Aaron tells me my blog posts are generally too long for most people to actually read. I tend to agree with him. The length of the posts also prevents me from doing them as often because they're such a time commitment. So rather than always writing an article with a more obvious analytical theological bent, I'd like to start including a few short blurbs as well.
One blurb for today is on the Albert Mohler Show. The Albert Mohler Show is a radio program that's been on air for the last 9 years, until this past week when it aired its final episode. Dr. Mohler, the host of the show, is President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. I started listening to the show a couple years ago online and since getting my iPod touch and finding podcasts I've been a subscriber on there as well.
The tagline of the show is "intelligent Christian conversation" and I can say that I have certainly had the privilege of listening in on much of that as I've listened to Dr. Mohler's show. I consider Dr. Mohler one of the leading theologians of our time, especially when it comes to developing a Biblical worldview. His analysis of current events and cultural commentary from a Biblical perspective have been instructive and edifying for me and many others. It is a true encouragement and challenge to me to see such an intelligent, public figure taking a stand for the gospel.
So here's to you Dr. Mohler! Thank you for your service to the body of Christ; I look forward to continuing to benefit from your teaching ministry through other mediums.
P.S.: you can listen to the final episode by clicking here. I'd also recommend Dr. Mohler's website
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Showing posts with label In the news. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Why I like John Piper more today than I did a month ago (and it's not because I actually met the guy)
Two reasons: 1. He's decided to take a ~8 month leave of absence as pastor of preaching and vision at Bethlehem Baptist Church. 2. He invited Rick Warren to speak at the 2010 Desiring God National Conference.
1. As an external observer, the decision to take an 8 month leave of absence and the way he's presented the leave demonstrate to me an excellent Christian example of humility and commitment to the one true God. He didn't sugarcoat it. He didn't call it a "sabbatical." He didn't try to baptize it and make it sound spiritual. He came out and told us the real issue: his pride is preventing him from loving his family and others the way God calls him to (it reminds me of David's attitude after his sin, Psalm 51 was written to the choirmaster, the guy who puts the stuff he's given out in the open for the assembled people of God (see v.1.)). I can only imagine the various lies satan was trying to feed him to prevent him from doing this. I tend to believe these lies myself: "if people see your failures, your ministry will fail," "don't do this, people will lose respect for you," "your books won't sell as well, you wouldn't dare want to risk that," etc. Especially as I've seen small leadership roles in ministry, my inclination is to hide my failures so people don't lose faith in me. But there's the problem: the goal of our ministry should be to direct people to faith in Christ, not faith in ourselves. Nobody grows in a great appreciation for Christ and His gospel by sitting under the teaching of a guy who presents himself as though he has no need of it. This decision of Piper's helps me to see him as less of a "Christian superstar" and as more of a sinner saved by grace. The former makes me worship Piper, the latter makes me worship Jesus.
It is for that very reason that I think this also gives a good example of commitment to the one true God. Piper has to know that this decision will hurt his superstar status in the eyes of many. If ministry success or his reputation were a real idol for him, there is NO WAY he could make this decision. If the approval of man and being put up on a pedestal by young Christians like myself was what he found life from, the idea of a leave of absence would be REPREHENSIBLE. The idol of superstardom is a tempting one, but I think Piper's actions here represent a casting down of that idol and a worship of the one true God.
2. I'll be the first to admit that this particular decision of Piper's is a bit more complicated. I'm personally torn on whether it was wise or not for Piper to invite Rick Warren to DG. On the one hand, I don't think Rick Warren preaches a different gospel. Therefore I think unity with him is worth pursuing and this is certainly a great way to do it. I also like the idea of giving him a chance to explain himself that will hopefully begin a conversation between Warren and the reformed community (an audience that normally wouldn't give him the time of day, myself included). On the other hand, I think in my limited exposure (and I do emphasize limited) to Rick Warren it seems he does tend to water down the full Biblical revelation of God in order to appeal to a broader audience. The unfortunate thing about this decision is I fear that no matter what Piper does to clear things up, history will view it as an endorsement of all of Warren's ministry (the good and the bad) from a majorly influential reformed theologian. On the third hand, John Piper is way older and wiser than I am, so I'm very slow to take a firm stance against him on a grayer issue like this. On the fourth hand, God is sovereign and this is a 3-day conference. It's really not the end of the world even if Piper's decision is less than wise. God will accomplish His purpose through it. The incredible backlash I've seen on the internet particularly from those in reformed circles really makes one question whether any of them really believe in the sovereignty of God outside of the ivory tower.
That said, I respect Piper for doing it. The reason I respect him is because he knew when he did it that he would receive criticism not only from the normal critics, but this time from his normally receptive reformed audience. If we're honest, much of what's being called the "new calvinism" is a fad. It provides a temptation to be more faithful to the fad than to what we feel God calling us to do. In this situation Piper had a choice between loyalty to the fad and loyalty to what he felt God was calling him to do: he chose the latter. Similar to his leave of absence, he had to know this would lower people's opinions of him in alot of ways, but he did it anyway. He doesn't view himself as part of a fad, neither should I.
1. As an external observer, the decision to take an 8 month leave of absence and the way he's presented the leave demonstrate to me an excellent Christian example of humility and commitment to the one true God. He didn't sugarcoat it. He didn't call it a "sabbatical." He didn't try to baptize it and make it sound spiritual. He came out and told us the real issue: his pride is preventing him from loving his family and others the way God calls him to (it reminds me of David's attitude after his sin, Psalm 51 was written to the choirmaster, the guy who puts the stuff he's given out in the open for the assembled people of God (see v.1.)). I can only imagine the various lies satan was trying to feed him to prevent him from doing this. I tend to believe these lies myself: "if people see your failures, your ministry will fail," "don't do this, people will lose respect for you," "your books won't sell as well, you wouldn't dare want to risk that," etc. Especially as I've seen small leadership roles in ministry, my inclination is to hide my failures so people don't lose faith in me. But there's the problem: the goal of our ministry should be to direct people to faith in Christ, not faith in ourselves. Nobody grows in a great appreciation for Christ and His gospel by sitting under the teaching of a guy who presents himself as though he has no need of it. This decision of Piper's helps me to see him as less of a "Christian superstar" and as more of a sinner saved by grace. The former makes me worship Piper, the latter makes me worship Jesus.
It is for that very reason that I think this also gives a good example of commitment to the one true God. Piper has to know that this decision will hurt his superstar status in the eyes of many. If ministry success or his reputation were a real idol for him, there is NO WAY he could make this decision. If the approval of man and being put up on a pedestal by young Christians like myself was what he found life from, the idea of a leave of absence would be REPREHENSIBLE. The idol of superstardom is a tempting one, but I think Piper's actions here represent a casting down of that idol and a worship of the one true God.
2. I'll be the first to admit that this particular decision of Piper's is a bit more complicated. I'm personally torn on whether it was wise or not for Piper to invite Rick Warren to DG. On the one hand, I don't think Rick Warren preaches a different gospel. Therefore I think unity with him is worth pursuing and this is certainly a great way to do it. I also like the idea of giving him a chance to explain himself that will hopefully begin a conversation between Warren and the reformed community (an audience that normally wouldn't give him the time of day, myself included). On the other hand, I think in my limited exposure (and I do emphasize limited) to Rick Warren it seems he does tend to water down the full Biblical revelation of God in order to appeal to a broader audience. The unfortunate thing about this decision is I fear that no matter what Piper does to clear things up, history will view it as an endorsement of all of Warren's ministry (the good and the bad) from a majorly influential reformed theologian. On the third hand, John Piper is way older and wiser than I am, so I'm very slow to take a firm stance against him on a grayer issue like this. On the fourth hand, God is sovereign and this is a 3-day conference. It's really not the end of the world even if Piper's decision is less than wise. God will accomplish His purpose through it. The incredible backlash I've seen on the internet particularly from those in reformed circles really makes one question whether any of them really believe in the sovereignty of God outside of the ivory tower.
That said, I respect Piper for doing it. The reason I respect him is because he knew when he did it that he would receive criticism not only from the normal critics, but this time from his normally receptive reformed audience. If we're honest, much of what's being called the "new calvinism" is a fad. It provides a temptation to be more faithful to the fad than to what we feel God calling us to do. In this situation Piper had a choice between loyalty to the fad and loyalty to what he felt God was calling him to do: he chose the latter. Similar to his leave of absence, he had to know this would lower people's opinions of him in alot of ways, but he did it anyway. He doesn't view himself as part of a fad, neither should I.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
NYT: What really makes people happy?
New York Times Op-Ed columnist David Brooks used the recent events of Sandra Bullock's life to present and discuss some studies on what makes people happy.
He goes over a number of studies and numbers, the conclusions of which are fairly consistent: marriage, families, and relationships make people happier than money or material success. He suggests this is due to the increased depth in relationships versus the shallowness of the mere accumulation of wealth. He further suggests that we tend to focus on the wrong things: success and money rather than cultivation of deep interpersonal relationships, the thing that will really make us happy.
It certainly is hard to argue with the statistics and conclusions Brooks presents. It seems that they give confirmation to the Biblical principle expressed by Jesus:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and destroy." - Matt. 6:19
A little later in chapter 6 of Matthew we find that this treasure Jesus is referring to is money. He commands us not to "lay it up for ourselves." So we are not to focus our efforts on working for money. The reason Jesus gives is because money is so frail and fragile. It is so easily lost. In his context He's probably referring to some precious stones etc. that moth and rust could destroy. Even in the case of the paper money of our times or the online bank accounts, thieves can break in and destroy. Money does not abide; it lets us down. It does not know us, it does not give us the love that we need to be happy. Having it may make us feel more worthwhile for a time, but it will ultimately fail us.
Relationships on the other hand are a bit different. Another person can know us, another person can love us. We so crave this. We so desire to be really known and loved for who we are. When we receive that from others, it produces a happiness "money can't buy." So surely the things Jesus commands us to lay up for ourselves in opposition to money are relationships, right? Wrong.
"but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal." - Matt. 6:20
The problem with relationships is that they too can let us down. Friends betray, marriages end, families fracture, and ultimately everyone dies. Working towards relationships, storing up for ourselves relationships, is again storing up a "treasure on earth," that moth and rust can destroy. Jesus' remedy: store up treasure in heaven. God cannot be destroyed by moth or rust; He is eternal. As such, only He can give us the lasting, eternal love we all so crave. Only he can fully know and love us, perfectly, for all of eternity.
So Brooks' point cannot be disputed: interpersonal relationships will make us happier than money. But in the long run, interpersonal relationships with humans will ultimately fail to provide lasting happiness, true joy. That is only available through a right relationship with God, available to all through Jesus Christ.
"You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." - Psalm 16:11
HT: Aaron Bobuk
He goes over a number of studies and numbers, the conclusions of which are fairly consistent: marriage, families, and relationships make people happier than money or material success. He suggests this is due to the increased depth in relationships versus the shallowness of the mere accumulation of wealth. He further suggests that we tend to focus on the wrong things: success and money rather than cultivation of deep interpersonal relationships, the thing that will really make us happy.
It certainly is hard to argue with the statistics and conclusions Brooks presents. It seems that they give confirmation to the Biblical principle expressed by Jesus:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and destroy." - Matt. 6:19
A little later in chapter 6 of Matthew we find that this treasure Jesus is referring to is money. He commands us not to "lay it up for ourselves." So we are not to focus our efforts on working for money. The reason Jesus gives is because money is so frail and fragile. It is so easily lost. In his context He's probably referring to some precious stones etc. that moth and rust could destroy. Even in the case of the paper money of our times or the online bank accounts, thieves can break in and destroy. Money does not abide; it lets us down. It does not know us, it does not give us the love that we need to be happy. Having it may make us feel more worthwhile for a time, but it will ultimately fail us.
Relationships on the other hand are a bit different. Another person can know us, another person can love us. We so crave this. We so desire to be really known and loved for who we are. When we receive that from others, it produces a happiness "money can't buy." So surely the things Jesus commands us to lay up for ourselves in opposition to money are relationships, right? Wrong.
"but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal." - Matt. 6:20
The problem with relationships is that they too can let us down. Friends betray, marriages end, families fracture, and ultimately everyone dies. Working towards relationships, storing up for ourselves relationships, is again storing up a "treasure on earth," that moth and rust can destroy. Jesus' remedy: store up treasure in heaven. God cannot be destroyed by moth or rust; He is eternal. As such, only He can give us the lasting, eternal love we all so crave. Only he can fully know and love us, perfectly, for all of eternity.
So Brooks' point cannot be disputed: interpersonal relationships will make us happier than money. But in the long run, interpersonal relationships with humans will ultimately fail to provide lasting happiness, true joy. That is only available through a right relationship with God, available to all through Jesus Christ.
"You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore." - Psalm 16:11
HT: Aaron Bobuk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
