I determined early on my family’s development that I would always go to Sunday Church. I think the reason was this: that I wanted my kids to love the church, even in it’s glaring flaws and inconsistencies. Since that time, the Local Church has not been exemplary in its display of the biblical standard. Yet, we have rarely missed attendance over the years.

There is a growing interest in departing from the church along with its local manifestations. Substitutes like “organic church’ replace what they call the “institutional” church. The description “institutional” (reminds me of some mental hospital), is used to imply that the Church has become something unnatural, formal, stiff, legalistic. So good meaning Christians reject the organized church for an “organic” church in the form of house churches or in many cases no church at all.

CS Lewis expressed it this way: (the church)… is a unity of place and not of likings, it brings people of different classes and psychology together in the kind of unity (God) desires. He continues, “the search for a “suitable” church makes the man a critic where (God) wants him a pupil.”

Do you see the point

• The church is a unity of place, NOT of liking

• The church is the vehicle to unite individuals who may not normally like each other

• When we give up on the church simply because it does not “suit” our standards, we become a critic not a student of it!

Here is how I see it. One finds fault with his local church. He searches the internet and finds several web pages that describe the faults of the church and give a basis for returning to the authentic manifestations which it seems only occurred prior to Emperor Constantine. Prior to him, the church was really real…  Since then, it has been only a facade.

Then what happens? This person starts hanging out with those who “agree” with him. And what is lost? The sanctification that occurs of learning to live with and love those whom you would normally not hang out with…. Along with a fundamental witness to the skeptics of Christianity. Jesus exhorted his followers to love their enemies. It is easy to love those who love and agree with you. Jesus asked in effect, “what kind of effort is required of you when you  choose your own friends?” None! But to love one you don’t like, one you would never choose in a thousand years, that is something else altogether, something to talk about. It cannot be duplicated by any unbelieving skeptic.

I must be honest. Could it be that those who only hang out with those who hang out with those who reject God’s church, become quirky and become “One message” people….. I think because they have no sanctifying and balancing force in their life through others who may disagree with them (not to mention the other means of grace in the local church:  preaching, sacraments etc)

My kids have grown up in local church. They love the church. They love Jesus who’s body it represents. I think it is time we agree with Augustine that “there is no salvation outside the Church.”  There is much in that thought.

Francis Shaeffer said it well: Our relationship with each other is the criterion the world uses to judge whether our message is truthful. Christian community is the ultimate apologetic . (quoted in Total Church, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis

Jesus so often commanded both demons and those who were healed by him of demons and other sicknesses and maladies to not speak a word about who he was or what he did.
I read today this about the “hidden-ness” of Christ: That which changes the human heart and ultimately compels one to recognize and follow Jesus can never come from coercion or a display of miraculous power. Jesus will have no allegiance exacted by amazement and astonishment. The faith of his disciples must be evoked through humility and ultimately through suffering. If one will not receive Jesus in this form, one will not receive Jesus in all his power and majesty… Until the consumption of Jesus’ work on the cross all speculations about him are premature. Only on the cross can Jesus be rightly known. James Edwards,  PNTC Mark
Thank Him that our King’s throne was a cross! Only in it do we see His majesty.. What wondrous love is this…. Oh what free and magnificent grace!

We need regular reminder of the role presuppositions play in our interpretation (of scripture) and we must moderate our opinion with healthy doses of humility.  Blomberg I Corinthians, NIVAC p 226

Traditional consensus, of course, is not inspired, but weighty arguments are needed to overthrow it.  Craig Blomberg, I Corinthians, NIVAC p 211

Zerwick:  In interpreting the sacred text… we must beware lest we sacrifice to clarity of meaning part of the fullness of the meaning.”   Quoted in Harris NIGTC Commentary on I Corinthians p 419. In other words, there is some paradox or mystery…

Exegesis should control our theology, rather than our theology control our exegesis.  Hoehner, Commentary on Ephesians

Here are some helpful thoughts from John Frame in his article:  A Primer on Perspectivalism

God is infinite… he knows absolutely everything… we are finite, and our knowledge is finite.  I can only know the world from the limited perspective of my own body and mind.  The effects of this finitude, and even more of sin, should caution us against cocksureness in our claims to knowledge…

It often happens that someone’s idea will seem ridiculous when we first encounter it; but when we try to understand where that person is coming from, what considerations have led him to his idea, then our evaluation of it changes. In such a case, we are trying to see the issue from his perspective, and that perspective enriches our own….  It is possible for the perspectives of others to change our perspective, to make us see differently….

This does not mean, of course, that all ideas are equally true, or equally false.  It does mean that as our perspective grows larger we inevitably agree with everybody else. I do think that often a broadening of perspective usually leads to a greater appreciation of the viewpoints of others.

In other words, the more we learn of God’s word the more humble we should become….

I thought you would enjoy this article written by my son Sam…

Throughout the history of Christianity, many great apologists and philosophers have attempted to develop logical arguments to rationally demonstrate that God exists. One of the most notable of these attempts is that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who laid out several persuasive arguments for God’s existence in his multi-volume work Summa Theologica. No argument can really prove God’s existence, but cumulatively they can be very compelling and persuasive. One of the less well known of them but one I think is among the most deeply engaging is the argument from desire. The premises of the argument are laid out below:

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

(Argument outline borrowed from Peter Kreeft)

Two of my literary heroes, C.S. Lewis and Peter Kreeft, both have named this argument as their favorite. Many former atheists and agnostics, while finding ways to rationally get around the various arguments, have suddenly stopped dead in their tracks when they ran into this argument, unable to ignore its penetrating profundity.

What makes this argument stand out from the rest is that it doesn’t point to the universe, science, biology, history, or any other study to find evidence for God’s existence. Instead of directing the gaze of humanity to that outside of itself, it points directly into the human heart, revealing its deepest longings and desires. Its simple but keen insight into human nature is seemingly irresistible. Following is my own interpretation of the 4 premises of the argument as laid out above.

#1. Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

All of us as humans are born with a set of built in needs and desires that have natural satisfactions in this world. We are born with hunger, which corresponds to food. We are born with a desire for fellowship and community, which corresponds to friendship and social interaction. The list goes on. The point is that all of our innate desires have corresponding satisfactions in this life. A desire like a child’s longing to fly through the air like Superman does not apply because that kind of desire is not innate in human beings but is rather produced through cultural conditioning (i.e. movies and comic books).

#2. But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

There is a desire inside all of us that nothing can fulfill. We all long for a kind of “ecstatic happiness” that we never even get close to achieving in the realm of time. We try to fill this void with various things this world offers us, but in the end, we are left emptier than before. As my Dad would say, every one of us has a fundamental feeling of “homelessness” that we can’t get rid of, try as we might. In short, everyone is ultimately unhappy. The greatest pleasures we get in this life often only make us more aware of our persistent unhappiness. They only leave us with echoes of an ultimate satisfaction far beyond anything this world can offer.

#3. Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This premise follows logically from the first and second. Its implications are mind-boggling. Is there really something that can bring the restless human heart to peace? What possibly could be out there that can completely satisfy this ubiquitous longing for a better country? What can fill the gaping void? It must be something more than anything and everything we have in this world.

This premise does not mean that all of our desires are always met, but it does mean that some kind of satisfaction must exist to meet those desires. C.S. Lewis makes this point well:

…we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness can satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? “Nor does being hungry prove that we have bread.” But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation of a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist.

#4. This something is what people call “God” and “life with God forever.”

Although this last premise does not declare the existence of the Christian God, or any God in particular, it still awakens the heart to begin searching for the truth about reality. Because the satisfaction for the desire must be outside of time and space, the simple answer is that it must be what people call “God.” He is the only thing that can give us the ecstatic happiness we all long for.

The Christian God certainly does offer ultimate joy and satisfaction to all who desire it. Ps. 16:11 says: “You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore.” Our God freely gives eternal joy to those who trust Him for it, and that joy is found in Himself. A relationship with Him provides eternal happiness beyond all imagination. The only true home for the human heart is in Him.

God is different from us.  Let’s get that straight. We are not God!

Let me give an illustration how different God is from us.  In Romans 12.19, Paul commands us to not take revenge, but to leave room for the wrath of God, and he quotes Deut. 32.35:  Vengeance is mine, I will repay.

What I get from this is that God, because of his infinite perfections, can act righteously in actions which we are not permitted to do… and cannot do without sinning.  I suspect that hate is another example.  Can we hate someone (or something) without sinning?  I don’t think so… But I AM sure that God can hate without sinning (while remaining pure love… see Romans 9.22f).  So… Jesus commands us to love our enemies, but does that mean that God must always love his enemies (one root of Universalism)?  I don’t think so…  Let’s ponder on these matters!!  Just because we cannot take revenge does not mean that God must not!  Just because we must love our enemies does not mean that God must not!  Let me say it again, God can do things that we must not do…   God forbid that we exercise wrath! And God forbid that we overlay our experiences and feelings and expect God to conform to those. This is where we get those irrational statements like, “The atonement is like divine child abuse.” Let’s get over it and remember that God is outside many if not all human categories.

God, due to his infinite perfections, is ALWAYS holy and pure in motive and action.  We are not.   So let’s be careful of elucidating on the nature of God premised upon what we by human experience think he should be like..  Or due to cursory glances at scripture.  We need to think!   Let us not say in essence,  “If I were God, I would… etc etc.”  That sounds ludicrous, but in effect we do just that by superimposing our limited existence or experience over God’s.  God is beyond our categories and we need to accept that…. because we are not God.  Let’s get that point clear.  So let’s be careful of declarations that are based upon what theologians call Anthropomorphisms or Anthropopathisms or based upon laws of logic like the “law of contradiction.” Just because God declares that he will reveal his mighty arm does not imply he HAS an arm!  Or as in 1 Sam 15.11 (see also 1 Sam 15.35), God declares that he repents doesn’t follow that he changes his mind.  Can it be that scripture sometimes “stoops to use human categories to tell the truth about a God far beyond our categories?”

Another way of saying all this is:  “Exegesis should control our theology, rather than our theology controlling our exegesis.”    Hoehner,  Commentary on Ephesians

Let us learn to rejoice in paradox.  That God is beyond our catagories….

I have read and reread the article by Dr.Timothy Keller on The Centrality of the Gospel.   I hope this excerpt challenges you as it does me every time I read it…

Since Paul uses a metaphor for being “in line” with the gospel, we can consider that gospel renewal occurs when we keep from walking “off-line” either to the right or to the left. The key for thinking out the implications of the gospel is to consider the gospel a “third” way between two mistaken opposites. However, before we start we must realize that the gospel is not a half-way compromise between the two poles–it does not produce “something in the middle”, but something different from both. The gospel critiques both religion and irreligion (Matt.21:31; 22:10).
Tertullian said, “Just as Christ was crucified between two thieves, so this doctrine of justification is ever crucified between two opposite errors.” Tertullian meant that there were two basic false ways of thinking, each of which “steals” the power and the distinctiveness of the gospel from us by pulling us “off the gospel line” to one side or the other. These two errors are very powerful, because they represent the natural tendency of the human heart and mind. (The gospel is “revealed” by God (Rom.1:17)– the unaided human mind cannot conceive it.) These “thieves” can be called moralism or legalism on the one hand, and hedonism or relativism on the other hand. Another way to put it is: the gospel opposes both religion and irreligion. On the one hand, “moralism/religion” stresses truth without grace, for it says that we must obey the truth in order to be saved. On the other hand, relativists/irreligion” stresses grace without truth, for they say that we are all accepted by God (if there is a God) and we have to decide what is true for us. But “truth” without grace is not really truth, and “grace” without truth is not really grace. Jesus was “full of grace and truth”. Any religion or philosophy of life that de-emphasizes or lose one or the other of these truths, falls into legalism or into license and either way, the joy and power and “release” of the gospel is stolen by one thief or the other.

“I am more sinful and flawed than I ever dared believe” (vs. antinomianism)

“I am more accepted and loved than I ever dared hope” (vs. legalism)

Keller continues later in his article:

A whole new way of seeing God.

But Christians are those who have adopted a whole new system of approach to God.  They may have had both religious phases and irreligious phases in their lives. But they have come to see that their entire reason for both their irreligion and their religion was essentially the same and essentially wrong! Christians come to see that both their sins and their best deeds have all really been ways of avoiding Jesus as savior. They come to see that Christianity is not  fundamentally an invitation to get more religious. A Christian comes to say: “though I have often failed to obey the moral law, the deeper problem was why I was trying to obey it! Even my efforts to obey it has been just a way of seeking to be my own savior. In that mindset, even if I obey or ask for forgiveness, I am really resisting the gospel and setting myself up as Savior.  To “get the gospel” is to turn from self-justification and rely on Jesus’ record for a relationship with God. The irreligious don’t repent at all, and the religious only repent of sins. But Christians also repent of their righteousness. That is the distinction between the three groups–Christian, moralists (religious), and pragmatists (irreligious).

I start with the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 2.1,2)… One of the most succinct statements about God, yet pregnant with the truth of scripture (at least in my opinion).

There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfections, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions;  immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable, and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth,  forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him;  and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.

2.  God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them.  He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things;  and hath most sovereign dominion over them to do by them for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth.  In his sight all things are open and manifest,  his knowledge is infinte, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

There!  Just ponder on some of the above again.   My next post will present some thoughts to press us in our quest for understanding God….

1.  Avoid moralism! Your listeners are wired to think moralistically.   In other words, they already are looking to find the next thing they can do in order to be accepted by God.  Don’t make your message an easy target.

Straightening out the lives of parishioners is the stock and trade of the pastorate. But much of this straightening is often unrelated to Christ and the real depth of congregational problems.  Moralism whether it takes the form of denunciation or pep talks, can ultimately only create awareness of sin and guilt or manufactured virtues built on will power. A ministry which leads to genuine sanctification and growth, on the other hand, avoids moralism, first by making clear the deep rootage of sin-problems in the flesh so that the congregation is not battling these in the dark, and then by showing that every victory over the flesh is won by faith in Christ, laying hold of union with him in death and resurrection and relying on his Spirit for power over sin… Ministries which attack only the surface of sin and fail to ground spiritual growth in the believer’s union with Christ produce either self-righteousness or despair, and both of these conditions are inimical to spiritual life. Richard Lovelace, The Dynamics of Spiritual Life (emphasis mine)

2.  Don’t be pedantic. Your listeners don’t want commentary they need life! In the words of DA Carson, we need to devote a fair bit of thought to the relations between ancient text and contemporary context, between expository lecture and expository preaching (where men and women are made to feel the text’s bite and balm), between rigorous exegetical accuracy and colorful presentation.

3.  Remember the gospel! Think motivation.  What motivates Christians to greater levels of commitment, sacrifice and holiness?  Only the Gospel.  In I Corinthians 5, Paul states that the love of Christ controlled him.  What was it that both constrained (think compulsion) and restrained (think banks of a river)?  What both compelled him to be “out of  his mind” and yet restrained him to hold his “reserve”if necessary?  It was the love of Christ, not just his love for Christ, but as the Greek suggests (and the majority of commentators agree) namely “Christ’s love” or “the love Christ showed” for him.  No one doubts that believers’ love for Christ motivates their actions, but here Paul is concentrating on an earlier stage of motivation, namely the love shown by Christ in dying for humankind. (M Harris, NIGNT II Cor).  When preaching we must see that Christians, as much as unbelievers, need the gospel, to see Jesus’ sacrificial love demonstrated at the cross.  That every thing Christ demands of us he has already done for us.  Here are a couple MP3 and articles by Dr. Keller that have really helped me in this area…. (all of these can be found here)

Evangelistic Worship PDF

Preaching to the heart I MP3

Preaching to the hear II MP3

Contextualization MP3

The Centrality of the Gospel PDF

Recently, one evening my wife and I were getting ready for bed, but the kids were still awake. I still have six kids at home ranging from 21 years old to my twins at 10 years.  They were all in the bedroom next to us.  My wife, knowing that it was getting late, called out to them to “get to bed!”  But I noticed something going on that numerous times has brought such delight and happiness to my soul, so I held my wife back from enforcing the “code.”

“Listen,” I said.  As we laid there, we heard all six kids talking simultaneously, laughing, joking, acting out roles of movies,  like best friends!  We sat there and just soaked in the moment.  “Let them stay up,” I said “and let us just relish the moment.  It doesn’t get any better than this.”

Our family has been really blessed to have deep affections for one another. The kids from my oldest at 25 to the youngest at 10 are best friends and continue that way.

I suppose there are many reasons for this.  It could be our natural disposition.  Or simply because we spend a lot of time together. I am sure these help.  But I think in reality, we have “stumbled” onto this more by God’s grace than anything else…   Maybe these are the reasons…

1.  Jesus Christ:  We teach our kids that without the new hearts Christ has obtained for us through his substitutionary sacrifice on the Cross, we would be blind to true affections and be groping in the fog of this secular landscape for solutions.

2.  We are reformed in doctrine:In simple terms we have taught our kids that our salvation is TOTALLY dependent upon God’s free will and not our own.  He predestined us, chose us and gave us new hearts, a taste for Him, because he loved us and not the other way around. We also believe in the complete corruption of our nature before being In Christ and our inability to repent and believe the gospel without first having our nature transformed by a sovereign God.  This gives our kids great humility and gratefulness.

3.  From infancy, we have taught our kids early on that they were created by a loving God in His own image who makes no mistakes in timing, place, family, race, or country.  And that God made them in His image, beautiful, valuable and exalted above the rest of creation. He set them in the Taylor household, by his love, so they could hear the gospel of Jesus Christ.  And that same God saved their parents just so they could hear this good news.  This has given our children a deep sense of their infinite value to God, not because of what they have done, but because they are the Imago Dei. This gives them great humility and confidence!

4.  We home school: This has helped us avoid much of the problems associated with the segregated system we have today in many institutions.  We even keep our kids with us during church!

Now some think that these blessings have come to us in spite of what we believe. That if we truly acted out our beliefs on human depravity, beauty and God’s sovereignty, we would act quite differently.   But I say that it is because of what we believe that we have these affections, not in spite of….

George MacDonald said “the door of opportunity always opens behind you.”  Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added to you….  Include your kids in the process, they will pay you back in spades…  So will God!

Romans 12:19  Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. (NAU)

A couple things from this verse:

1.  There are some things that God prohibits us from doing, while at the same time He sovereignly permits Himself to do.

2.  Inferred in this verse is this: What we cannot do without sinning, God does without sin.

In other words, we are human, God is not.  Let us be careful of forgetting the “otherness” of God.  Too many times we pull him down to our level, which is a grave mistake.  “God created man in His own image, since then man has always been trying to return the favor.” (a quote I read somewhere)

And let us always strive to grasp most fully God’s love demonstrated through Jesus Christ on the cross of calvary, our Substitution and foundation of Hope and the forward look….  (Romans 5.8; 2 Cor. 5.21)

1 John 4:9-10  In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.  10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Only in the light of Calvary can hell be fully understood….