Phil Johnson on Building Bridges Versus Guarding Boundaries

I just viewed this video from Phil Johnson over at the Reformed Baptist Fellowship blog, and I just had to post it here as well. Once again I find myself in close agreement with Phil's perspective (as I was here), and once again I find myself profoundly grateful for his contribution to the discussion of such important issues facing the Church today. I also encourage you to check out Phil's blog here.

If you are interested in the Sharper Iron Forum he mentions in the message, you can check it out here.

Carl Truemen on the Important Contribution of John Owen

In this video Dr. Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary, does an excellent job of briefly describing why John Owen was such an important theologian in the Reformed tradition and why reading Owen's works today can be so valuable and helpful.

Divine Sovereignty: The Fuel of Death-Defying Missions : Together for the Gospel

Following is a link to a wonderful message delivered at the 2012 Together for the Gospel Conference. I am thankful to my firend Christ Gault for letting me know about it. He has posted the video on his blog here.

Divine Sovereignty: The Fuel of Death-Defying Missions : Together for the Gospel

Justin Peters on the Prosperity Gospel

This series of videos is called "A Call for Discernment," and offers a Biblical critique of the Word of Faith Movement (more commonly known as the Health and Wealth or Prosperity Gospel). I highly recommend taking the time to watch them.

Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism by Jeff Johnson

Last week I told the blog's readers about Jeff's recent book The Church: Why bother? Many of you may already have come to know Jeff as the author of the outstanding work The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism and as a contributor this blog. Well, this week I want to tell you all about yet another new book by Jeff entitled Behind the Bible: A Primer on Textual Criticism. The focus of the book is on textual criticism of the New Testament, and Jeff gives a thorough yet concise and readable presentation of the need for textual criticism, paleography, textual faithfulness, the method of textual criticism, and the history of the Greek New Testament text. Having read the book myself, I can tell you that Jeff does his usual terrific job of writing about important topics in an understandable way. In fact, I have given copies of the book (along with the other two books written by Jeff) to men in my congregation who have been pleasantly surprised out how accessible Jeff makes even sometimes difficult issues. It has led to some great discussions with them as I seek to help them grow in their faith. Jeff has a pastor's heart, and it shows on every page of his books. It also helps others of us who serve as pastors to teach important doctrine to our people.

Here is the desctription of the book from the publisher's website, where you may purchase a copy (or multiple copies if, like me, you want to give them out):

Did the multitude of Biblical scribes who copied the Scriptures by hand throughout the centuries do so with absolute perfection? If not, how can we know that what we now possess is (word for word) what was originally penned by the Biblical authors themselves? 'Behind the Bible' spotlights the divine preservation of Scripture to show that it is not by chance God's Word 'will never pass away.'

"Jeff Johnson has provided a helpful and clear discussion of the key issues behind the 'whys' and 'wherefores' of how we got our New Testament text. In light of the frontal assaults upon the integrity of the text of the New Testament pervasive in our day, it is important for believers to have a knowledge of these matters, and Johnson's work is a useful addition to the introductions available on the subject." - James R. White, author or PULPIT CRIMES

"One of the most difficult areas of Biblical study is the matter of textual criticism. Obviously, this is not something which can be done with perfection, but Jeffrey Johnson has in this book, 'Behind the Bible', shown not only how it is done, but also that it can, when done properly, arrive with a great certainty of the original Biblical text.This book, because of its clarity and helpfulness in the area of textual criticism, is a must read for all pastors and students of the Bible in our day!" - Dr. Richard P. Belcher, Author of Diagramming the Greek New Testament

With such endorsments by James white and Richard Belcher, I hope you will be encouraged to give it a read yourself. Again, you can purchase you copy here. I pray that you will be as encouraged helped by Jeff's writings as I have been!

The Church: Why Bother? by Jeff Johnson

Jeff Johnson, the author of The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism and a contributor to this blog, has written a new book entitled The Church: Why bother? Having read the book myself, I wholeheartedly recommend it as a solid introduction to the Bible's teaching on the nature, purpose, functions, and importance of the local church.

In addition to the endorsements by Voddie Baucham, Joel Beeke, and John MacArthur contained in the above video, I would like to add that of Richard Belcher:

I am glad to recommend this new book by Jeffery Johnson, which confronts such ignorance in a very clear and Biblical manner. The book is very brief and direct and even applicable and necessary, especially for our day. The book covers almost every aspect of what a church is and what it should and should not be doing, according to the Scriptures. It can be used by the individual pastor or Christian to learn his duty to his church, or it can be the foundation of a series of sermons to enlighten a church in these areas, or it can be used as Sunday School material or in individual classes or Bible studies. If readers say they already have such books, I would tell you I do too. But every age is different, as it seems our churches slip further and further away from Biblical truth, in the passing of time, and they lean more and more towards the use of the latest unbiblical methods and thoughts of church ministry and church life. Here is a book which deals with the modern age in which we live, and the weakness of the church and churches of our day, and without fear the author sets forth Biblical truth as to what the church of our Lord Jesus Christ needs to be today according to Scripture!

Be sure to visit the Solid Ground Chrsitian Books website to order your copy today.

Courageous is Good, But It Isn't the Bible

I recently received an email from Adam Akre, one of the men at Immanuel Baptist Church, where I am privileged to serve as the primary teaching elder. Adam voiced a concern over the way he feels too many Christian men are substituting material associated with the movie Courageous for the Scriptures. His thoughts are worth your consideration:

The movie Courageous has been a serious eye opening tool God is using in men all over the world. It has brought to light a serious deficiency, the lack of Biblical manhood in our homes. The movie does a tremendous job of capturing the importance of being a Biblical man for our families.

That being said, I see a rather disturbing trend in churches across America in dealing with this situation. Instead of going to God's Word in dealing with the problem, churches are going to study guides of this movie and the book that lead to the movie to address this. Now is there anything wrong with reading books and using them to help us deal with problems? No, as long as we don't see them as an authority on the matter. The problem I have is as the church, we have the Authority on this matter and we aren't using it. The Bible clearly lays out requirements for men in leading the family. Deuteronomy 6, Ephesians 5&6, the book of Titus, and many more CLEARLY pave the way for Biblical manhood.

As Christians we do not need a movie, a book, or a resolution to do the things we are called to do. The fact that God commands us to do these things should be enough.

Let us remember what the Apostle Paul said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

Bob Gonzales on the Imprecatory Psalms

Just a couple of days ago, Dr. Bob Gonzales, Academic Dean and a professor of Reformed Baptist Seminary, posted an article entitled Zealous for God: A Defense of the Imprecatory Psalms. He has posted two videos of classroom lectures on the subject that I am posting here as well. After having watched both of these videos, I can honestly say that I have never heard such a clear, careful, thorough, and insightful treatment of the subject. Enjoy this outstanding teaching, and be sure to stop by his blog as well. It is one of the best blogs on the Internet addressing issues from a Reformed Baptist perspective.





Thanks Bob!

An Elephant, Rock Star Mega-Church Pastors and Discernment

I am perplexed! No, I am troubled! I am concerned, or maybe I am just a "hater." I pastor a small church, so who cares what I am, how I feel, and what I have to say. I am sure I am just jealous, or a fundamentalist, or a failure. Whatever I am, I am sure I will not be classified as "discerning."

Why am I troubled? Because Reformed Christianity appears to have fallen victim to the Hollywood pop culture where a few celebrity mega-church pastors have more influence upon younger Christians than a multitude of ordinary pastors who remain faithful and unknown. It is difficult to sound the alarm (Hey! There’s an elephant in the room and he kind of smells) because of the likelihood of sounding jealous, but the elephant has gotten so large and stinky that it's hard not to say something. This is not to say that it's wrong to pastor a mega-church or have a large following, but it is dangerous to place a person on a pedestal just because he pastors a mega-church and to fall all over ourselves in seeking to win their approval and a few of their internet followers. Credibility should never be based upon how many twitter followers a person has, but upon how faithful a pastor is with the truth. As said in the intro of the Mike Corley Program, “…the messenger does not validate the message, but rather the message validates the messenger.”

Human nature desires fame, envies those who are famous, and seeks the friendship of those who are famous. It is amazing how fame subconsciously and quickly warps our perspective and judgment. The most undeserving and despicable famous person in Hollywood may be Paris Hilton. Not even a fan of hers (I don’t like her at all), I thought I had great bragging rights after I ran into her in London. I remember eagerly and shamelessly walking back to the hotel so I could tell my friends. As if somehow the value and worth of my life went up some degree due to running into someone who is famous. Silly, I know, but this is human nature. We want to be famous or at least connected with those who are famous. I think it is because if we can get near to those who have the spot light we may somehow get out of the shadows. Even famous people do not seem exempt from the influence of this phenomenon. Have you not noticed that famous people befriend, date and marry other famous people? Maybe it's because famous people think that being connected to other famous people will bring more popularity for themselves, as though two famous people coming together brings each a broader fan base than they would have had on their own. Whatever the case, fame has a gravitational pull on all of us, and I am afraid that the church along with her discernment is being sucked into its black hole. Here is some of the refuse the elephant is leaving behind in the church, and I personally believe it smells.

1. Reverse Fundamentalism

We can't use discernment and question the actions of various well known celebrity pastors without being judged as a fighting fundamentalist or just flat out jealous of their success. We can be more liberal than they are, but we dare not be more conservative. If we happen to be more conservative, we are automatically villainized as belonging to the fundamentalist camp that only wants to fellowship with the King James Only Advocates. For instance, Steven Furtick, who is a mega-church pastor in Charlotte North Carolina went on this rant:

All of a sudden I am the hater because I take a more conservative and cautious approach to the ministry. I could believe the prosperity gospel and be a muddled modalist and be tolerated and even accepted with a cool, manly fist bump (as was the case with Driscoll and T. D. Jakes in the Elephant Room 2), but I dare not question the methodology of a pastor who pastors a mega-church or I will be labeled as a hater. Even worse, I may be threatened to be arrested, as was the case for our Lutheran friend Chris Rosebrough when he attempted to attend the Elephant Room 2 conference (see here).

The point is that we are charged with being haters because we voice our concerns, but our voices are the ones that are being cut off from the conversation.

2. Jumping on the Bandwagon Just because There is a Long Boarding Line

Have you ever gone to Walmart and counted the people wearing jackets with the little words "North Face" stamped in the corner? Probably not, but I have, and you would be amazed at how many people want a jacket just because of that little logo. Everybody seems to have one, and that seems to be the reason why everybody wants one, me included! Don't say that it's the quality, because I can go get a Snozu jacket, which is just as nice at T. J. Maxx's for half the price. Yet without that North Face logo, a Snozu jacket just doesn't seem as cool. If the herd of people were not wearing North Face jackets, I am sure I wouldn't feel so tempted to buy one. The point is, it's human nature, so it seems, to follow the crowd without really examining why.

The growing mega-church and celebrity pastor phenomenon seems to be under this spell as well. Grab people’s attention by talking about sex and the use of controversial and slightly seditious methodology, and then the momentum of the crowds rushing in will do the rest. People want to go where all people are going. If you stopped and asked them why North Face, why this church? The honest answer would likely be, because it’s cool, and it’s also where all my friends or potential friends go. The right music, the right aesthetics, the right web-design, and throw in a bigger than life personality for the pastor and then presto—you have created the perfect combination for a mega-church, and the rise of the latest celebrity pastor. But, if we step back and ask why is Paris Hilton so famous? What has she really done to deserve such a large fan base? Besides some questionable behavior and a little bit of charisma, there is no substantial reason for her to be so popular. She is not the prettiest girl, she can't sing, she is not much of an actor, but for some reason she is famous. In the same way, many of these celebrity pastors have nothing substantial to justify such a large following. I am not saying that they have no spiritual gifting, but I know many obscure pastors who are more knowledgeable, spiritually gifted and devoted who remain out of any national or international spotlight. Martin Luther, George Whitefield, Charles Spurgeon, and even contemporaries like John Piper, R. C. Sproul and John MacArthur have something unique about their spiritual gifting that sets them apart. These men deserve a broad hearing. Yet, other than their personal charisma and charm there is not much that makes ministers like Rick Warren and Steven Furtick worthy of such attention within the Reformed community. My point is, the most faithful, the most gifted and the most devoted pastors do not always equate to the most famous in the kingdom of God. Nevertheless, fame has the tendency to warp our judgment, for in many cases the most faithful and gifted pastors are overlooked, while the celebrity pastors grab all the headlines. Carl Truemen rightly noted:

One thing that is so striking about the rise of celebrity in the wider world is that it has been accompanied by the rise of the myth of the polymath. Thus, a pop star who can write a song that becomes a hit also becomes a person who is consulted about things like gay rights, Third World Debt and global warming. They are no more qualified (and in some cases much less qualified) than you or I to offer such advice; but we are never asked because we have not written a pop hit or starred in a movie. We now see this phenomenon in the evangelical world: fame and a big church make you competent to speak all over the theological map.

There has been a downgrade in the Reformed Community. I was afraid of this back when Mark Driscoll was introduced as a Calvinist. For years, Calvinism was despised and marginalized by mainstream Christianity. Pastors were run out of their churches and they sacrificed greatly for their faithful stance for the truth. Now with the rise of this neo-Calvinism, God's sovereign grace is cool and fashionable. Yet it appears that this new form of Calvinism is only cool when it comes to Jonathan Edwards screen-printed T-shirts, but has nothing to do with one's methodology of ministry. The famous Calvinistic ministers of old where known for their commitment to truth in all facets of life, but these new Calvinists are known for how fast they can grow a church and cumulate a fan base by marketing themselves as cool and providing a multi-sensual worship experience. Worse yet, these young Calvinists, who know little to nothing of the hardships of the previous generation of Calvinists, are telling that generation to get out of the way, for they have discovered a better and less offensive way to do ministry.

3. Mega-Pastors' Gravitation Toward Each Other

It’s weird, but it does seems that the larger the objects the greater their gravitational pull. Mega-church pastors seem to attract other mega-pastors, regardless of their doctrinal stance. I love John Piper and think his books (especially his book on missions, Let the Nations be Glad) are excellent! With that said, I am disappointed with his endorsement of Rick Warren. I am sure we can learn something from Rick Warren, but whatever we may be able to learn from him we could learn from someone else without all the seeker sensitive baggage. The question I have is why? Dr. Piper, why Rick Warren? Whatever the reason, if Rick Warren was not so popular I am almost certain that Piper wouldn’t be so drawn to him. But worse than John Piper’s association with Rick Warren is the latest Elephant Room fiasco. The mega-church pastor T. D. Jakes is treated as a hero even though he will not take a firm position on the Trinity, and even though he perverts the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ by preaching a man centered health and wealth gospel.

It almost seems as bad as this mock conversation below:

“Okay Benny Hinn, get ready! I am sure you’ll be the next celebrity who will be welcomed into the fold. Maybe by reaching out to you, our Reformed celebrity pastors may be able to win some of your audience and followers over to Reformed Theology.”

“You’re crazy, Jeff,” the mega-church pastors may respond back to me, “don’t you understand that unity is not about Reformed Theology, it’s about the gospel!”

To which I would replay, “Is it?”

In which they respond, “Well, okay, it’s technically not about the gospel because we accepted T. D. Jakes and his prosperity gospel.”

To which I would reply, “Well, since it’s not about the gospel, at least you celebrity pastors may be able to broaden your fan base by reaching out to these other celebrity pastors.”

Finally they agree, “What a good idea! Your right, Jeff! Hey, Benny Hinn come on over and bring us some of your followers.”

4. Multi-Sight Campuses

I wonder why mega-church pastors are not willing to plant new churches rather than feeling the need to open various satellite campuses. I understand that any given locality has its limitations, and people are willing to drive only so far, but what are the reasons to divide a local body when starting a new work seems to be more in line with the biblical pattern? Do these mega-pastors think so highly of themselves as to think that no other preacher is as capable? Are they unwilling to share the glory? If it’s the people who would rather have a famous virtual pastor than an unknown pastor who is present, then are not these mega-church pastors unwilling to teach their followers of the danger of exalting a man? Is it about building a kingdom that is centered around a mega-church personality? Is it all of a sudden acceptable to have a bishop pastoring multiple flocks? Is it biblical to divide a local body, or can it even be called a local body? How do you effectively pastor a flock in an off site location? It seems slightly better than handing a group of people a pile of recorded sermons and then telling them that I am happy to be your Shepherd who watches over your souls. I am sure there may be some good motives mixed in with opening satellite campuses, but I can't help but think it’s not about reaching more people (planting local churches could do that), but about ego and building a fan base. I know I am a "hater" for bringing up such concerns, but all this celebrity Christianity seems to be getting out of control.

There is an elephant that has squeezed into the church and hardly anyone wants to admit it. Maybe it’s because we're scared that we will be judged as envious or overly scrupulous. Also, if I am seeking popularity among young teenage girls, the last thing I want to do is vocalize any criticism towards Justin Bieber. In the same way, if I want to broaden my ministry opportunities, and if everybody loves these mega-church personalities, then the last thing I should do is offend the followers of Mark Driscoll. I think it's the desire to be famous which is a large part of the problem, and the elephant in the room is so big it's time for us to say something regardless of what it may cost us.

John MacArthur Adresses the Issue of Multisite Churches

Once again I find myself in agreement with John MacArthur. In fact, I also see it as a real problem today that so many professing Christians are willing to substitute listening to or watching videos of sermons for actually assembling together with other believers to personally hear the word preached. What do you think?

Review of The Radical Reformission

I am young, Reformed, and I enjoy Starbucks coffee, snowboarding and backpacking around Europe. I prefer Apple products, I don’t preach in a tie, and I think fundamentalism is dangerous. Who am I? I am someone who is concerned about the influence Mark Driscoll is having upon the church.

It has been many years since I first heard the name Mark Driscoll. The day before, I was eating lunch with one of my Pentecostal friends, who wanted to know more about Calvinism. Being worried about being tagged as a hyper-Calvinist, I did my best to be humble, balanced and clear in my explanation of the five points. The next day that same friend brings me some secular magazine with an article inside entitled, if I remember correctly, “A Cussing Calvinist.” I was glad that my friend learned that I was not the only Calvinist in the world, but I was not sure how I felt about being paired with some weird preacher in Seattle who was known for his profanity. After reading that article, I thought to myself, who is this guy, and why in the world is he going around cussing in his sermons? As with my own personal introduction to Driscoll, this controversial minister in Seattle has burst upon the scene with a bang—winning as many fans and followers as he has rattled the cages of the fundamentalists.

Since that time, I have learned a lot more about Mark Driscoll, but sought to remain silent upon the cultural debates surrounding his ministry. But, having many young college students in my church (who feel called to the ministry), I feel that I couldn’t avoid the controversy any longer. So what do I do? I hop into my car, drive to the local Christian bookstore, and pay full retail price (which I hardly ever do) for Driscoll’s first book, The Radical Reformision (printed in 2004 by Zondervan). Anyway, for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts on the book.

STRENGTHS

1. Likable

Driscoll’s brutal honesty, transparency and wit, which are clearly communicated in his writing style, are endearing and captivating. After reading this book, I could not help but like Mark Driscoll, and I could see myself enjoying spending the day running around Seattle with him.

2. Concerned for Evangelism

I like Mark’s emphasis upon equipping the saints to be mission minded (evangelistic). Churches should encourage and equip the saints to carry the gospel to those who are in darkness. “Very Good!” are the words I wrote in the margins of page 66 after reading: “Reformission requires that every Christian and church realize that missions is about not something they do but something they are. We are all on a mission with Jesus every day, and we are either good missionaries or bad.” Mark challenges those churches who only want to form a holy huddle that they may avoid any contamination with those in the culture. I agree with Mark, we all need to rub shoulders with sinners that we may have opportunity to share our faith to those who need the Lord.

3. Full of Love

Mark’s love for the Lord, for the church and for sinners is clearly communicated as well. He has a passion for the Lord, which all Christians would do well to emulate. This book personally challenged me. After turning the last page of the book, I fell on my knees in prayer, asking forgiveness for my own lack of zeal for those without the gospel. If I ever had the opportunity to talk with Mark, I would want to tell him thanks for encouraging me in such a way.

CONCERNS

1. Embellishing the Gospel Narrative

The first thing that troubled me was how Mark purposefully embellished the gospel narrative to make it seem as scandalous as possible. As Driscoll wrote, “Doesn’t the story (gospel narrative) sound like the plot of a trashy, daytime television talk show?” (p. 29). I know he is trying to contextualize the gospel narrative to fit a culture that is drawn to scandalous language, but even if the language is not disrespectful, it is unfaithful to the text. Mary was pregnant before she married Joseph, but nowhere in the gospel narrative does the text indicate that the Jewish community perceived Mary as a “slut”. Christ did turn water into an alcoholic beverage (e.g., wine), but this was at a traditional wedding party where his own mother was present, not some college frat party where decent mothers would not only be unwelcomed, but also feel very uncomfortable. Christ did eat with sinners, as Christians often eat with sinners in their homes or at work, yet this does not mean that Christ purposefully looked for the most questionable and shady environments to hang out and socialize so that he could better connect and understand sinners. To spin the gospel narrative in such a way to create an effect of shock in the listener is concerning to me. Driscoll takes a few events from the life of Christ and embellishes them. Worse yet, Mark seeks to build a philosophy of ministry from it.

2. A False Dichotomy

Intentionally or not, Mark labels all those who would oppose his philosophy of ministry as legalists, fundamentalists and traditionalists. As the Pharisees criticized Christ for eating with sinners, today only legalists would criticize this modern approach of evangelizing the lost by seeking to be edgy and risqué. As I was reading over pages 140-142, I could not help but think that ‘this is clever, I can’t disagree or I will become a legalist.’ According to Mark, legalists are more focused upon keeping their own human traditions than with reaching sinners for Christ. Driscoll is right when he talks about the dangers of legalism, but wrong to lump all those who do not perfectly share his opinions into the legalist camp. It is wrong to impose manmade regulations upon others, but it is not wrong to be cautious and precise in how we apply biblical principles. It is not wrong to be worried about negative appearances and concerned about how the holiness of Christ is depicted in a dark and unholy world. Contextualization of the gospel is not as cut and dry as Mark makes it sound. Also, it would have been nice if Mark could have been more understanding to those who take a more cautious approach to evangelism without disregarding them right off the bat as legalists.

3. A Misunderstanding of 1 Cor 9:19-23

Not only does Driscoll seem to build his philosophy of ministry from an embellished rendition of the gospel narrative, he seeks support from a misapplication of the words of Paul, “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might win some” (1 Cor 9:22). “All things to all people” seems to be Mark’s motto. In reference to this, Driscoll writes: “Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many as possible in the cultures around them” (p. 100). In context, however, Paul was not suggesting that the Christians follow the latest trends and fads of the increasing secular culture, but rather that Christians be willing to subject their personal liberties to the moral convictions of others. For instance, out of love, Paul was willing to subject himself to the personal and moral convictions of others. He did not want his Christian liberties to be morally offensive to those whom he thought would view them as such. Eating meat offered to idols may have been lawful, but it may also have caused real offense to those who have a weak conscience. Out of love, Paul was willing to sacrifices his liberties for the good of his neighbor. How could Paul be an effective witness for a holy God if those to whom he was witnessing viewed his liberties as sinful activities? Paul loved others more than he loved his own personal freedoms, and this is what made him such an effective witness for Christ. Anything that had the appearance of evil, even though Paul may have had a clear conscience to enjoy it, he was willing to forsake if he thought it would have caused offense or would hinder the gospel from being heard. The point is that Paul was worried about being morally offensive, not stylistically offensive. In other words, Paul was not concerned about being viewed as a nerd or out of touch with the latest fashion, but more worried about limiting his ministry by participating in lawful activities that others may consider as morally wrong.

Yet Driscoll is using a small segment of this text (becoming all things to all people) to encourage Christians to purposefully participate in cultural activities which even the secular society considers risqué and edgy. This almost turns the meaning of the passage upside down. Body piercings, tattoos and drinking Budweiser may not be sinful activities in and of themselves, but these things really do little to help contextualize the gospel and may be a real hindrance to one’s ministry opportunities. The point is that Paul was not encouraging Christians to indulge in cultural activities that are considered edgy by even those who practice such things. These activities may not be sinful in themselves, but due to their negative association, they will surely be offensive to some. Some things may not be sin, but some things are not helpful (1 Cor 6:12). According to Paul, lawful activities are fine to enjoy privately or among those who share those same sentiments, but if there is a real possibility of causing offense, it is best to seek the moral high ground in cultural areas that could be considered as taboo or morally offensive (Rom 14). Driscoll may agree with this, but if he does, it would have been nice if he had warned his impressionable young readers of the dangers of negative associations and the sin of causing a weaker brother to stumble.

4. Lack of Any Clear Theological Foundation

The Scriptural basis for Mark’s philosophy of ministry seems to be based upon an embellished account of the gospel narrative and a misunderstanding of 1 Cor 9:22. Outside of these two things, there doesn’t seemed to be any real theological foundation for his view of church and culture. The only principle Mark appears to utilize is the notion that what is not explicitly forbidden is lawful. Mark has simplified this principle in the catchphrase, Reject, Receive and Redeem. Reject the things in the culture that are sinful. Receive the things in the culture that are good. And Redeem the things in the culture that are shady or questionable. If anything, Mark seems to have been influenced by the theology of the Emergent church that believes that the mission of the church is to redeem the culture. To do kingdom work is to be fully engaged in redeeming the culture and social “transformation.” The Emergent church seeks to blend the church and culture, and the gospel and social activism, together. The objective is not to have a pure church (a called out people from all nations who worship God), but a redeemed culture and a transformed society. Yet we need to remember that the Bible teaches that there is a clear distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world. Christians live in both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. Because we live in both spheres, there are some overlaps in the cultural activities that we will enjoy (e.g., music, dress, foods, etc.). Yet, because the culture of the kingdom of God (e.g., the church) is shaped by spiritual values, and because the culture of the world is shaped by fleshly values, there is a distinction between the culture of the church and the culture of the world. The great business of the church is not to redeem culture, but to redeem sinners. This is not to say that society and culture will not benefit from the spread and growth of true Christianity; they certainly will. Yet the great mission of the church is to evangelize the lost and equip the saints for the end goal of establishing a holy people who are separate from the world. Driscoll has a passion for sinners, and I believe reaching the lost for Christ is his main objective, but he doesn’t seem to have (or at least seem to communicate) a clear theological foundation to support his philosophy of ministry.

I recommend for those who desire a theological foundation for their understanding of the church and culture to study David VanDruen’s book Living in God’s Two Kingdoms, and for a practical application of the subject to read Kevin Deyoung and Greg Gilbert’s recent book What is the Mission of the Church?

5. An Attempt to Bring Secular Culture Into the Church

Mark does well in stressing the need to reach out, to go out, and to be sent out into the culture. This is good! Mark’s initial emphasis upon going out into the world as missionaries, however, is undermined by the bulk of the book dealing with how the church should contextualize its appearance and worship to better connect with sinners. The book is not about Christians going out into the culture as much as it is about how to bring the culture into the church. It would have been helpful for Mark to have made a distinction between reaching the culture in the culture and reaching the culture in the church. All this is blended together. Mark admits on page 73 that his approach of bringing the culture into the church “blurs the line between evangelism and discipleship” and removes any clear line of who is and who is not a member of the local church. As I will mention later, this book is more a church growth manual than it is a book on outreach and evangelism.

6. A Double Standard When it Comes to Appearances

Driscoll seems more concerned about how the church appears to those whose values are shaped by the flesh than he is worried about how the church appears to those whose values are shaped by the Scriptures. Outward appearances are a big deal to Driscoll when it comes to the church being relevant and the need to contextualize the gospel to connect with sinners. The major theme of this book is how to bridge a gap with the culture by the means of aesthetics, acoustics and musical style. “Reformission Christians and churches exist to perpetuate the gospel and should be swift to change their cultural forms if they are not the most beneficial for achieving that goal… Reformission churches have to continually examine and adjust their musical styles, websites, aesthetics, acoustics, programming, and just about everything but their Bible in an effort to effectively communicate the gospel to as many people as possible in the cultures around them“ (p. 100). The point is, when it comes to relating to sinners, outward appearances matter greatly. Yet, when it comes to the appearance of evil, Driscoll discounts those who bring up such concerns as legalists. Not one time did Driscoll raise any concern about negative appearances and the danger of offending the brethren. When Driscoll did bring up the subject, he responded defensively by saying, “To let go of culture is fundamentalist sectarianism. Sectarianism is the huddling up of God’s people to enjoy each other and Jesus without caring about anyone who is lost and dying outside of Christ. To justify themselves, sectarians will often quote 1 Thessalonians 5:22 from the King James Version, which poorly translates this verse to say that we should avoid every appearance of evil, when the text actually says that we should avoid every kind of evil, which is a different matter altogether” (p. 143). As to say, don’t bring up any concern about offending others by outward appearances; all that matters is that we don’t break any explicit commands.

On page 97, Mark defends the fashion of a young woman who was into the gothic look (“complete with face painted white, hair dyed black, and dark clothing”). Mark criticized a visiting pastor who assumed that the gothic girl was a non-believer. Driscoll explained that she “was a leader in [his] church, and then justified her appearance as merely matter of personal taste and preference. As if to say, how dare you judge this girl by her cover? (Yet Driscoll, on page 100, judges churches that are not in vogue with the latest fashion and cultural trends as legalists and unconcerned about evangelism.) The point is, for Driscoll, outward appearances only matter when it comes to relating and connecting with the culture. Fashion communicates that we are relevant; it has nothing to do with communicating if we are holy. Paul and Peter must have been borderline legalists when they instructed godly women not to dress in a way that would overshadow and distract others from seeing the hidden beauty of the heart (1 Pet 3:3-4, 1 Tim 2:9-10).

I understand that we cross the line into legalism when we seek to pinpoint the line between holiness and worldliness. The difficulty in talking about this subject is that it is wrong to define what worldliness outwardly looks like (e.g., don’t touch, don’t taste, don’t where fashionable clothes, don’t drink Budweiser, etc.). Once we start to draw the lines, we do become legalists. Nevertheless, I still think that a wise pastor would have explained to this Christian girl that outward appearances still matter. If appearances did not matter, why did the president of the North Carolina Panthers (NFL football team) asked their star quarterback Cam Newton (who is considered the face of the franchise) to remain free of tattoos? The reason is that even non-Christians realize that certain cultural practices communicate negative values and can harm a healthy perception. Outward appearances do communicate inward attitudes and desires, this is why Paul and Peter reminded godly women not to place their emphasis upon their external appearance, but rather seek to display the hidden beauty of the heart (1 Tim 2:9-10, 1 Pet 3:3-4).

Appearance of wealth, the appearance of being cool and hip, the appearance of being rebellious and the appearance of being smart is more important to our culture than actually being rich, cool, rebellious and smart. Appearances and personal image is everything to this fallen culture. All of this in reality is vain and stems from the lust of the eyes and pride of life. Now, the church does exist in the culture and, because of this, Christians will enjoy and participate in certain secular cultural activities (foods, dress, music, etc.). However, the church should not seek to portray that their focus is upon the same thing the world values—looking cool, smart, rich and rebellious. This is sending and communicating the wrong message. Also the church needs to be careful not to promote and encourage Christians to run after these things. The church needs to be careful not to fall into the trap of seeking to gain credibility and the approval of society by seeking to brand a certain fleshly image that the world considers attractive and cool. This is sending the wrong non-verbal message. Why would the church purposefully use the outward forms that the secular culture is knowingly going to tag with questionable practices to mediate the glorious gospel? Just because we live in Vanity Fair, does not mean we have to look like Vanity Fair to warn the lovers of Vanity Fair to forsake Vanity Fair.

7. How Much of Contextualization is a Really a Church Growth Marketing Strategy?

As I read this book, I was looking for the foundation behind Driscoll's philosophy of ministry. Driscoll admitted on page 65 that when he planted Mars Hill (the church he pastors) he did not know what he was doing. This means that Driscoll began his journey by not knowing what to do and ended up with a mega-church and a book telling others how to do it. So between the time of ignorance and publishing a how-to book, how did Driscoll arrive at his approach? As mentioned before, he seems to have been influenced by his own embellished account of the gospel narrative, as if Christ sought to promote a cool and fashionable Christianity. Second, Driscoll leans heavily upon a misapplication of 1 Cor 9:22, “I have become all things to all people.” Third, he seems to have been influenced by the Emergent Church, which believes that the mission of the church is to redeem the culture and transform society. Yet, in these three things, there seems to be another influence that helped shape Driscoll’s philosophy of ministry. On pages 70-73, Driscoll reveals what may be the main reason for embedding the church with secular culture—it’s a proven marketing strategy that sells. Driscoll applies the principles of growing a business found in The Experience Economy (a book written by James Gilmore and Joseph Pine II) to the church. In The Experience Economy we learn that people are not just buying coffee, they are buying an experience. In the same way that Starbucks has successfully branded itself by creating a personal in-store experience for their patrons, according to Driscoll the church needs to market itself by providing a similar multi-sensual impression for its visitors. If an aroma of potpourri, soft music mingling in the background, and relaxing earth tone colors can stimulate coffee sales, maybe the right personalities, lighting and music can stimulate church growth. To grow a church, the church must offer people a multi-sensual experience. This is why music, lighting, acoustics, art, and fashion are such a major theme in Driscoll’s book.

Worse than that, one of the biggest methods of gaining popularity, fame and fans in our modern secular culture is to gain press coverage by doing something edgy or questionable. Think of all the music artists who have sold their records by promoting sex. Controversy draws curiosity, media time and attention. The former coach for the Tennessee University football team, Lane Kiffin, admitted after the fact that much of his wild antics and questionable statements were designed to bring the national spotlight back upon the program. Controversy and sex sells, even in the church! I am afraid if we took away the curse words, explicit talks about sex acts, his edgy cultural expression and all his outward ascetics and left him alone with the gospel and a basic pair of blue jeans, Mark would not be near as interesting, or likely to be a high profile Christian celebrity.

In conclusion, because of his firm stance upon the gospel and his love of the lost, I would gladly stand with Driscoll when it came to preaching the gospel, but because of his questionable practices, I would hesitate recommending his philosophy of ministry for building a church.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: 2 Corinthians 1:3-7

In my last post I wrote about how we may be encouraged through trials – even such trials as depression – that God's purposes in our lives are being accomplished as we see his glory being revealed in and through us and thus increase in our confidence that our future glorification is assured. In this post I want us to focus on how suffering through our own trials also enables us to better minister to others in their trials. This can be seen in Paul's teaching on suffering in 2 Corinthians:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:3-4 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort [paráklēsis], 4 who comforts [parakaléō] us in all our tribulation [thlípsis, affliction, distress, oppression, trouble], that we may be able to comfort [parakaléō] those who are in any trouble [thlípsis], with the comfort [paráklēsis] with which we ourselves are comforted [parakaléō] by God.”

In his epistle to the Romans Paul teaches that “we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose” (8:28). Here in 2 Corinthians he teaches us that one way in which God works all things together for good is that He comforts us in our troubles so that we may be able to comfort others in their troubles. In other words, He uses our trials or troubles – which would include depression – in order to make us more useful ministers of His own comfort to others.

Thomas Constable, in his Notes on 2 Corinthians, ably highlights the importance of the Greek word translated comfort in this passage:

“Comfort” (Gr. paraklesis) is the key word in this section (vv. 3-7) occurring 10 times as a noun or a verb [parakaléō]. It also appears in 2:7, 8; 5:20; 6:1; 7:4, 6, 7, 13; 8:4, 6, 17; 9:5; 10:1; 12:8, 18; and 13:11. Thus 2 Corinthians is truly a letter of encouragement. This Greek word means much more than mere sympathy. It communicates the idea of one person standing alongside another to encourage and support his friend. The same word describes the Holy Spirit ("Paraclete") who strengthens and guides us (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7). Christ, too, provides encouragement and support as our Advocate (1 John 2:1) and Helper (Heb. 2:18). Here it is the Father who comforts and consoles the afflicted.

Notice also the emphasis Paul places on the words all and any in these verses. He says that God is the “Father of mercies and God of all comfort [paráklēsis], who comforts [parakaléō] us in all our tribulation that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God.” As the God of all comfort, our heavenly Father is able to comfort us in all of our troubles, and we are thus able to comfort others in any trouble they might face.

Thomas Constable is again helpful in driving home the point, when he writes:

Nevertheless God does not intend this encouragement and strength to end with our personal benefit. Its further purpose is to enable us to become God's agents in extending God's comfort to others in their afflictions. As God comforts us in all our afflictions, we are to comfort others in any and every one of theirs. (Notes on 2 Corinthians)

There are several important implications that follow from Paul's teaching here:

First, there is the implication that we gain the experience we need to comfort others by going through the kind of troubles that necessitate that we ourselves seek comfort from God.

Second, there is the implication that the more troubles we go through, the more useful and capable we will be in offering God's comfort to others. This means we should not despise our troubles as we are often tempted to do, but rather see them as opportunities to become better conduits of God's comfort to others who are suffering as we have suffered.

Third, there is the implication that we become more like God, who is the Father of all comfort, the more we experience His comfort in our troubles and are thus able to more fully comfort others.

Sadly, all too many Christians see their troubles through the wrong lens, perhaps as a sign of God's displeasure, when in reality they are a part of His plan to make us more like Himself, and to make us more like Christ, that we might ultimately be glorified together with Him. As Paul wrote to the Roman believers, if we are God's children, then we are heirs, “heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together” (8:17b).

Ed Welch is helpful in applying the point of Paul's teaching in 2 Corinthians 1 when he writes:

Depression is hard. It doesn’t leave without a fight. But there are good reasons to enter into the fight. Changes are guaranteed (Phil. 1:6). You are in the presence of “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles” (2 Cor. 1:3, 4). Do you believe that? Think about it. When you consider that the Father sent His Son — His beloved, only Son — to die for us when we were still His enemies, there is no reason to think that He will be stingy with His love and compassion now that we know Him as Father.

Sometimes, however, we have our own definition of compassion. Compassion might mean “to take away misery, quickly.” Instead, you have to believe that God’s love and compassion exceed even our imagination, let alone our understanding. He is up to something good. He wants to shower you with grace and make you look more and more like Jesus.

So don’t give up. You have a purpose. God is on the move. You are a servant of the King, a child who represents the Father, and you will soon have the privilege of comforting “those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God” (2 Cor. 1:4). The body of Christ needs you. (Words of Hope for Those Who struggle with Depression, Journal of Biblical Counseling, Vol. 18, No. 2, Winter 2000, p. 45-46, CCEF.org, website of the Christian Counseling & Educational Foundation)

Do you want to love the body of Christ as Christ himself does? Do you truly want to be more like Christ in this regard? If so, then you will be willing to walk the path of suffering even as He did. If not, then you need to ask God to make you willing. Remember what Peter said, “For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps” (1 Pet. 2:21). Or remember what Paul said it to the Philippians, “For to you it has been granted on behalf of Christ, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (1:29).

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:5 “For as the sufferings [páthēma] of Christ abound in us, so our consolation [paráklēsis] also abounds through Christ.”

Here Paul makes it clear that all our troubles that are designed to make us better conduits of God's comfort are actually the sufferings of Christ. It is important to remember that, in the context of 2 Corinthians 1, only such sufferings are in view. Paul does not say, for example, that we may regard suffering for our own sin and disobedience as the sufferings of Christ. Peter also communicates such a distinction when he writes:

NKJ 1 Peter 2:19-21 “For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps ….”

But here in 2 Corinthians Paul also makes it clear that, as these sufferings of Christ abound in us, so also our comfort will abound through Christ. Once again, then, we see that the more sufferings we endure the more comfort we may experience. And, viewed this way, sufferings – including struggles with depression – are once again seen as opportunities. As the ESV renders verse 5, “as we share abundantly in Christ's sufferings, so through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too.” Do you want to share abundantly in the comfort of God? Well, then, it is crucial to consider that you might only be able to experience such abundant comfort through abundant suffering.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:6 “Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation [paráklēsis] and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings [páthēma] which we also suffer [páschō]. Or if we are comforted [parakaléo], it is for your consolation [paráklēsis] and salvation.”

David Guzik offers some helpful comments on this verse:

Significantly, Paul writes of the same sufferings. It is unlikely the Corinthian Christians were suffering in exactly the same way Paul did. Probably, not one of them could match the list Paul made in 2 Corinthians 11:23-28. Yet, Paul can say they are the same sufferings, because he recognizes that the exact circumstances of suffering are not as important as what God is doing, and wants to do, through the suffering. Christians should never get into a “competition” of comparing suffering. There is a sense in which we all share the same sufferings. (Commentary on 2 Corinthians)

Here Paul simply tells the Corinthians that he and his fellow ministers view their own sufferings the same way that he is telling them to view theirs, as opportunities to better be used of God for the comfort of others. Paul sees no such thing as wasted sufferings in his life, at least not so long as he knows they are the sufferings of Christ. This is the lesson he desires us to learn as well.

NKJ 2 Corinthians 1:7 “And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings [páthēma], so also you will partake of the consolation [paráklēsis].”

Here Paul derives hope for the Corinthians from his own experience of God's comfort in his sufferings. This is because he knows that God will do for them what He continually does for him. But what about you and me? Do we sometimes forget this when we see the troubles and sufferings of our brothers and sisters in Christ? Do we sometimes lose hope when we see them suffer? If so, this is probably just an indication that we ourselves are inexperienced in receiving God's comfort in our own sufferings. And it probably also means that we will not be of much use to others who are suffering. It just isn't likely that we will have hope that others will experience God's comfort in their sufferings when we have not experienced it ourselves. But when we become experienced in receiving God's comfort through various sufferings and troubles, including trials such as the deepest depression imaginable, then we will also have a steadfast hope for the believers we see suffering around us. And we will be able to communicate this hope to them even when they feel hopeless themselves.

Teaching Notes on the Importance of the Virgin Birth

Following are teaching notes from 2006 on the importance of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. I hope they will be helpful to the blog's readers as they prepare to celebrate Christmas this year.

Scripture Reading: We will be reading lot of Scripture this morning, but we will begin with these two foundational texts: Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35. As we read, notice the emphasis both texts place on the fact that Mary was a virgin and that both Jesus' conception and birth were therefore the miraculous work of God alone.

NKJ Matthew 1:18-25 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 'Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,' [Isa. 7:14] which is translated, 'God with us.' 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

NKJ Luke 1:26-35 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” 29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” 34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

Introduction: As we have already seen in our Scripture reading thus far, both the accounts of Matthew and Luke are very clear about the fact that Jesus was born of a virgin. Throughout the centuries the Church has always been sure to emphasize this fact as well, deeming it so important that it was included in its most cherished creeds. Consider, for example, the Apostles' Creed (3rd-4th centuries):

I believe in God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ His only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; the third day He rose from the dead; He ascended into heaven; and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit; the holy catholic Church; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. Amen.

Notice that this creed includes only those things which were deemed most essential to the Christian faith. It is a very selective creed, yet it includes an emphasis upon the historicity and reality of the virgin birth. It clearly sees this doctrine as one of crucial importance, then, doesn't it?

This doctrine has been deemed just as crucial by all Bible-believing Christians since that time, being included in virtually every orthodox creed or doctrinal summary, including our own. For example, in chapter 8, paragraph 2 of our own Confession of Faith we read:

The Son of God, the second person in the Holy Trinity, being very and eternal God, the brightness of the Father's glory, of one substance and equal with Him, who made the world, who upholds and governs all things He hath made, did when the fullness of time was come take unto Him man's nature, with all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin, being conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin Mary.... (an amended version of the Baptist Confession of 1689)

We even include this doctrine in our Summary of the Doctrines of Grace Expressed in the Baptist Confession of 1689 (Paragraph 7):

We believe that God sent His Son into the world, conceived of the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, unchangeably sinless, both God and man, born under the Law, to live a perfect life of righteousness, on behalf of His people.

But why is this doctrine deemed so crucial to us? And, more importantly, why is the fact of the virgin birth stressed so clearly in Scripture? Why was it important to God that Jesus be born of a virgin and that we know this with such certainty?

Well, neither Matthew's nor Luke's account comes right out and plainly says why this is so. There is no statement by either of them that Jesus was born of a virgin for any specific reason other than Matthew's assertion that it was in fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. However, I think that the Bible does nevertheless clearly indicate some answers to these questions, and these answers will be the focus of our study. I would like to briefly suggest to you four Scriptural reasons why it is important that Jesus was born of a virgin.

I. The virgin birth explains how Jesus is both fully God and fully Man.

Unlike Matthew and Luke, the Apostle John does not begin His Gospel with an account of the virgin birth and the events leading up to and surrounding it, but instead begins with a description of the incarnation of Christ.

NKJ John 1:1-3, 14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.... [And then later in the passage John says] 14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

I would suggest to you that this is really not a different starting place at all, for the virgin birth is the way in which the incarnation of Christ came about. It is the way in which Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us.” So, Matthew and Luke and John really begin at the same place … the incarnation of Christ. Remember the account of Luke that we read earlier:

NKJ Luke 1:34-35 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” 35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

The son to be born of the virgin Mary was going to be more than just a man, He was going to be the divine Son of God as well. Throughout the Gospels this title was used by Jesus and rightly understood by the Jews to be a claim to deity. None of them questioned His humanity, and the virgin birth ensures that no one could rightly question His divinity either! John Piper stressed the importance of this issue in a sermon entitled Christ Conceived by the Holy Spirit:

Gabriel's answer to Mary's question, How? is very simply and delicately: the Holy Spirit. Beyond this, revelation does not go. How can a virgin have a child? How can the human child be the divine Son of God? Answer: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you . . . therefore the child to be born will be called the Son of God.” The word “therefore” in Luke 1:35 is tremendously important. It shows that the conception of Jesus in a virgin is owing to the mysterious work of the Holy Spirit. And it shows that the divine sonship of Jesus depends on his virgin birth.

Many people will try to say that the conception of Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary is not essential in the doctrine of the incarnation, since Jesus would have been the Son of God even if the virgin birth weren't true. The words of Gabriel do not agree. In answer to the question, How can a virgin conceive? he says, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you, therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” Jesus can be called Son of God (v. 35), Son of the Most High (v. 32), precisely because he was “conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.” It is an unfathomable mystery that all the fullness of deity should dwell bodily in Jesus (Colossians 2:9). It is fitting (indeed necessary, I think) that the entrance gate to this mystery of incarnation should be the virgin birth.

Application: So, Christmas is a celebration of the power of God and the wonder and mystery of the incarnation. It is a time in which we are to be humbled by our own inability to grasp His greatness.

The virgin birth reminds us of what God once said through the Prophet Isaiah, “'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the LORD. 'For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'” (55:8-9, NKJ). We must throw up our hands with David and cry out, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it” (Psalm 139:6, NKJ). What other response could be more appropriate as we prepare to celebrate Christmas?

II. The virgin birth explains how Jesus was without sin.

This is hinted at in the prophetic announcement of Jesus' birth by the angel Gabriel. Recall again Luke's account of his pronouncement to Mary:

NKJ Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”

The ESV translates this verse a bit differently:

ESV Luke 1:35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy -- the Son of God.”

Whichever way it is translated, this statement by Gabriel informs us that, because he was born of a virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was holy. That this holiness was more than just being set apart as one who was special to God, but that it included a moral holiness or perfection, is clear from the fact that He was also going to be the very Son of God, who could be nothing but morally perfect. It is also clear from what the rest of the Scriptures tell us about Christ. For example:

NKJ 2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Paul connects Jesus' sacrifice for our sins to His own sinlessness. In fact, the Scriptures teach that Jesus' sinlessness is why He can be the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

NKJ 1 Peter 1:18-19 ... knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

NKJ 1 Peter 2:21-24 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 'Who committed no sin, nor was deceit found in His mouth' [Isa. 53:9]; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed.

NKJ Hebrews 10:4-12 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He [Jesus] said: 'Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me. 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure. 7 Then I said, “Behold, I have come -- in the volume of the book it is written of Me -- to do Your will, O God.”' 8 Previously saying, 'Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them' (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, 'Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.' He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God....

Functioning as our great High Priest, Jesus sat down after He made His sacrifice because there was no need for any further sacrifice! His was the perfect sacrifice once for all!

Application: Christmas is a time to celebrate the fact that Jesus was born without sin, in order to live without sin, and then to die without sin for His people. This is how the angel's prophecy that “He will save His people from their sins” was fulfilled.

III. The virgin birth explains how Jesus became our sympathetic High Priest.

That Jesus remained without sin throughout His life does not mean, of course, that He was never tempted to sin, but rather that He was able to overcome every temptation. And this is one of the reasons that He had to become man and therefore that the virgin birth was necessary. He is not just our great High Priest in that He gave the final, perfect sacrifice for sins – Himself. He is also our High Priest because He can sympathize with our weakness and help us to overcome sin as He did.

NKJ Hebrews 2:14-18 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

NKJ Hebrews 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Application: Christmas is a time to rejoice that God Himself has condescended to become one of us, and that He understands and sympathizes with our weakness. It is a time to celebrate the victory over sin and temptation that He provides for us. It is a time to celebrate a God who has drawn close to us so that we may boldly draw near to Him!

IV. The virgin birth is a miraculous sign from God that He has acted to save His people from their sins.

This is what Matthew tells us when he cites the prophecy concerning Jesus' birth:

NKJ Matthew 1:21-23 “And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.” 22 So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: 23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.”

Here Matthew is citing part of Isaiah 7:14, but the whole verse reads, “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.”

Clearly Matthew sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of this promised sign that a virgin would conceive. Matthew also clearly sees the virgin birth as connected to the mystery of the incarnation, for he points out that the meaning of Immanuel is “God with us.” The miracle of the virgin birth is something that only God Himself could perform, and it is thus a reminder that salvation is the work of God on our behalf. It is thus by His grace that we are saved. It is not something we can do for ourselves. As Wayne Grudem aptly observes in his Systematic Theology:

[The virgin birth] shows that salvation ultimately must come from the Lord. Just as God had promised that the “seed” of the woman (Gen. 3:15) would ultimately destroy the serpent, so God brought it about by his own power, not through mere human effort. The virgin birth of Christ is an unmistakable reminder that salvation can never come through human effort, but must be the work of God himself. Our salvation only comes about through the supernatural work of God, and that was evident at the very beginning of Jesus’ life when “God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4–5). (p. 529)

Application: Christmas, then, is a celebration of the grace of God in providing Jesus as our Savior and accomplishing through Him all that is necessary to save us.

Conclusion: I hope we all have seen just how important the virgin birth is to our faith. Scripture is quite clear about how essential this historical fact is to our salvation. But, in order to further stress the importance of the doctrine of the virgin birth and to show you that I am far from alone is seeing how crucial the doctrine is in Scripture, I would like to conclude with quotes from two leading modern theologians:

First, Wayne Grudem is again helpful when he writes in his Systematic Theology:

It has been common, at least in previous generations, for those who do not accept the complete truthfulness of Scripture to deny the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. But if our beliefs are to be governed by the statements of Scripture, then we will certainly not deny this teaching. Whether or not we could discern any aspects of doctrinal importance for this teaching, we should believe it first of all simply because Scripture affirms it. Certainly such a miracle is not too hard for the God who created the universe and everything in it—anyone who affirms that a virgin birth is “impossible” is just confessing his or her own unbelief in the God of the Bible. Yet in addition to the fact that Scripture teaches the virgin birth, we can see that it is doctrinally important, and if we are to understand the biblical teaching on the person of Christ correctly, it is important that we begin with an affirmation of this doctrine. (p. 532)

Second, Albert Mohler also drives home the importance of the doctrine of the virgin birth in a blog article entitled Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?:

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible's teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

May God grant us the grace to stand firm on this crucial doctrine when so many have been abandoning it.

Toward a Biblical Perspective on Depression: Romans 5:1-5

So far this series has considered seven case studies from Scripture, from which we have endeavored to draw lessons about some of the possible causes and cures for depression. Then we examined a couple of passages which speak directly to the issue of depression in order to see how the Bible says that we should face such a trial. Now let's turn our attention to some of the Bible's teaching that deals more generally with trials and tribulations, of which depression in all its forms would be a subset. For example, let's begin by examining some of Paul's teaching on trials in the Book of Romans:

NKJ Romans 5:1-5 “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; 4 and perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us.”

I was reminded by this passage that through Christ I can “rejoice in hope of the glory of God” (vs. 2), and I think by this Paul means that I can rejoice in the knowledge that God will manifest His glory through me and in my life. In fact, later in this same epistle Paul describes the ultimate triumph of God's work in us as our being glorified. For example:

NKJ  Romans 8:15-18 “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, 'Abba, Father.' 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs-- heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. 18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”

NKJ Romans 8:28-30 “28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”

All things, including tribulations and suffering, are a part of God's plan to glorify us, that is, to reveal His glory in us. Although this ultimately happens in the resurrection (as the context in Romans 8 makes clear), it is happening to some degree even now, which is what I believe Paul is saying in Romans 5. I think he is trying to tell us that, as we learn to go through trials in faith, we see God being glorified in us more and more, and this gives us a foretaste of the coming glory that will be revealed in us. When Paul tells us that “we also glory in tribulations, knowing that tribulation produces perseverance; and perseverance, character; and character, hope” in verse 3-4, the hope he is talking about is the “hope of the glory of God” he has mentioned in verse 2. So, the more we see God being glorified in and through us as we faithfully endure trials, the more we increase in the certainty that His promise of future glorification is, indeed, true.

There is a cycle revealed in Romans 5:1-5, one through which God has taken me many times before and with which I have become quite well acquainted. So perhaps an illustration of how the cycle has worked in my own life would help to explain what I mean more clearly. It comes from a time when I was just a kid, about twelve years old. I went with my family to a state park in southern Indiana that had a cave that went through a hillside and came out the other side. I think it was actually an abandoned attempt at building a railroad tunnel at one time. At any rate, the tunnel was just long enough that when you were in the middle of it you were in complete darkness and could see no light coming from either end. After having gone through the tunnel a couple of times with a flashlight, I decided – I vaguely remember a dare – to try to go through the tunnel with no light at all. Well, about half way through, as I was in the darkest part of the tunnel, feeling my way along, I remember being gripped by fear and worrying that maybe I would get lost somehow and no one would ever find me. And I thought about turning back. But what kept me going was that fact that I had been through the tunnel before, and I knew that if I just pressed on there would be a light ahead.

This is the same way with trials in my life. I have been through the tunnel before many times, and I know that, despite how dark things may be at any given time, there is always a light at the end! It is the “hope of the glory of God,” and it keeps me going, just as Paul said it would. Indeed, there is always a light at the end of the tunnel of every trial for the Christian, and it is the joy set before us as we see the glory of God more fully manifested in our own lives. May we ever seek this joy in Him! And may we accept the fact that it comes with suffering, even such suffering as depression. You see, even depression – however terrible it may be to endure – can be a lens through which we may see more clearly the glory of God being manifested in our lives, and this can bring us great reason for joy even in the midst of heartache.