Dietrich Delights

I have been reading through Dietrich Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship, well im only on chapter 4, and it has been utterly delightful. Sometimes it is a bit difficult to understand, but good substance.

I came across this one quote that is talking about the call to discipleship, Bonhoeffer write:
"Peter knows he dare not climb out of the ship in his own strenth-his very first step would be his undoing. And so he cries, "Lord, bid me come to thee upon the waters," and Jesus answers: "Come." Christ must first call him, for the step can only be taken at his word. This call ishis grace, which calls him out of death into the new life of obedience. But when once Christ has called him, Peter has no alternative- he must leavethe ship and come to him. In the end, the first step of obedience proves to be an act of faith in the word of Christ."

Bonhoeffer's main point throughout this chapter is that obedience and faith go together. And its seen even from the above quote. Peter desires faith, and its given, and with that faith comes obedience. But i love the last line in that peters first step of obedience towards christ, my first step of obedience towards christ was an act of faith that didn't come from me, but from God.

Grace and peace
sarah b.

comforts over rated

onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwVUdnvhnrF0VXcR_ILvaYiaLD5_9emL455rFXgk84DpHWUgIGP9f3A2z4tOyBApXvg85jqG9Ack3pmhjKWAUoouGiA2hQiyPEw26t_gKft0eJuJO4lLd583pp-nMvbTdtY6m2bC3Q558L/s1600/life's+a+bowl+of+cherries.jpg">




Mars Hill Church in Seattle had a blog post recently entitled "

You could have God! And you chose light beer."

This might seem weird for me to say I took much from the article but it was pretty good. There was one line that impaled through my gut that I've heard before but just passed it off. "We worship a Guy who dies in His early 30's. We may not live a long life." That phrase made me realize that Christ not only lived a perfect life but did have a live that was much shorter than I have alway hoped to live. Peter, James and John all had lives cut short and its because they were living a life spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul states the meaning of his life when he greets the church "¹Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ²which he promised beforehand^E)"> through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴and was declared to be the Son of God^I)"> in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ⁶including you who are ^N)"> called to belong to Jesus Christ,"

Why must I sit back back and read this and complain when my air conditioning isn't quite as fast as my neighbors? Don't get me wrong... I love technology, but lets face it, I have perfected the art of complaint and am in desperate need of speaking the Truth all the time to anyone one with ears.
Being Created for the glory of God and not for the pleasure of myself is hard to get over. And I tend to forget that is the case. I pray that I pursue a life of joy glorifyinf Christ rather than joy filling time for 30+ years.

1. I need thee every hour, most gracious Lord;
 no tender voice like thine can peace afford.
Refrain:
 I need thee, O I need thee;
 every hour I need thee;
 O bless me now, my Savior, I come to thee.

2. I need thee every hour; stay thou nearby;
 temptations lose their power when thou art nigh.
 (Refrain)

3. I need thee every hour, in joy or pain;
 come quickly and abide, or life is vain.
 (Refrain)

4. I need thee every hour; teach me thy will;
 and thy rich promises in me fulfill.
 (Refrain)

5. I need thee every hour, most Holy One;
 O make me thine indeed, thou blessed Son.
 (Refrain)

The Role of Christians and Heterosexuals in the Overturning of Proposition 8

“PROPOSITION 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DENIES PLAINTIFFS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT WITHOUT A LEGITIMATE (MUCH LESS COMPELLING)REASON”

This was the decision passed down by a federal judge in California on August 4th, 2010 which overturned the voters’ decision to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. When the law was initially passed there was a huge backlash from many social liberals, most prominently coming from Hollywood. Back in December of ’08 I wrote a response to the tone that was coming back at those who believe in a biblical view of marriage. (see Part 1, Part 2)

As I read the judges official statement I was surprised to find how easily I followed his logic (though I disagree with him on fundamental things that led to that logic). Setting aside the fact that he clearly has a bias that should have caused him to recuse himself from the decision, I felt like he has a good eye for how society has changed and he put together a very well written document. I would summarize the judges conclusion in this way:

Society has evolved in such a way that the only real difference between the genders is anatomical. Because marriage has never required the two parties to have the capacity of bearing children, and there is no difference in the roles of men and women in marriage, there is no reason to exclude homosexual couples from partaking in the institution.

Some quotes:

“The evidence shows that the movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles reflects an evolution in the understanding of gender rather than a change in marriage.” (113)

“As states moved to recognize the equality of the sexes, they eliminated laws and practices… that had made gender a proxy for a spouse’s role within a marriage.” (112)

“Rather, the exclusion exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed.” (113)

“Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”
(113)

It is easy to see what the judge describes in American society. Complimentarianism- the view that men and women are equal in value but different in role- is now considered sexism. Egalitarianism- the view that men and women are equal in all things save some anatomical differences- is the norm. The latter view has infiltrated all areas of society including the home and the church.

In light of this let’s take a quick look at some important biblical truths:

Men and women are of equal worth in the sight of God.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)

Men and women differ in their roles…

…in marriage
“…the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit everything to their husbands.” (Eph. 5:23-24)

…in the church
“Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior…and so train the young women to love their husbands and children…and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled. Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled…so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us.” (Titus 2:3-8)

The attempt by men and women to reverse or exaggerate their roles is a result of the Fall.
“To the woman he said…Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Gen. 3:16)

Next week I will discuss the role of divorce in this attempt to redefine marriage.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen

Valley of Vision Prayer on Desires

O thou that hearest prayer,
Teach me to pray, I confess that in religious exercises the language of my lips and the feelings of my heart have not always agreed, that i have frequently taken carelessly upon my tongue a name never pronounced above without reverence and humility, that i have often desired things which would have injured me, that i have depreciated some of my chief mercies, that i have erred both on the side of my hopes and also of my fears, That i am unfit to choose for myself, for it is not in me to direct my steps.

Let thy Spirit help my infirmities, for i know not what to pray for as i ought. Let him produce in me wise desires by which i may ask right things, then i shall know thou hearest me. May i never be importunate for temporal blessings, but always refer them to thy fatherly goodness, for thou knowest what i need before i ask; May i never think i prosper unless my soul prospers, or that i am rich unless rich toward thee, or that i am wise unless wise unto salvation.

May I seek first thy kingdom and its righteousness. May i value things in relation to eternity. May my spiritual welfare be my chief solicitude. May i be poor, afflicted, despised and have thy blessing, rather than be successful in enterprise, or have more than my heart can wish, or be admired by my fellow-men, if thereby these things make me forget thee. May i regard the world as dreams, lies, vanities, vexation of spirit, and desire to depart from it. And may i seek my happiness in thy favour, image, presence, service.

A whole new way of seeing God

I read this this morning by Tim Keller and it changed what I was going to write. So this is Tim Keller on A whole new way of seeing God.


"But Christians are those who have adopted a whole new system of approach to God.
They may have had both religious phases and irreligious phases in their lives. But
they have come to see that their entire reason for both their irreligion and their
religion was essentially the same and essentially wrong! Christians come to see that
both their sins and their best deeds have all really been ways of avoiding Jesus as
savior. They come to see that Christianity is not fundamentally an invitation to get
more religious. A Christian comes to say: "though I have often failed to obey the moral
law, the deeper problem was why I was trying to obey it! Even my efforts to obey it has
been just a way of seeking to be my own savior. In that mindset, even if I obey or ask
for forgiveness, I am really resisting the gospel and setting myself up as Savior." To
"get the gospel" is turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus' record for a
relationship with God. The irreligious don't repent at all, and the religious only repent
of sins. But Christians also repent of their righteousness. That is the distinction
between the three groups--Christian, moralists (religious), and pragmatists
(irreligious).
Summary. Without a knowledge of our extreme sin, the payment of the cross seems
trivial and does not electrify or transform. But without a knowledge of Christ's
completely satisfying life and death, the knowledge of sin would crush us or move us
to deny and repress it. Take away either the knowledge of sin or the knowledge of
grace and people's lives not changed. They will be crushed by the moral law or run
from it angrily. So the gospel is not that we go from being irreligious to being
religious, but that we realize that our reasons for both our religiosity and our
irreligiosity were essentially the same and essentially wrong. We were seeking to be
our own Saviors and thereby keep control of our own life. When we trust in Christ as
our Redeemer, we turn from trusting either self-determination or self-denial for our
salvation--from either moralism or hedonism."

Lead Me to it Soon

O LORD,
I live here as a fish in a vessel of water, only enough to keep me alive,
but in heaven I shall swim in the ocean.
Here I have a little air in me to keep me breathing,
but there I shall have sweet and fresh gales;
Here I have a beam of sun to lighten my darkness,
a warm ray to keep me from freezing;
yonder I shall live in light and warmth for ever.

My natural desires are corrupt and misguided,
and it is thy mercy to destroy them;
my spiritual longings are of thy planting,
and thou wilt water and increase them;
Quicken my hunger and thirst after the realm above.

Here I can have the world,
there I shall have thee in Christ;
Here is a life of longing and prayer,
there is assurance without suspicion, asking without refusal;
here are gross comforts, more burden than benefit,
there is joy without sorrow,
comfort without suffering,
love without inconstancy,
rest without weariness.

Give me to know that heaven is all love, where the eye affects the heart,
and the continual viewing of thy beauty keeps the soul in continual transports of delight.

Give me to know that heaven is all peace, where error, pride, rebellion, passion raise no head.

Give me to know that heaven is all joy,
the end of believing, fasting, praying, mourning, humbling, watching, fearing, repining;

And lead me to it soon.

--From The Valley of Vision: "Earth and Heaven"

Tiger Woods, Michael Vick, Ted Haggard?

This article was originally written for Jason Lapp's blog last week. I thought it would be helpful here as well.

It is difficult to put into words the emotions I felt as I read about Ted Haggard’s return to leadership in the local church. This article gives a summary of why Haggard was forced to leave his position as President of the National Society of Evangelical as well as pastor of his church. In this post Jason has asked me to respond to the sad picture painted in the article.

First of all let me say that reconciliation and restoration are both major themes in the Bible. D.A. Carson writes, “At the heart of salvation lies reconciliation to the God who made us and under whose just judgment we lie.” If we are to believe that the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ is the central theme of the Bible, and that the gospel is where that glory is most vividly expressed, it isn’t hard to say that reconciliation is EVERYWHERE in the Bible.

Restoration, on the other hand, is one of many applications of the gospel. In 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 Paul encourages the Corinthians to restore someone (presumably the sexually immoral person he told them to discipline in 1 Corinthians). We also have the example of Paul in 2 Timothy 4:11, in which he affirms Mark as useful after previously having argued against him going with Paul and Barnabus on their second missionary journey because he deserted them on the first journey. This tells us that there isn’t a “one strike and you’re out” rule in ministry.

The fact is there are many variables when it comes to faithfully applying scripture to a situation. In this case I think it is wise to observe some of the facts found in the article and see if they line up with what we know from Scripture. I want to look at three things in particular: Haggard’s view on his own repentance, the circumstances of his return to ministry, and the vision for his future ministry.

When it comes to repentance often times actions speak louder than words. Repentance isn’t easy. In fact, I can’t see myself writing about Mr. Haggard if he were still outside the ministry dealing with these things even if he admitted it’s still a struggle. Instead we see Haggard returning to what he considers his calling after a short time away. The article paints a sort of then-and-now picture. After all of this happened Haggard is said to have taken responsibility and committed himself to what his church saw best for him. Now that he has returned to the pulpit (or stack of buckets) he says his past self “over repented…” This term alone should be enough to consider Haggard unfit for gospel ministry. To assume that over-repentance is possible is to say that our sin is less than infinite treason against a Holy God. To repent carries the idea of having a change of heart and mind causing you to turn from sin, there is no overdoing that. Of course, if Haggard is unwilling to recognize the weight of what he did four years ago that doesn’t make him four years removed from the problem, it puts him right where he was then, unfit for ministry.

As Haggard returns there are just as many new concerns as old ones. The first concern being, his old church didn’t ask him back and doesn’t want him back. Their words, “we cannot endorse his return to vocational ministry.” So we know it must not have been his former church that commissioned this new plant and there is no evidence that any other church is behind Haggard’s efforts. If this is the case Haggard is going outside of the biblical example for church planting. His reason? Not reaching a community that doesn’t have a healthy church but leading a church is what he wants to do. His explaination, "Tiger Woods needs to golf. Michael Vick needs to be playing football… Ted Haggard…needs to be leading a church." Mr. Haggard made an interesting choice of examples, but he misapplies the comparison. Tiger Woods and Michael Vick both did things that have very little to do with their profession. What Mr. Haggard has done is better compared to Pete Rose and Tim Donaghy, who disqualified themselves from what they “need to be doing.”

Unfortunately we don’t only see problems that got Haggard to this point, but it seems that he will be moving forward in the wrong direction. The article concludes by telling us how Haggard now has an Joe Anybody image with his congregation. He uses the word “hell” in a cooler way than most preachers and makes people feel comfortable talking about their sin. I’ll leave those individual issues for another day. The big problem is what’s missing, namely, a commitment to proclaiming the gospel. Not only is the gospel not there but it can’t be there. As long as Haggard ignores the gospel, goes rogue in his approach to church ministry, and considers sin to be no big deal, he won’t be able to have much to do with the gospel.

Please Lord save Ted Haggard and protect us from the same sad state that he is in.

Grace and Peace,
Stephen