Right on, R.T.!!

I never watched or visited a single service from the Lakeland, Florida meetings. The second-hand testimony I received from people varied quite dramatically in its perception of whether or not God was at work there. While I made a private, personal decision to not make our church facility available to persons in our Metroplex who wanted to use it for public, Lakeland related meetings, my words are in no way intended to be an, "I told you so...!" I never took any public stance on the matter. Furthermore, I certainly have no desire to "throw stones" at Todd Bentley. I have never met him. My heart breaks for him, for his wife, and for those who so strongly believed God was powerfully at work in Lakeland and who are now processing deep disappointment, confusion, even disillusionment.

I reference the excellent article I read yesterday in Ministry Today magazine by Dr. R.T. Kendall on the Lakeland phenomenon, written before recent revelations concerning Todd's personal life, because I believe it raises important biblical issues. I know R.T. well enough personally to be absolutely certain that the opening sentence of his piece truly reflects the attitude of his heart,

I can think of nothing worse than for God to be powerfully at work and I miss it—all because I was biased and devoid of discernment.

Over the past five years, the Lord has granted me the inestimable privilege of spending many hours with R.T. in private conversations. I have never met an individual so utterly Scriptural in his life focus and work, yet so completely open to any genuine work of God's Spirit, even those that are way out of his personal comfort zone.

R.T. has paid a high price for his openness to what he believed were moves of God that have been couched in controversy. That is part of what causes me to so appreciate his candid description of his own, inner "process" of evaluating what was going on down in Lakeland. He tried very hard to remain open to what was happening, yet was forced to acknowledge his growing unease in the face of what he increasingly believed were significant deviations from biblical principle. His ultimate conclusion is stated in his closing sentences,

It comes to this: Is the Bible true? Because I believe the Bible, I can testify: The jury of my mind on Lakeland is in.

Leave Lakeland alone.

I urge you to read his article and to prayerfully reflect on his specific concerns, including the following:

• He never heard the revival's primary leader publically deliver a clear presentation of the Gospel.
• He was deeply troubled by seeing the precious person of the Holy Spirit referred to as the "Bam! Bam!" during baptisms.
• He sensed no deepened fear of God and conviction of sin resulting from the meetings.
• He was taken aback by the leader's testimony that during visits to the Third Heaven he claimed to have been told that he should not preach Jesus (because everybody already knows about Him) but rather angels (which people know little about).

Thanks, R.T., for having the courage to communicate your convictions and to point the Body of Christ back to the Word of God...!

Happy Birthday, America...! (And a few theological reflections on the Revolution...)

After having lived on three different continents, and having visted many countries around the world, as much as I love cultural and linguistic diversity, I still have a deep love for the U.S.A. and a deep gratitude in my heart toward the Lord for the privilege of being born here. America is certanly not a perfect nation, but I believe it has been a blessed nation, in spite of our sins and our shortcomings. On this July 4th, I encourage you to pause for a moment and thank God for the U.S.A., asking God for His continued help and favor upon it.

Historian Mark Noll has written an interesting article in Christianity Today answering the question: "Was the Revolutionary War Justified?" (from a theological point of view.)

Happy Birthday, America, and may God bless all who live here...!

Grassley Houses and Kenneth Copeland's Jet

On a lighter note, concerning the Grassley investigations of television ministries, Doug Wead puts things in perspective in his blog post about ministers and their travel choices entitled, "Kenneth Copeland's Jet." He examines some of Grassley's own ties to a "mansion on the Potomac" in his post entitled, "People Who Live in Grassley Houses Shouldn't Throw Stones."

A Parable of Three Sermons on the Mount by Vinson Synan

During his extended article on the historical and theological roots of the Word of Faith movement, scholar Vinson Synan gives the following "parable" which explains the appeal of the prosperity message around the world. I encourage you to take the time to read his article in full by clicking here. Among other things, it highlights the historical differences between Protestants and Catholics regarding the theology of money, poverty, and prosperity.

A Parable of the Three Sermons on the Mount

Many have wondered why the prosperity message is so popular among the impoverished masses that flock to hear it. To answer, one might imagine the idea of three sermons preached on a “smoky mountain” like many such trash dumps outside large, Third World cities where people fight with rats to salvage food and waste products to survive the grinding poverty in which they seem to be hopelessly trapped. One day, three preachers came to minister to these people: one a traditional Christian teacher, one a social gospel teacher and the other a Pentecostal preacher with a salvation, healing and prosperity gospel.

The first, a traditional Christian, knowing Jesus said, “The poor will be with you always,” gave a message that has been heard for centuries. “Take comfort in your faith. Suffering builds character, and the Lord suffered, too. He will comfort you. In heaven you will have many mansions, but in the meantime, we will give you as much help as possible and try to console you.” Critics call this a “pie in the sky” message.

The second, a “social gospel” teacher spoke out. The gist of his message was, “The reason you are poor is the unjust distribution of wealth, the greediness of the rich and their domination of the government and power structures of society. If we can pass laws to change the situation by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, we can eventually help you. Help us to pass just laws, or if that fails, form a revolution where you will eventually rule, and then the wealth will be equally distributed. Have patience, the government will eventually change your situation.”

The third speaker was a Pentecostal or Charismatic evangelist who said in essence, “If you will believe the gospel, the Lord will immediately break the power of sin in your life and you can be filled and empowered by the Holy Spirit to speak in tongues, cast out devils and evangelize the world. You can be instantly set free from your addictions to alcohol, tobacco, sexual promiscuity and drugs, and Jesus will make you into a healthy, honest member of society. God is not against you. There is no virtue in being poor just for the sake of being poor. So God will also bless you materially as you work hard, live honestly, save your money and give a portion of your own income to others.”

I will let the reader decide why many of the masses would listen to the last preacher and run down the smoky mountain as soon as possible to the nearest Pentecostal church or evangelistic crusade to find salvation and deliverance. These are the multitudes that fill the Reinhard Bonnke crusades and are crowding into Pentecostal churches, large and small, around the world. It may be that these people are now poor, but they do not intend to stay poor. They believe in a powerful Jesus who can break the bonds of sin, sickness, demonic oppression and poverty. It is indeed a very attractive message to the poor.

Post-Abortion Syndrome - New York Times

I noticed on the New York Times website a few minutes ago that the number one, most frequently emailed article today is a cover piece from their magazine entitled, “Is There A Post-Abortion Syndrome?” It is not only an interesting, well-written piece (though my own bias on the subject is different from the author's), but I was struck by the fact that it is causing so much of a buzz among the readership of the New York Times, which, though arguably the greatest paper in America from a journalistic perspective, particularly with the recent decline of the Washington Post, is renowned as a bastion of eastern liberalism.

As a pastor, the key takeaway for me is the need to remember that a lot of people in the congregation I serve, and in my sphere of influence in the broader community, carry a lot of guilt for a lot of things, and are in desperate need of a clear sense of forgiveness and "atonement," as the author puts it. Prayers, songs, sermons, dramatic sketches, small groups, etc., that provide a vehicle for expressing repentance, contrition, and the acceptance of forgiveness, are really important and should always play a central part in our worship services.

When I think about it, this was surely one of the great values of historical, structured liturgies in the church across the ages. I recognize, of course, and strongly believe in the finished work of Christ on the cross, and am in no way taking away from that reality or the truth that once our sins are forgiven, they are forgiven forever. In the sight of God, there is no need to ever express sorrow for them again. That said, I am quite sure it would shock most all of us as clergy if we really knew everything that had taking place during the proceeding week in the life of every single person in the audience we address as we stand in the pulpit on any given Sunday!

Let us constantly, and continually, lead them to the cross, where there is full and complete pardon for any and every sin!

Which translation? NIV? ESV?

Mark Driscoll out at Mars Hill Church in Seattle, has an interesting post on the Resurgence blog regarding the recent decision he and the elders of that church made to move away from the New International Version (NIV) toward the English Standard Version (ESV), entitled, "Pastoral Reflections on Bible Translations." It's rather lengthy, but well worth reading if you can squeeze in the time, and can be downloaded in pdf format if you would like to print it out.

The first four pages are more of an introduction to the doctrine of inspiration and a study of textual transmission and reliability, than a specific answer to the question of why they switched to the ESV. Beginning with page five (online), he lays a foundation for understanding the difference between word-for-word and dynamic equivilence approaches to translating the Scriptures. He obviously has a healthy appreciation for why both approaches can be a source of blessing to the Body of Christ. He then makes a very strong case, it seems to me, both theologically and practically, for using a word-for-word translation like the ESV instead one based on dynamic equivilence for most public preaching and teaching.

His theological line of reasoning is based on these main points:

1. The ESV upholds the truth that Scripture is the very words of God, not just the thoughts of God.
2. The ESV upholds that what is said must be known before what is meant can be determined.
3. The ESV upholds the truth that words carry meaning.
4. The ESV upholds the theological nomenclature of Scripture.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.
5. The ESV upholds the truth that while Scripture is meant for all people, it cannot be communicated in such a way that all people receive it.

He states his pragmatic reasons as follows:

"1. Our pulpit is theologically oriented.
2. Our pulpit exists to teach people what they may otherwise not know.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
3. Our pulpit is in the most educated and literate city in America.
5. Our pulpit is precedent-setting for the life and doctrine of our people.
6. Our pulpit is plugged in."

While I am certainly not a Greek or Hebrew scholar, I served as a career missionary before becoming Senior Pastor of Hillcrest Church here in Dallas, and have preached in three different languages, so the challenge of translation is not a new one to me. I know from personal, "hands-on" experience that sometimes the only possible way to intelligibly translate some statements is via dynamic equivilence, but I have found myself on my own personal journey back towards a preference for the word-for-word approach to translating the Scriptures.

When I first came to Dallas and set about preaching regularly again in English, in an effort to use the translation that I felt would be the easiest for everyone in my audience to understand, I began using the New Living Translation in the pulpit. Some of its readings are quite powerful, such as the way it renders the traditional "Blessed are the poor in spirit" in Matthew 5:3," God blesses those who are poor and realize their need for him, for the Kingdom of Heaven is theirs." It seems to me that the NLT has rendered the essence of that verse in such a way that anyone, even a first-time Bible reader, can instantly understand what it means.

Having said all of that, however, the more I preached out of the NLT and the more I came to appreciate the way it stated certain things, the more I became increasingly uneasy with the fact that it's dynamic equivilence approach seemingly causes it to stray quite far away from some important things contained in the original. That growing concern led me to go back to the NIV. Now, after preaching a couple of years from the NIV, I sense myself growing increasingly frustrated with some of the instances where its translators laid aside a word-for-word approach and adopted dynamic equivilence. I still use the NIV, but find I sometimes need to quote other translations in order to clear up some things that I think it could have stated more forthrightly, and I am not entirely satisfied with it.

Reading Driscoll's article has caused me to decide to take a serious look at the ESV in the near future. For me, the bottom line is that a good translation needs to be accessible (after all, the Bible is God's revelation...!) But, it also needs to be accurate. So, the saga continues... I'll keep you posted.