The Importance of Reading

In his classic book Spiritual Leadership, J. Oswald Sanders has this to say about reading: "The man who desires to grow spiritually and intellectually will be constantly at his books... The determination to spend a minimum of half an hour a day in reading worthwhile books that provide food for the soul and further mental and spiritual development will prove richly rewarding." Lest Sanders be accused of self-interest (he did after all make the above statements in a book), a commitment to reading seems to have consistently characterized spiritual leaders, starting with the apostle Paul and continuing to the present day in the ministries of pastors such as Tim Keller, John Piper, and Mark Driscoll.

Following Sanders' advice has never been hard for me because I have always read voraciously. It is so important to me that I include the four or five books I am currently juggling as an element on this blog. But not everyone functions that way; I know many pastors who rarely read, and when they do read it is very practical "how to do ministry" reading that is easy to breeze through and digest.

Why is reading so important? I suggest there are at least five good reasons to make a habit out of reading, to carve out time in the morning, during the commute, or before going to bed to devote to reading.

1. It exercises the mind. This is true not just of theology, but of history, science, or any genre of book that forces you to think. Sadly there are many in our churches who cannot follow the arguments made in Paul's letters because they have been spoonfed what to think. And there are many who make unwise or uninformed decisions in areas ranging from politics to healthcare to grocery shopping because they have never had to stop and reason things through. Reading is a powerful corrective to our reluctance to reason.
   
2. It nourishes the heart. I am not talking about the sentimentality of so much of what passes for devotional literature. Reading a missionary biography or meditations on Scripture fortifies the soul for those times of suffering and hardship that inevitably come our way. We live in a quick fix society, but in developing spiritual maturity there are no quick fixes. Reading can help fertilize the soil of our hearts so that we bear much fruit.
   
3. It stimulates the imagination. Too often when Christians talk about reading, we overlook fiction and poetry. That is a mistake. Our God is a creative being, and He made us in His image. We are creative beings as well, equipped with the faculty of imagination, and God is glorified when we develop it. We need to read fiction -- and not merely the mindless pageturners that often dominate the bestseller lists. We need to read great fiction both of the past and the present, in which the words have been carefully chosen, in which themes are developed and explored, in which characters become three-dimensional rather than being as flat as the paper on which books are printed.
   
4. It makes us better with language. Recently a friend from another country asked me how she could improve her English language skills. I encouraged her to read and write. Mastery of language comes from consistent exposure to it. Mastery of language that proves supple, attractive, even persuasive comes from consistent exposure as well. To become a speaker to whom others enjoy listening, or a writer whom others enjoy reading, requires reading good writing.
   
5. It helps us understand people. Reading another person's writing opens a window on how that other person thinks. Reading from a wide variety of times, genres, and cultures opens many such windows. When we read and our minds are stretched, our hearts moved, and our imaginations stirred, we will come to understand the thoughts and feelings of other people better.

I am sure there are plenty of other reasons to read. Those five are the five of which I thought first, and they shape the number and mix of books that I consume.

"Revival," Deception, and a Great Fall (2 of 2)

In the previous post, I began to write about the Lakeland revivals and recent news about Todd Bentley's ministry and marriage. So far, this may seem pretty outlandish stuff to many non-Pentecostal evangelicals. And Bentley's ministry is a far cry from my own -- our hairline is about the only thing we have in common. So how is this a warning to us?

Let me suggest that it is easier to deceive American evangelicals than we might think. It does not need to be outrageous claims of healing and overwrought big-tent-revival-blaring-music experiences to be alluring. For the typical middle-class evangelical that I know, what entices and allures is more likely to be an economic system or political party. That statement is not meant to focus on the Right or the Left; the division in evangelicalism politically has been well-documented at this point and has been brought to the surface by the current presidential campaign (as shown by the blog response to Rick Warren's Civil Forum).

Or it could be a church health strategy. Witness the reality that after the Reveal study, Willow Creek decided to focus more on discipleship and teaching not because of searching the Scriptures, but because of a social science survey. Or it could be the country club mentality to church that poisons the life of so many congregations and paralyzes them in matters of outreach, compassion ministry, and missions.

As I survey the evangelical landscape, it seems to me that we are an easy people to snooker. We need to develop discernment. According to Hebrews 5:14, discernment is a sign of maturity. Putting it all together, that means that we American evangelicals on the whole are not a very mature people. We need to grow up. We need to ingest a steady diet of the Word of God, seasoned with a daily discipline of prayer, supplemented by sitting under the preaching of the Word, accompanied by the presence and power of the Spirit of God as He accompanies the Word that He breathed out.

And as a minister of the Word of God, I need to be on my guard against building personal kingdoms rather than the kingdom of God. That is the sure road to pride, and as James 4:6 reminds us, God opposes the proud. Proverbs 16:18 warns that pride is all too frequently followed by moral failure. I will not pretend to know Todd Bentley's heart. But I know the claims that he made, I see the failure of his marriage, and whether he succumbed to pride or not, the Scriptures put me on my guard.

That is how Todd Bentley's fraudulent ministry and personal failure serve to warn us. May God bring healing and reconciliation to Bentley's marriage, may He preserve us from such a fall, and may He grant us all discernment and repentance.

"Revival," Deception, and a Great Fall (1 of 2)

The Lakeland revival has generated national attention, especially among Pentecostals but also within the mainstream media (for example, here and here). But this week the staff and fans of Todd Bentley's ministry received unwelcome news: Bentley and his wife are separating, and he will no longer be involved in the Lakeland meetings.

How did this happen? My intention in writing this post is not to dogpile on a man and ministry that have already received mountains of criticism. Nor is it to give the decisive answer into what has gone wrong in Lakeland. I simply desire to raise a few questions and reflect on how this situation should serve as a warning to Christians everywhere.

Bentley has made some wild claims about himself and his ministry: an angel spoke to him and commissioned him in a hotel room, thousands of people healed, several dozen people raised from the dead. Some may wonder how on earth such a ministry came to become so well-known and even popular. At least part of the answer is this: Despite the strangeness of his practice and wildness of his claims, many people have come away from these Lakeland meetings feeling that they have met with God. And someone who believes that God still heals, and who feels they have no other place to turn, might be willing to at least give Bentley a chance.

That is the situation Bill Dembski and his family found themselves in. They have a severely autistic son, and when Bentley came to Denton, Texas, they decided to go because God still heals, and He is free to use whatever means He sees fit. Dembski's name may sound familiar to some; he is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design and has written several books on the subject. Readers should also know that he is a friend from many years ago, when he did post-doc research at Northwestern University and was the instructor for my first philosophy class. And what Bill and his family discovered was a fake. Bill is very intelligent, but also very open to God working through unexpected means. When he shared his experiences, that sealed my evaluation of Bentley and the Lakeland revival.

None of Bentley's claims were verifiable. He also employed some ministry practices that some find questionable, including violence. The Baptist Press has helpfully documented his ministry and critics. A video of Bentley kicking a man with stage four colon cancer has been widely viewed on YouTube. His ministry is as obvious an example as I can think of today of taking advantage of gullible, spiritually hungry people who lack biblical knowledge and discernment. Even Charisma Magazine, a key outlet for the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement, has come to this conclusion.

I will continue with further reflection in my next post.

Another Public Transportation Experience

It must be the season for it. I was riding the Staten Island Rail yesterday on my way to the ferry, once again reading a book, when I glanced up and noticed a rider who did not quite fit in with the rest of the commuters. He could not have been more than 22, was wearing dark slacks with a short-sleeved white collared shirt and a conservative tie. His plain haircut and red hair screamed that he was not from Staten Island. As he stood holding onto a pole, he looked at the subway map on the wall of the car, and then at the other passengers, with a look both anxious and furtive. I did not need to see the nametag on his shirt pocket to know that he was a Mormon missionary.

He leaned over to a sitting passenger to ask a question. I finished a paragraph, shut my book, and slipped it into my backpack. I began to pray that God would protect the heart and mind of this other passenger, confuse the tongue of the Mormon missionary, and give me an opportunity to become part of the conversation. Eavesdropping is not normally behavior that I encourage, but I strained to listen in. I grinned when I heard the discussion. The passenger was thoroughly against formal religion and more interested in whether the Mormons believe that dogs have spirits and will join us in heaven. He was also eager to talk, such that the missionary could not disengage from the conversation. After several minutes, the passenger got off. Next I felt a pang of disappointment. At the next stop the missionary got off as well, before I could engage him.

How does a kid from Utah who believes a false gospel find the courage to start a conversation about spiritual matters with a complete stranger; but most evangelical Christians that I know, who are genuinely converted as far as I can tell, who believe in the biblical gospel, struggle to talk openly about their faith with friends, coworkers, and family members? Too often I must include myself in this evaluation. Perhaps the sting of rejection is less with a stranger (though I do not know many Christians who substitute contact evangelism in public spaces for evangelism in the context of relationships). Perhaps the labor of investing in personal relationships and modeling integrity, or the risk of vulnerability and authenticity, are wages many of us are unwilling to pay.

But this is now twice in the course of a week that I have encountered some sort of evangelistic work on public transportation, after over two years of not seeing anything at all. And although I am persuaded that this sort of effort is not the most effective means at our disposal, I think there is heartwork that God is doing in me through these experiences in regard to what I value and what I am willing to risk.

In the Wake of a Street Preacher

I was reading a book on the Staten Island Ferry while on my way to Lower Manhattan. I saw the police officers walking toward me but not to me -- they were looking at something behind me. Only then did I hear the voice. I turned to look over my shoulder. It was a street preacher, loudly proclaiming the gospel on the ferry. He was dressed as many other commuters in slacks and a collared shirt, but carrying a large black Bible in his hand and declaring to all within earshot that they were sinners in danger of judgment who needed a Savior.

I cringed inside and tried to focus on my book, waiting for the officers to tell him to stop. But they did not tell him to stop. They stood by in case anything else happened, but they let him keep going. Conversations became quiet and eventually stopped; it seemed that people were either listening to this preacher, or hoping that through their silence they would convince him to be silent as well.

As he continued to preach, I wrestled with what was happening inside of me. Truth be told, I was embarrassed. I live in a place in which evangelical Christianity is largely irrelevant, in which stereotypes of evangelicals as Bible-thumping religious crazies are alive and well. And I do not want to have to deal with overcoming hostilities in addition to those that inherently come with preaching Christ and Him crucified (I Cor 1:23; I Pet 2:8). If someone is going to take offense with me, let it be because of the gospel itself. I am not convinced that in a place such as New York City, this kind of street preaching does not do more harm than good. I have done my fair share of contact evangelism on boardwalks and in shopping malls and college dorms, so I thought I could say that my discomfort was with the effectiveness of this preacher's chosen method.

Or could I? How sure was I that my discomfort was not because I did not want to be inconvenienced myself, because I did not want to deal with snide comments made by those sitting next to me, because I did not want to identify with that man carrying that Bible speaking in that loud voice? Did that mean that I was also embarrassed to identify publicly with Christ and His gospel? My heart is wicked (Jer 17:9), and if even the apostle Peter could stumble (Matt 26:69-75; Gal 2:11-13), then I have much reason to mistrust my own motives.

Here is my question for anyone who is reading: What would you have done or felt? I began to pray that some on that boat would hear this preacher's words, fall under conviction of their sins, and trust in Christ. And I steeled myself for comments that passengers sitting near me might make -- I was prepared to say that while I was uncomfortable with the method, I fully embraced the message. No comments came. Eventually I went back to my book. But my wrestling with what was happening in my heart continues.

Article Eight

The last few posts have been about the EFCA revision of our doctrinal statement. I have wanted to demonstrate, however briefly, why this revision is not only a good thing, but even something worth celebrating. The final reason for celebration is Article Eight of the revision, which I will quote in full here:

We believe that God's justifying grace must not be separated from His sanctifying power and purpose. God commands us to love Him supremely and others sacrificially, and to live out our faith with care for one another, compassion toward the poor and justice for the oppressed. With God’s Word, the Spirit’s power, and fervent prayer in Christ’s name, we are to combat the spiritual forces of evil. In obedience to Christ’s commission, we are to make disciples among all people, always bearing witness to the gospel in word and deed.

One of the questions that defines the ethos of the Free Church, that the founders of this movement of churches asked one another, is this: How goes your walk? Personal and corporate holiness have always lain at the heart of what it means to be the Free Church. Regeneration should be followed by progressive sanctification. At least in part, the absence of evidences of regeneration, namely personal holiness, drove the formation of the precursors to the EFCA, the free churches of Scandinavia.

In our 1950 Statement of Faith, the EFCA had no more extensive statement on sanctification than this in Article Four, that one ministry of the Holy Spirit is to "empower the believer for godly living and service." But no necessary connection between regeneration and sanctification was made. It was assumed and of vital importance to the writers of the old SOF, but it was not explicitly stated that the Spirit produces holiness in everyone whom He regenerates. Unfortunately that can lead (and has led in many a church) to an "easy believism" approach to the gospel such that church members who profess faith in Christ show little and even no evidence of Christlike character or Godward appetites. And that opens up a whole host of problems that keep a church from being biblical and healthy.

Article Eight of the revised SOF takes this problem head on. Those who are justified are necessarily in the process of being sanctified. And the outlines of this sanctification are drawn: love for God and one another, sacrificial living, desire for Christian community, concern for justice and mercy, spiritual warfare, gospel living in word and deed. My personal attachment to Article Eight is such that I would have traded away every other gain I have written about in the revision process in order to keep this.

Of course, I did not need to. And I thank my God for it. I am grateful for this revised Statement of Faith, and I count myself blessed to be part of the EFCA.

The Things We Smoothed Out

Another reason for appreciating the revised EFCA Statement of Faith is the way certain inconsistencies and ambiguities were smoothed out. Take for example the centuries-old tension between Arminianism and Calvinism. Is the EFCA Arminian -- do we believe that conversion precedes regeneration? If you read articles four and eight of the 1950 SOF, you might think so. But then if you read articles five and six, you might think that the Free Church is in fact Calvinist -- that we believe that regeneration precedes conversion. So which is it? Or is it neither?

In fact, it's neither. The EFCA has never taken a position on Calvinism or Arminianism, not because the debate is not important, but because we have resolved not to divide over it. And as a Calvinist who values unity with my Arminian brothers and sisters, I am glad for that stance. The goal of the 1950 SOF was not to define the ordo salutis, but rather to define the composition of the church as only the regenerate. The revised SOF better reflects our unity and our intention by sidestepping the debate and putting our intention into more precise language in articles six and eight. And that is something to be grateful for.

The Tools It Gives Us

This is the third post on why the EFCA's revision of our doctrinal statement is a good thing. In the first post, I gave an overview and linked to an article from Christianity Today that walks through the revised statement. In the second post, I talked about the process and the spirit with which the revision was done.

Now I would like to write briefly about the theological tools that the revised statement gives us. The revised SOF has "beefed up" statements on the doctrine of God, the inerrancy of Scripture, the hypostatic union in the person of Christ, justification by faith alone, the atonement, and individual responsibility to repent and believe. Things that were assumed by the writers of the 1950 SOF are no longer taken for granted among some who call themselves evangelicals. And so that which was assumed must now be made explicit in order to safeguard the faith "delivered once for all to the saints" (Jude 3). I'll focus on two issues in particular now: divine foreknowledge and penal substitution. Without doing a series of posts on each of these issues, I cannot do justice to either of them in this post. So I will only give a summary of what is involved and how the revised SOF handles each of them.

Open theism is the view that God does not exhaustively know the future, not because God is not all-knowing, but because the future is indeterminate and therefore not knowable. For a summary of the issues and the parties involved, read this post by Tim Challies, and for a list of resources available online critiquing openness, go to this page from Monergism.com. One excellent book that the EFCA has made available at its conferences is Steve Roy's How Much Does God Foreknow? My key concern is how to square the indeterminacy of the future with statements in the Bible such as Isaiah 48:5, which seems to indicate that one crucial difference between the true God and false gods is knowledge of the future. It seems clear to me that Scripture plainly teaches God's exhaustive knowledge of the future, and that any view to the contrary involves undermining our view of Scripture.

An advocate of open theism could have signed off on the 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith. But the revision says that God is not only "infinitely perfect" but has "limitless knowledge and sovereign power." What a tremendous improvement! And what an important safeguard to preserve our understanding of God's foreknowledge!

Penal substitution is the understanding that God satisfied His own wrath against sinners by sending His Son as a perfect substitute on behalf of sinners to bear His wrath. It is the doctrine at the heart of justification by faith, central to the Reformation, and the hope and confidence of Christians for centuries. And today it is under attack by some who would call themselves evangelical. One scholar even referred to it as "cosmic child abuse," as if the Father gleefully inflicted vengeance on His unwilling Son. Once again the arguments can get complicated, though the single volume that best addresses them at a fairly accessible level is Pierced for Our Transgressions. Not only do these attacks undermine the only righteousness that any of us can hope to have as we stand before our Creator, King, and Judge, they do not square with straightforward readings of Isaiah 53, Romans 3:21-26, and 1 Peter 3:18. That is only a smattering of passages -- at Bethel we will spend three months of Sundays preaching through passages throughout the Bible to understand what happened in the atonement.

A critic of penal substitution could have signed off on the 1950 EFCA Statement of Faith, which only states that Jesus was "a sacrifice for sins." But the revision says human beings are "under [God's] wrath," that Christ is "our representative and substitute" and that His "atoning death" is the "perfect, all-sufficient sacrifice for our sins." Again we see the improvement, in which what was assumed is made explicit. And again we see the safeguarding of the glorious riches of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ!

I could say more about the Scriptures, about the person of Christ, about the ordinances, and much more. And this fall when we teach through the revised SOF in Adult Life Training at Bethel, I will. The revised SOF gives us wonderful theological tools for helping us to understand and safeguard the gospel.

The Way That We Did It

I want to start explaining why Free Church folk should be excited about the revision of the Statement of Faith by writing about the way we did things. This is not to say that things were always done perfectly all along the way. But the overall process was the right way to do things.

The Spiritual Heritage Committee (SHC) of the EFCA was commissioned by the Board of Directors with drafting and redrafting the revision. The SHC was made up of the EFCA director of credentialing and biblical theology, five pastors, and the president of Trinity International University (the EFCA's college and seminary). These men are pastor-theologians. They are not squirreled away in ivory towers, but are on the front lines of ministry, serving as undershepherds of the flock of God. The revision was not a mere academic exercise, but rather an exercise in practical theology and pastoral care.

In addition, these men handled themselves with great integrity and displayed much love and self-restraint. They were criticized, sometimes rightly, sometimes unfairly. But they consistently responded with humility. I learned much from watching their work.

The process was handled transparently. Each draft was made widely available through mailings, emailings, and the EFCA website. The revision was discussed at national meetings, district meetings, and ministerials. It was written about, blogged about, and debated. It was handled patiently, with the first draft going public in December 2005, but the final vote taking place two and a half years later.

It was done with the right attitude. The debate at the June 2008 National Conference was characterized by a sweet spirit of love and patience, with a genuine desire for unity, but at the same time with an unflinching commitment to truth. In an age in which we see too many denominations being pulled apart by wavering on biblical truth, the EFCA moved in the opposite direction and grasped our biblical convictions with an even fiercer embrace.

The EFCA did it right. I came away from the National Conference rejoicing over being part of this denomination, and worshiping God for His faithfulness to us.

Why the EFCA Doctrinal Revision Is a Good Thing

After returning from the EFCA National Leadership Conference, I gave a brief report to the congregation during our Sunday worship service. I mentioned the workshops I attended, the networking that I did, the teaching we received on living on mission. No one blinked. I think someone may even have yawned.

And then I shared that the revision of the Statement of Faith had been passed by an 86% affirmative vote. A few folks sat up a bit straighter at that. I did not think it would be that much of a surprise -- we have discussed the revision process at congregational business meetings, and we make copies of EFCA Today available free of charge.

Some of you who are reading this are laughing at me now for being naive. I deserve that. After the service, several people approached board members with questions and with concern. Why change the old Statement of Faith, which has served the EFCA so well for over fifty years? That's a fair question, and I intend to address it through a variety of means: a letter sent to everyone in the congregation two weeks ago, an evening meeting next week, a Sunday school class this fall using the new Statement to help us all know our doctrine better and understand what it means to be the Free Church.

And this blog. I'd like to spend several posts explaining why I think this revision is not just a good thing, but a great thing that all Free Church folk should be excited about. In this post, I want to direct our attention to an article in Christianity Today that gives an excellent overview of the revision and the reasons for it. The key idea is this: By revising now, we saved ourselves much trouble later. The EFCA leadership showed farsighted vision and concern for the church for which they should be commended.

I look forward to diving in with the next post!