know. We remember Martin Luther. But he was not looking for anything like what happened. Someone else did the translating and publishing that sparked the Reformation. In heaven, I would like to find that person and thank him. But I will have to wait till them, because until then I will not know who it was.
And second, under the providence of God we do not always know how God is going to accomplish His purposes. Luther was an Augustinian monk. He did what scholastic types did when they wanted to debate by nailing his 95 Theses to a cathedral door in Latin. Maybe I should give him more credit, but I doubt very seriously that he had any inkling of what would eventually happen.
I am the pastor of a small church. I do what pastors do -- preaching, teaching, praying, counseling, studying, discipling. I wonder sometimes about the impact I am having. A few generations after I have died, odds are that no one on this sphere will remember me or my ministry. But it is the business of the triune God to build the church (Isa 56:8; Matt 16:18; Eph 1:22-23). I do not know through whom or how He will do it. Martin Luther and his anonymous translator remind me of that and give me both joy and hope.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Humbled by divine election
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him." I remember reading Ephesians 1:3-4 during the summer of 1993, the summer before my sophomore year of high school. All of the freshmen Bible studies for Campus Crusade at Northwestern University were going to study Ephesians during the Fall Quarter. I had been asked to lead a study, so I was studying through the book ahead of time. I had begun trusting in Christ only two years earlier, and did not know Ephesians very well. These verses stunned and shook me to my core.
Before I knew it, I began seeing divine election throughout the Bible: Isaiah 41:8-10; 43:6-7; John 6:36-40; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 9:6-29; I Peter 1:1-2; Revelation 13:8; 17:8. It was plain enough that God's "knowing" or "foreknowing" meant more than knowing about someone. It meant that His affections were set upon that someone. And a larger pattern of God's sovereignty began to emerge: the calling of Abraham, Israel's election from among the nations, the election of Isaac over Ishmael, of Jacob over Esau. I began to see the sovereignty of God over all the events of my life (Psalm 139:13-16; Proverbs 16:9; 20:24; Matthew 6:25-34; James 4:13-16). And if over all the events of my life, then surely over my salvation as well.
But I missed a few things along the way. Too often I have been too eager to debate what "foreknowledge" means, or whether salvific election is exclusively corporate or embraces individual election as well. There is a place for such debates. The Scriptures do not shy away from election, so neither should we. Too much additional doctrine and ethical implication are built upon election for us not to care about getting it right. But I fear I bruised more than a few brothers and sisters in Christ, and perhaps turned them away from the doctrines of grace, in my eagerness to be right.
What did I miss? The pastoral concern of the apostles and prophets in talking about election. This is a doctrine that is supposed to strengthen quaking knees and crush proud hearts. God would calm our fears and prepare us for trials by reminding us that we are chosen and therefore unshakable. Election is an act of divine love, grounding our sense of security in the Father's affections by a decision made before we can even say "before." Jesus challenges His listeners and exposes the hardness of their hearts by confronting them with the reality of sovereign choice.
Divine election humbles me -- or it should humble me -- because it clearly shows that there is no reason for God to love me outside of Himself. Let that sink in for a moment. Compare it with the relationships we enjoy with other human beings. Almost every relationship we have exists because of some sort of mutual benefit, or mutual attraction, or mutual enjoyment. We love what is lovable. We choose what is attractive or beneficial. If I am loved, it is because there is something about me that someone else likes. And that is an occasion for pride -- I am loved, so there must be something good or lovely about me.
But that is not how God's election works. His election has nothing to do with anything in us. Why does He choose whom He chooses? That is a mystery caught up in the hidden counsel of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before the worlds began. Certainly there is nothing attractive about sinful, rebellious, hostile, traitorous human beings. The consequence of God's election of His people was the sending of the Son to die in order to save them. And yet God chose.
When I am mindful of election, I am laid low by it. And only in that lowliness do any of us find freedom to serve and obey God with joy and without pretention. Perhaps, rather than a quick and ready wit, a humbled heart and changed attitude would do help to persuade others of the greatness of our God.
Before I knew it, I began seeing divine election throughout the Bible: Isaiah 41:8-10; 43:6-7; John 6:36-40; 15:16; Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 9:6-29; I Peter 1:1-2; Revelation 13:8; 17:8. It was plain enough that God's "knowing" or "foreknowing" meant more than knowing about someone. It meant that His affections were set upon that someone. And a larger pattern of God's sovereignty began to emerge: the calling of Abraham, Israel's election from among the nations, the election of Isaac over Ishmael, of Jacob over Esau. I began to see the sovereignty of God over all the events of my life (Psalm 139:13-16; Proverbs 16:9; 20:24; Matthew 6:25-34; James 4:13-16). And if over all the events of my life, then surely over my salvation as well.
But I missed a few things along the way. Too often I have been too eager to debate what "foreknowledge" means, or whether salvific election is exclusively corporate or embraces individual election as well. There is a place for such debates. The Scriptures do not shy away from election, so neither should we. Too much additional doctrine and ethical implication are built upon election for us not to care about getting it right. But I fear I bruised more than a few brothers and sisters in Christ, and perhaps turned them away from the doctrines of grace, in my eagerness to be right.
What did I miss? The pastoral concern of the apostles and prophets in talking about election. This is a doctrine that is supposed to strengthen quaking knees and crush proud hearts. God would calm our fears and prepare us for trials by reminding us that we are chosen and therefore unshakable. Election is an act of divine love, grounding our sense of security in the Father's affections by a decision made before we can even say "before." Jesus challenges His listeners and exposes the hardness of their hearts by confronting them with the reality of sovereign choice.
Divine election humbles me -- or it should humble me -- because it clearly shows that there is no reason for God to love me outside of Himself. Let that sink in for a moment. Compare it with the relationships we enjoy with other human beings. Almost every relationship we have exists because of some sort of mutual benefit, or mutual attraction, or mutual enjoyment. We love what is lovable. We choose what is attractive or beneficial. If I am loved, it is because there is something about me that someone else likes. And that is an occasion for pride -- I am loved, so there must be something good or lovely about me.
But that is not how God's election works. His election has nothing to do with anything in us. Why does He choose whom He chooses? That is a mystery caught up in the hidden counsel of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before the worlds began. Certainly there is nothing attractive about sinful, rebellious, hostile, traitorous human beings. The consequence of God's election of His people was the sending of the Son to die in order to save them. And yet God chose.
When I am mindful of election, I am laid low by it. And only in that lowliness do any of us find freedom to serve and obey God with joy and without pretention. Perhaps, rather than a quick and ready wit, a humbled heart and changed attitude would do help to persuade others of the greatness of our God.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Humble Orthodoxy
I recently finished Collin Hansen's excellent book Young, Restless, Reformed. He quotes the following from Joshua Harris:
If Harris and Packer are right (and I think they are), then what room is there in my life for any degree of self-centeredness or arrogance? What room is there for boasting, unless it be in the cross of Christ? What room is there for being impatient or argumentative, when no degree of cleverness on my part contributed to my salvation?
So in the next few posts (which I hope will come more frequently now), I would like to spend some time thinking through some theological convictions and how they ought, if genuinely believed, to produce deeper humility, patience, holiness, and love. Maybe we can grow together in the kind of "humble orthodoxy" espoused by so many of the people Hansen writes about, even as it was displayed in the lives of so many of the Puritans they draw inspiration from.
Behold the truth revealed in the Word of God. Commit to believe in it. Represent it with humility. This is what we call humble orthodoxy... In view of the fact that we were dead in our sins, the only reason we see anything in ourselves is because [God] chose to pour out his grace in our lives. That's why there's no place for [arrogance]... If your theology doesn't shape you, then you haven't understood it.Though I read them several days ago, Harris' words have remained on my mind. As one of those young Reformed pastors Hansen was writing about, if my theology does not produce humility within me, then I have not really understood it. J. I. Packer writes this in his introduction to John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ (which is dense and rich enough that I'm only chipping away at it a few pages at a time):
Calvinism is something much broader than the "five points" [of the TULIP acrostic] indicate. Calvinism is a whole world-view, stemming from a clear vision of God as the whole world's Maker and King... a theocentric way of thinking about all of life under the direction and control of God's own Word.And later he writes, "We are saved entirely by divine grace through a faith which is itself God's gift and flows to us from Calvary."
If Harris and Packer are right (and I think they are), then what room is there in my life for any degree of self-centeredness or arrogance? What room is there for boasting, unless it be in the cross of Christ? What room is there for being impatient or argumentative, when no degree of cleverness on my part contributed to my salvation?
So in the next few posts (which I hope will come more frequently now), I would like to spend some time thinking through some theological convictions and how they ought, if genuinely believed, to produce deeper humility, patience, holiness, and love. Maybe we can grow together in the kind of "humble orthodoxy" espoused by so many of the people Hansen writes about, even as it was displayed in the lives of so many of the Puritans they draw inspiration from.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Refreshment of Fellowship
Last week was the annual conference for the Eastern District of the EFCA. This is my third year in the Eastern District, and it is the third conference my wife and I have attended. We have looked forward to it all year, and it did not disappoint. In fact, I cannot imagine not attending the EDA conference as long as I am ministering in the district.
What is it that makes these conferences so refreshing for us? There was interesting and helpful teaching, including two excellent sermons, a presentation on the research findings in UnChristian by one of the authors, as well as workshops on worship, pastoral ministry, and community engagement. But as good as all of that was, it was not why we looked forward to the conference or why we look back so fondly. Nor was it the musical worship, though we enjoyed that as well. It was not the book table -- I made no purchases at this conference (not because there was nothing to buy, but because I have already spent my book budget for the year).
We found the conference so refreshing because of the fellowship we enjoyed there. Among the other pastors, pastors' wives, church planters, and district staff at the conference we were able to enjoy the many blessings of relaxed, unguarded fellowship. We were able to take off the "pastor hat" and safely confess both our struggles (Gal 6:2) and our sins (Jas 5:16). We shared meals while discussing our lives, our ministries, and what God is teaching us through the Scriptures (Acts 2:42). We prayed and sang together with joy and gladness (Col 3:16). We shared our dreams and vision to see our churches grow through evangelism and discipleship, having an impact beginning in our communities and extending around the world (Phil 2:2). We glorified God together for the greatness of His being, the excellence of His character, and the majesty of His works. We made much of God together. And as a result, my wife and I came home with a bigger picture of what God is doing in our district and around the world. We came away with our hearts strengthened. I think that is what fellowship is supposed to do (Phm 6).
I am already looking forward to next year.
What is it that makes these conferences so refreshing for us? There was interesting and helpful teaching, including two excellent sermons, a presentation on the research findings in UnChristian by one of the authors, as well as workshops on worship, pastoral ministry, and community engagement. But as good as all of that was, it was not why we looked forward to the conference or why we look back so fondly. Nor was it the musical worship, though we enjoyed that as well. It was not the book table -- I made no purchases at this conference (not because there was nothing to buy, but because I have already spent my book budget for the year).
We found the conference so refreshing because of the fellowship we enjoyed there. Among the other pastors, pastors' wives, church planters, and district staff at the conference we were able to enjoy the many blessings of relaxed, unguarded fellowship. We were able to take off the "pastor hat" and safely confess both our struggles (Gal 6:2) and our sins (Jas 5:16). We shared meals while discussing our lives, our ministries, and what God is teaching us through the Scriptures (Acts 2:42). We prayed and sang together with joy and gladness (Col 3:16). We shared our dreams and vision to see our churches grow through evangelism and discipleship, having an impact beginning in our communities and extending around the world (Phil 2:2). We glorified God together for the greatness of His being, the excellence of His character, and the majesty of His works. We made much of God together. And as a result, my wife and I came home with a bigger picture of what God is doing in our district and around the world. We came away with our hearts strengthened. I think that is what fellowship is supposed to do (Phm 6).
I am already looking forward to next year.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
To Know God
Normally I do not simply give a link to another blog when I post. There are some really good blogs that do a much better job of keeping up with helpful content from other places, such as Between Two Worlds and Challies.com, which I check almost everyday. So I usually focus on posting original content.
But this post from The Thirsty Theologian was too good, too helpful, too well-written not to pass on. So please read and enjoy.
Here is an extended quotation to whet your appetite:
But this post from The Thirsty Theologian was too good, too helpful, too well-written not to pass on. So please read and enjoy.
Here is an extended quotation to whet your appetite:
HT: ChalliesI want to know God. I want to know his nature and his thoughts... What could possibly be more wonderful, as wonderful, or even remotely wonderful compared to the knowledge of the eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God who is the source of all things, the epitome of holiness, righteousness, and justice? The answer is obvious: nothing compares...
Why is it, then, that reading God’s Word becomes, at times, a chore to be done rather than a pleasure to be savored?
Monday, October 13, 2008
Two Books from Sunday
During our morning worship service at Bethel last Sunday, I mentioned two books, and pledged to post information on them.
Most Christian books for men that I have read fall into one of three categories. The first is what I call non-Christian Christian books, books that are often filled with powerful illustrations and personal reminiscences, and at the same time are void of biblical truth. The second are how-to Christian books, packed with Scripture references but reducing being a Christian man to 40 things you need to do to be a godly man. The third are bash-the-church Christian books, which describe everything that is wrong with our churches, and sometimes offer practical but not always biblical advice on how to change things.
Tender Warrior by Stu Weber does not fit into one of these three categories. Weber is a pastor in Oregon who himself defies our expectations. On the one hand he is a former high school athlete and Green Beret, and still bow hunts. On the other hand he is a family man who married his high school sweetheart and raised three sons. His book combines biblical truth with helpful personal stories, and each chapter is concluded with study and discussion questions. Our monthly men's group will be reading this book together.
Christians know we need to be humble. In one sense, humility defines what it means to be a Christian -- confessing that you are a sinner and coming to Jesus Christ through faith require humility. But in another sense, humility continues to be elusive even after coming to Christ and having His life at work within you to transform you. In the sermon yesterday on Mark 10:32-45, we learned that humility cannot be reduced to a set of principles or maxims. Humility begins with regarding yourself as ransomed, as no longer belonging to yourself but to the one who bought you, and regarding Him as of greater value than anything or anyone else.
Reducing humility to maxims and principles is precisely what C. J. Mahaney does not do in his excellent little book Humility: True Greatness. He describes the importance of humility in God-centered, cross-focused terms and describes the exercises he employs to cultivate humility, all while freely confessing he has not arrived. I recommended this book during the sermon yesterday, and recommend it now to any readers of this blog.
Most Christian books for men that I have read fall into one of three categories. The first is what I call non-Christian Christian books, books that are often filled with powerful illustrations and personal reminiscences, and at the same time are void of biblical truth. The second are how-to Christian books, packed with Scripture references but reducing being a Christian man to 40 things you need to do to be a godly man. The third are bash-the-church Christian books, which describe everything that is wrong with our churches, and sometimes offer practical but not always biblical advice on how to change things.
Tender Warrior by Stu Weber does not fit into one of these three categories. Weber is a pastor in Oregon who himself defies our expectations. On the one hand he is a former high school athlete and Green Beret, and still bow hunts. On the other hand he is a family man who married his high school sweetheart and raised three sons. His book combines biblical truth with helpful personal stories, and each chapter is concluded with study and discussion questions. Our monthly men's group will be reading this book together.
Christians know we need to be humble. In one sense, humility defines what it means to be a Christian -- confessing that you are a sinner and coming to Jesus Christ through faith require humility. But in another sense, humility continues to be elusive even after coming to Christ and having His life at work within you to transform you. In the sermon yesterday on Mark 10:32-45, we learned that humility cannot be reduced to a set of principles or maxims. Humility begins with regarding yourself as ransomed, as no longer belonging to yourself but to the one who bought you, and regarding Him as of greater value than anything or anyone else.
Reducing humility to maxims and principles is precisely what C. J. Mahaney does not do in his excellent little book Humility: True Greatness. He describes the importance of humility in God-centered, cross-focused terms and describes the exercises he employs to cultivate humility, all while freely confessing he has not arrived. I recommended this book during the sermon yesterday, and recommend it now to any readers of this blog.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Reflections on the Financial Bailout
I am probably coming to this party too late to have much fun, and joining the conversation too late to add anything meaningful. And I am a layman when it comes to economics. But it continues to be big news whether in the newspapers, on the Internet, or during presidential debates. And I think I needed a little bit of time to look around and simply watch before adding my two-cents worth.
First a few links... This article from World Magazine is probably still the best quick-and-easy overview of what went wrong. This article from The American Scene is also helpful because it weighs out the pros and cons of a bailout plan, but it is a little more technical. For a more entertaining account that is simplified but still helpful, see this article from National Review Online and this follow-up. For the most intelligent (but fairly technical) commentary on crises and bailouts that I have found, take a look at the Becker-Posner blog, where two world class economists give their analysis and do not always agree with each other.
And now a few observations... Perhaps was has struck me most forcibly about the discussion surrounding the crisis and bailout is the woefully underinformed and reactionary state of most public opinion. Whether in conversations at the store or in a church, whether in letters to the editor or comments following a Web-based article, many responses betray a lack of understanding of how the U.S. economy works. After the first bailout package was rejected in the House of Representatives, reader comments at both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (intentionally chosen for their differing political inclinations) were almost uniformly negative regarding the bailout and gleeful regarding its rejection, for the most part arguing that Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street had attempted to pin the cost of their mismanagement on Main Street, and throwing around the number $700BN as if the IRS were going to show up on our individual doorsteps requesting a check for our portion of the bailout within the week, with no hope or recouping the money. Now I might be able to understand opposition to a bailout, but at least have better reasons for it than that, and try to comprehend the consquences for both Wall Street and Main Street of letting major financial institutions fail.
The second observation I would offer is that neither the mainstream media nor the government has helped on the whole in understanding what has happened and why a bailout might be necessary. For example, on Monday my family went out for lunch to a restaurant that had TVs tuned in to CNN. As the Dow "plunged" below 10,000, it seemed that CNN was doing everything possible to make a bigger story out of it than was necessary, including soliciting feedback from viewers on Twitter and Facebook. One viewer's comment especially piqued my interest because he was in a panic over what he should do with his daughter's college savings fund. (The short answer to that concern, unless his daughter is leaving for college in the next year, is to do nothing out of the ordinary. This is a market correction. It is the way the system works. Gains are never guaranteed, especially in the short term. Ride it out.) My wife, whose undergraduate degree is in economics, was growing frustrated with the coverage until CNN had an economist on to discuss the situation, who promptly criticized CNN for the way they were promoting fear and misinformation.
To be fair, this is not meant to target CNN's coverage. Fox and MSNBC have been just as irresponsible. And the administration did an incredibly poor job of selling the bailout to the average voter and taxpayer. It seems to me that good information has been as difficult to come by for the public as liquidity of funds has been for banks.
And now for my two cents. It seems to me that some sort of bailout was necessary and important not only for Wall Street but for Main Street. We can gripe about tax dollars stuffing the pockets of irresponsible executives, but when business owners need loans and cannot get them, or responsible borrowers who are first time homeowners cannot get a mortgage, then the griping will simply shift in content. And many opposed to government assistance now will want government assistance then. The key issue is liquidity, something which the alternate plan proposed by the House Republicans did not sufficiently address.
If I were to defend my position here, I would end up cutting and pasting the arguments of others. Go to the links listed above -- they present the case as well as I could.
So there is one cent. Now for the second. It also seems to me that there is widespread sidestepping of personal responsibility in this mess. We can discuss whether lenders were irresponsible with subprime mortgages. We can discuss whether Freddie and Fannie were irresponsible in buying these mortgages. We can discuss the difficulty of properly fixing the value of securities and the wisdom of then using them as capital to enable more borrowing. We can ask economic questions about moral hazard and government intervention. There is plenty wrong with the way things played out over the past few years. Everyone seems to agree on that.
What about those who did the borrowing? I know I run the risk of giving offense here. I understand the desire to own a home and the advantages of home ownership. But if the only mortgage you could get was an ARM or payment option or Ninja loan, should you take on that kind of debt? The assumption made by many to justify this kind of borrowing was that housing values would continue to go up. But I have to wonder if it is wise to take on the massive amounts of debt associated with a mortgage when you lack the ability to pay it off.
I cannot help but throw in a third cent as well. Where is God in all of this? Isaiah 45:7 teaches us that the Lord brings both good and calamity. All the treasures of the earth belong to Him, and nothing happens that is contrary to His knowledge and plan. Both the initial panic and the current sense of brooding despondency that I pick up here in the New York area, from Christian and non-Christian alike, suggests to me that we believe what God attests about Himself in Scripture to be true more often in the breach than in the observance. Or another way of looking at it is to observe that we are often more ready to declare God's sovereignty when "it" affects someone else rather than us (whatever "it" may be), but that when "it" meddles with our plans and crushes our dreams God's sovereignty falls from our consciousness.
This article from the Desiring God blog was a helpful reminder to me of the need to pray for our country's leaders, both political and economic. But even more useful to me in keeping my head, as I have too have investments that have been affected, is to remember the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 6, especially vs. 30-33: "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
First a few links... This article from World Magazine is probably still the best quick-and-easy overview of what went wrong. This article from The American Scene is also helpful because it weighs out the pros and cons of a bailout plan, but it is a little more technical. For a more entertaining account that is simplified but still helpful, see this article from National Review Online and this follow-up. For the most intelligent (but fairly technical) commentary on crises and bailouts that I have found, take a look at the Becker-Posner blog, where two world class economists give their analysis and do not always agree with each other.
And now a few observations... Perhaps was has struck me most forcibly about the discussion surrounding the crisis and bailout is the woefully underinformed and reactionary state of most public opinion. Whether in conversations at the store or in a church, whether in letters to the editor or comments following a Web-based article, many responses betray a lack of understanding of how the U.S. economy works. After the first bailout package was rejected in the House of Representatives, reader comments at both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (intentionally chosen for their differing political inclinations) were almost uniformly negative regarding the bailout and gleeful regarding its rejection, for the most part arguing that Pennsylvania Avenue and Wall Street had attempted to pin the cost of their mismanagement on Main Street, and throwing around the number $700BN as if the IRS were going to show up on our individual doorsteps requesting a check for our portion of the bailout within the week, with no hope or recouping the money. Now I might be able to understand opposition to a bailout, but at least have better reasons for it than that, and try to comprehend the consquences for both Wall Street and Main Street of letting major financial institutions fail.
The second observation I would offer is that neither the mainstream media nor the government has helped on the whole in understanding what has happened and why a bailout might be necessary. For example, on Monday my family went out for lunch to a restaurant that had TVs tuned in to CNN. As the Dow "plunged" below 10,000, it seemed that CNN was doing everything possible to make a bigger story out of it than was necessary, including soliciting feedback from viewers on Twitter and Facebook. One viewer's comment especially piqued my interest because he was in a panic over what he should do with his daughter's college savings fund. (The short answer to that concern, unless his daughter is leaving for college in the next year, is to do nothing out of the ordinary. This is a market correction. It is the way the system works. Gains are never guaranteed, especially in the short term. Ride it out.) My wife, whose undergraduate degree is in economics, was growing frustrated with the coverage until CNN had an economist on to discuss the situation, who promptly criticized CNN for the way they were promoting fear and misinformation.
To be fair, this is not meant to target CNN's coverage. Fox and MSNBC have been just as irresponsible. And the administration did an incredibly poor job of selling the bailout to the average voter and taxpayer. It seems to me that good information has been as difficult to come by for the public as liquidity of funds has been for banks.
And now for my two cents. It seems to me that some sort of bailout was necessary and important not only for Wall Street but for Main Street. We can gripe about tax dollars stuffing the pockets of irresponsible executives, but when business owners need loans and cannot get them, or responsible borrowers who are first time homeowners cannot get a mortgage, then the griping will simply shift in content. And many opposed to government assistance now will want government assistance then. The key issue is liquidity, something which the alternate plan proposed by the House Republicans did not sufficiently address.
If I were to defend my position here, I would end up cutting and pasting the arguments of others. Go to the links listed above -- they present the case as well as I could.
So there is one cent. Now for the second. It also seems to me that there is widespread sidestepping of personal responsibility in this mess. We can discuss whether lenders were irresponsible with subprime mortgages. We can discuss whether Freddie and Fannie were irresponsible in buying these mortgages. We can discuss the difficulty of properly fixing the value of securities and the wisdom of then using them as capital to enable more borrowing. We can ask economic questions about moral hazard and government intervention. There is plenty wrong with the way things played out over the past few years. Everyone seems to agree on that.
What about those who did the borrowing? I know I run the risk of giving offense here. I understand the desire to own a home and the advantages of home ownership. But if the only mortgage you could get was an ARM or payment option or Ninja loan, should you take on that kind of debt? The assumption made by many to justify this kind of borrowing was that housing values would continue to go up. But I have to wonder if it is wise to take on the massive amounts of debt associated with a mortgage when you lack the ability to pay it off.
I cannot help but throw in a third cent as well. Where is God in all of this? Isaiah 45:7 teaches us that the Lord brings both good and calamity. All the treasures of the earth belong to Him, and nothing happens that is contrary to His knowledge and plan. Both the initial panic and the current sense of brooding despondency that I pick up here in the New York area, from Christian and non-Christian alike, suggests to me that we believe what God attests about Himself in Scripture to be true more often in the breach than in the observance. Or another way of looking at it is to observe that we are often more ready to declare God's sovereignty when "it" affects someone else rather than us (whatever "it" may be), but that when "it" meddles with our plans and crushes our dreams God's sovereignty falls from our consciousness.
This article from the Desiring God blog was a helpful reminder to me of the need to pray for our country's leaders, both political and economic. But even more useful to me in keeping my head, as I have too have investments that have been affected, is to remember the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 6, especially vs. 30-33: "But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
