Hindsight is 20/20

"Hindsight is 20/20"...so goes the saying.
We say that when a decision is made and things go wrong. The reality is that God's providence is better than 20/20 vision. Don't moan over the "bad" stuff- lean into God and see what He want to do.
Where do you need to seek a course or action that can only be explained by the Holy Spirit? Perhaps in the area of forgiveness, repentance and reconciliation?

The Christian life is a supernatural life, but when things go well and people do what we want, then we don't need the Holy Spirit.
A key test of the supernatural life is when you are sinned against or take offense at something or someone.
The Bible DOES speak to the question of "How do we respond when someone sins against us?" - Col 3:13
Gospel living asks, "What is the present value of the cross for my life in this moment?" Col 3:13 points us to what God has done for us so that, by faith, we make it a present reality.

We ignore Scripture at our own peril.
Paul Tripp - Lost in the Middle - p67-68 - it is easy in a time of hurt or disappointment to let the hurt set the agenda in our lives.
Christian living is letting the Scripture, not our hurt/anger/disappointment set the agenda

Misc thought...
The only thing between you and a better marriage is your sin.

Deeds of the Flesh outbreak

Yesterday I saw a friend who didn’t want to shake my hand because he had a cold and he didn’t want to spread his germs. He didn’t want me to have a “cold” outbreak.

O that it were only that easy to avoid a “deed of the flesh” outbreak.

What is a “deeds of the flesh” outbreak?

It is the moment when you see the deed(s) of the flesh  (Gal 5:19-21)  manifest in your heart, behavior(words/actions) or attitude. When we let such moments accumulate they weaken our souls, ruin marriages and destroy relationships.

[19] Now the deeds of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, [20] idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, [21] envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these.

Another way to look for the flesh is to identify when your life is manifesting the opposite of the fruit of the Spirit – Gal 5:22  [22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, [23] gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

There is no vaccine that keeps us from those outbreaks, but there is a way to move through them in a way that changes us and glorifies Christ as our true treasure.

What do we do when we have one of these moments ( they could last only a moment, or much longer)?  We’ll come to the answer in a bit.

First can you identify such a moment in your life? Look for a recent event where you had a strong (or mild) negative reaction to someone or something (anger, jealousy, harsh words, sarcasm, being defensive, pride, strife, lust, a self-righteous attitude, i.e. “O God I thank you that I’m not like…”etc)

If you can’t think of one ask God for His insights. He may even want to use someone who knows you well to give you a hint – a child, spouse, co-worker, friend – AND LISTEN TO THEM

Now, ask this, “What would a response that could have only been explained by the Holy Spirit look like”?

If you see how you had a “fleshly” response, then use a biblically informed sanctified imagination to think of what a Holy Spirit response would have looked like. You can bet that such a response will resemble a combination of the fruit of the Spirit.

Once you’ve done that prayerful evaluation you will know where you need to repent and how you need to move forward. Confess the response of the flesh to God and others if need be, and by faith step out and act in a way that can only be explained by the Holy Spirit.

In a way it’s quite simple, but not easy. It requires death to self, but as believers we are alive and empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The Law as Honey to our lips

Matt chandler on Gal series part 4: the law for the believer does not condemn but it becomes honey to our souls- ps 19; it's honey because it shows the path of true joy

The law begins to bear weight on my rebellion. The law reveals that I am a liar – I don’t just lie, I’m a liar: that’s why I lie – that I’m a thief; that I tend to covet; that I have a tendency to love other things more than I love God; that I am in stark rebellion against the God of the universe. The diagnostic of the law reveals that’s who I am. It’s not what I do, it’s who I am. I do those things because that’s what is inside of me.

And then the offer is that, in Christ, I’ll be given the righteousness of Christ, and the wrath due me because of that rebellion is put on Christ on the cross. So now, when God sees me, He sees me as perfect, spotless and righteous in His sight. So when God looks upon me in Heaven, He sees me as blameless.

And then after that moment of justification that had nothing to do with me and had everything to do with Jesus Christ, the law now serves the purpose of a light unto my feet, a light unto my path, and God begins to woo me into how He created the universe to work, for the fullness of my joy and the display of His glory.

Now, when men see this, the law becomes a delight. David, who saw this coming – and you learn that in Hebrews 11 – you go read Hebrews 11 – and men in the Old Testament saw this coming and put their faith in it – and David sings about the law, loves the law and talks so strangely about the law that it’s hard for us to get our mind on it. He said the law is like honey on his lips. He would lay in bed and just meditate on it, like lustfully. When is the last time you were just in your bed going, “Oh, don’t covet. Don’t do it,” and started licking your fingers as if they were covered in honey?

We don’t do that, and it’s a fundamental misunderstanding. Because “Don’t covet” for me in Christ is not a condemning command, but it’s a wooing command into joy. So the law does not crush me any longer but leads me into ever-expanding joy.

So when the law says, “This is how you look at your wife,” when the law says, “This is how you are to approach children,” when the law says, “Don’t do this. Do this,” I don’t stand condemned under that law: I’m spotless and blameless. So instead, I’m being invited into the fullness of life now and ever-expanding joy into eternity. 

So the law of the Lord becomes like honey to the saints, because it has lost its ability to tell us we’re terminal. Instead, it reminds us of God’s love for us.

VoV - Choices
"My trials have been fewer than my sins, and when I have kissed the rod it has fallen from Thy hands"

If I simply remember the first part it would change my life. God does not treat us tit for tat - trials for sins. If  He did, I'd see constant trials. It would all be "briars and barrenness" ( VoV Shortcoming).

Kissing the rod means to accept and receive the trial as loving fatherly discipline (Heb 12). In doing so, the rod is seen as an instrument of growth in Christ, and not as punishment for sin. Jesus took the punishment so that trials  / suffering for us can be experienced without the bitterness, gall and sense of condemnation.

Some initial thoughts on the Same Sex Marriage Issue

My initial response is to ask questions, muse, pray, and reflect in stream of consciousness. 

I post this as a way of inviting inter-action. 

I apologize if I repeat myself at times or if the logical flow seems to hit some rapids i.e." stream of consciousness"

The current “evolution” of President Obama and the national discussion on marriage raises some issues. This is actually a great opportunity for Christians to engage others at a significant level. The marriage issue is so deeply rooted in our presuppositions and underlying worldviews; it exposes those worldviews. It is easier to make a direct connection with the root issues when talking about marriage than when discussing other cultural issues. 

One major concern:

Approval of and granting legally sanctioned status to same sex marriage (SSM) would go against the practice of the vast majority of human history. Opposition to SSM is not a narrow parochial view that is forced upon society by Christians trying to impose their morality and religion on everyone. Other than a few instances, hetero-sexual marriage has been the universally adopted and practiced form of marriage in all cultures for 6000 years of human history. It’s not an idea that the religious right recently thought up because they “hate gays.” 

This is not a decision that should be made lightly or quickly in the context of a political race. Fortunately in our system no president can set the laws on marriage so in one sense Obama’s view doesn’t matter. But as President his view is high profile and reflects the values that others perceive about our country. 

If we’re going to live together in society then we must have foundational principles and building blocks of the society. One man/One woman marriage has been that foundation for 6000 years. In our system of law the states determine was marital status is recognized for legal purposes and the majority of states have voted against SSM. That in and of itself doesn’t make opposite sex marriage (OSM) right per se, but it means that we need to give a lot of careful thought to what’s at stake. Once the door is open to redefining marriage then in order to be “fair” we must say, “Anything goes.” Obama spoke of the “Golden Rule” and treating others just as we want to be treated. My guess is that the polygamist out there will be ready to test his “Golden Rule” policy. And why not? This open door to a new definition may really be a Pandora’s Box. The real winners in all of this may just be the divorce lawyers. It’s costly enough to work out a divorce for ‘Ted & Alice” (OSM couples); if SSM gets approved then there will be a whole new client base. Imagine if polygamy gets approved (seems crazy now, right, but just wait) then think of the costs of the divorce for Ted & Alice & Jane & Brittany – don’t forget custody issues for all the kids involved.

Do we really want to go there? It may sound crazy, but that is the trajectory once you redefine marriage. Who’s to say that marriage must remain OSM & SSM only? That wouldn’t be “fair”. 

Supporters of SSM would never accept a ‘religious’ argument against their position, but do they realize that their position is also rooted in their own “faith” affirmations? Are they willing to follow their argument about “civil rights” and extend those rights to cover any possible form of marriage? 

Are the “rights” of some being violated today? Is there a “right” to marry someone of the same sex? If so, where does the right come from?
Is it merely a question of “civil rights” for those who want SSM? SSM proponents talk about tax issues, and legal status of partners, etc. These dynamics tend to muddy the waters of the deeper issues about the definition of marriage.

The gay marriage issue raises some interesting questions about our system of taxation and civil rights. Should people be taxed at a higher rate or denied certain benefits because they do not marry a member of the opposite sex?

Being married, I never gave thought to the benefits I have because of that choice. The rights to medical insurance, sick and bereavement leave, death benefits or parental leave are among the rights that the gay community is seeking. If I did not have these rights I would feel a significant loss of safety and freedom. The US General Accounting office reports that there are 1,049 benefits the US government provides to married couples. The most important benefits listed were the entitlement to receive social security benefits, pensions, tax breaks and visitation rights in hospitals or prisons.

Scripture speaks of paying taxes as a Christian duty. Regarding taxes Jesus simply says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”. As believers we should follow the example of Jesus by seeking to walk wisely on this issue of taxation. In one short sentence Jesus separated the tax issue from the spiritual issue. His directives to us as believers are clear. We should be willingly pay what is due to the earthly nation

This means that we should want to establish a system of taxation that is in the best interest of all of our citizens, regardless of their lifestyle choices. Our country was founded on the premise of no taxation without representation. The current cultural norm for taxation is a working husband and a stay-at home wife. This norm reflects the lifestyle circumstances of less than 10% of American households. It would seem that a more equitable tax system that better reflects our culture might be in order. After carefully considering this issue one can conclude that this tax issue is not a heterosexual versus gay issue at all. This is a married versus single taxpayer issue. There is no Biblical prescriptive to support giving married people tax incentives and benefits that are withheld from single people. This practice may not be appropriate any longer.  Geri Huminski Harvest USA online resource article- “What About Gay Marriage?”

Taxes, pensions etc are really a different issue than marriage and would have to be treated in a different discussion. Sadly our tax codes mix them together and complicate the entire discussion.

Do we merely ask, “What’s the harm with SSM? How does it impact anyone else if two men want to marry?” Is this only about civil rights or does it reflect a much bigger issue about our view of society and culture? What if we separate the tax/benefits /pension issues from married status al together?

Do we dare ask the question “Is there an ultimate right or wrong on the issue?” That question presupposes some objective standard to be taken into account. The issue and the related questions remind us that this is a BIG DEAL. 

To those who say, “YOU can’t or shouldn’t impose your morality on others” I must point out that in saying that YOU are actually trying to impose your morality on others. That statement is a moral doctrine; it is not some neutral guide. Also remember that all laws impose someone’s morality. All laws reflect someone’s worldview and values – the values of the majority.

This whole topic gets so tricky because it inevitably leads to the issue of the source of our societal values. Who defines and how do we define marriage? Those are huge question. If we’re off on the definition then we’ll be off on the application. Is it a definition that needs to evolve or is it a definition that is fixed for us? Remember that marriage is the basic unit of society so it’s worth doing the hard work of examining the questions. 

This discussion has been a long time coming. It has taken a long while for the seeds planted in the relativism of the Enlightenment to bear their full fruit, but that is happening now. From the perspective of those who come from the historic Christian framework this change in the definition of marriage is seen as a major challenge to God's authority. The SSM position reflects a distinctly different worldview and narrative of life than what has been practiced for 6000 years. During the course of human history the definition of marriage has always been OSM, so most people haven’t really had to ask themselves the hard questions, thus exposing their underlying worldview narratives.

“Every worldview consists of a founding drama, a narrative plot, whether it’s creation-fall-redemption-consummation or the self-caused and self-sustaining evolution of energized matter, the unfolding of Absolute Spirit, the education of the human race from medieval superstition to modern (or postmodern) self-sufficiency, or class warfare, and on we could go. Each story yields distinctive doctrines. If our origin and death have no transcendent meaning or purpose, then our reasonable response is to have faith in ourselves and try to make something work here and now. If the “meaning of history” is the survival of the fittest, then my neighbor is a competitor and the weaker they are, the better. If it’s the worker’s victory over the bourgeoisie, then our daily actions will be oriented to that goal” – Michael Horton

As much as we want to avoid “big picture / moral/religious” discussion in our society, the bottom line is that what we believe matters; ideas have consequences. The idea that we can’t or shouldn’t be influenced by our religious / faith views when setting public policy is a farce. One’s faith, or lack thereof, comes with one’s worldview; we can’t avoid being influenced by our worldview when it comes to the big items such as marriage. I’m personally opposed to cigarettes but I don’t think they should be illegal. I’m personally opposed to stealing, and I do think it should be illegal. Our personal preferences are expressed through the laws of our cities, states or nation, and they must be dealt with at the appropriate level and on an individual basis. 

Doesn’t this lead to a pick and choose form of law making? Yes, but that’s what we always do in a non-theocratic society. The fact that we are not a biblical theocracy does not mean that biblical values must be excluded from the public arena. Non-christians don’t leave their worldview at the door when they enter the public arena. They don’t say, “I don’t believe in God, and so there are no grounds for right and wrong, but in order to be a good citizen I’ll respect the values of the majority who do have values.” For some reason they expect people of faith to say, “I do believe in God and His values, but in order to be a good citizen I’ll lay them aside so that no one will be offended by them. To show that I’m a good citizen I’ll simply adopt the position of the minority who oppose my values.”

The public arena is the marketplace of ideas, and ideas have consequences. We don’t need less debate; we need more and better debate. We need fewer sound-bites and more probing of the significant worldview questions. The SSM issue is an occasion for such discussion.

There are really two competing narratives for life and how it is lived in community:

1). A purely secular view of the universe – we are here by random activity of molecules; there is no grand design and no designer, thus no real inherent meaning or purpose- the self-caused and self-sustaining evolution of energized matter”.  Things just evolved, but that doesn’t make them right or wrong. In fact nothing is right or wrong; it just is. We can try to agree on certain social values in order to have a functional society, but in the end our social values and rules are simply made up. 

It’s like a group of kids playing school – the oldest and smartest gets to be the teacher i.e. the boss, and the younger kids are the students.  (I saw this often with our second daughter playing with her three younger siblings) They get bossed around and eventually they quit. There is no overarching moral argument compelling them to stay in the game. It’s only make-believe anyway. Playing is neither right nor wrong in any significant way. 

If there is no God then we can only hope that people will agree to some rules and agree to play by them so that we can all get along. But at some point someone or some group decides that they don’t want to play anymore. In real life, we call that “breaking the laws” and put them in jail or punish them. But have they broken any real law of the universe? No, they’ve just decided that they don’t want to abide by the social norms anymore.  On what basis can one criticize them? Maybe they just evolved that way. Who are we to say they are wrong or that they should be punished?

If this approach is consistently applied then people must be free to pretty much do what they want. We always throw in the caveat “as long as they don’t hurt anyone else”. But what gives us the right to make that condition? Isn’t that “imposing our morals on them”? Why is it “wrong” to hurt someone else? Life is rough; the strong survive and the weak lose. Nature is red in tooth and claw. 

With this approach anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything he/she chooses. On what basis do we stop a man from marrying a man or two men, or his sister, brother, mother, or a woman, or two, three or five women, a horse, a cow, or a child? Who’s to say? Where is the source of authority? THERE IS NONE.  

People may agree to certain social norms, but nothing is really right or wrong. If that is the narrative that we want to live by then at least be honest enough to come right out and say it. Don’t hide behind “evolving views” or “civil rights”. In this narrative there are no intrinsic rights; there are only rights that society agrees to confer.

Same-sex marriage makes sense if you assume that the individual is the center of the universe, that God—if he exists—is there to make us happy, and that our choices are not grounded in a nature created by God but in arbitrary self-construction. To the extent that this sort of “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” prevails in our churches, can we expect the world to think any differently? If we treat God as a product we sell to consumers for their self-improvement programs and make personal choice the trigger of salvation itself, then it may come as a big surprise (even contradiction) to the world when we tell them that truth (the way things are) trumps feelings and personal choice (what we want to make things to be). Michael Horton

2.) A religious narrative that includes a creator God. ( religious/ spiritual narratives that don’t have a creator God run into the same issues as the atheistic narrative mentioned above).

For the purposes of my discussion here my reference point is the historical orthodox Christian Biblical narrative, not the “moralistic-therapeutic-deism” model that is the working theology of Americans today.

A creator model means that we are not “the masters of our own fate: or the captains of our souls.”

We are created for a purpose, and marriage serves this larger purpose ordained by God. To live according to our design we should structure our families according to God’s plan. That is the road to true freedom and fulfillment. 

I am a Christian and an American, and I love our system of laws and our freedom. But I don’t take the Libertarian view of absolute freedom. I believe that there are concerns above and beyond those of pursuing maximum freedom “so long as no one else is hurt”. As a Christian I believe that there are things that are not good for us personally or for society even though we may not be able to see the harm. Going against God’s ordained design for marriage/family is one of those things. My views as a Christian trump my views as an American. I don’t buy the “civil rights” argument as being more important than my “own religious” view i.e. “while I’m personally opposed to SSM on religious grounds, I wouldn’t want to impose my view if it violates someone’s civil rights.” I don’t go there. One reason is that SSM isn’t a constitutional civil right in America. Another reason is that it so violates God’s design that it should not be established as a right. If non-Christians are willing to be swayed by their worldview to change the laws, then why can’t a Christian be influenced by his/her worldview to try to maintain the legal definition of marriage?

If the laws are going to be changed, then I would hope that it is done so on the basis of a vote of the people, not a decree from a judge (one that might overturn the vote of the people). If the change is going to come then it should be because the people have heard a clear debate on the issues and consequences, and they have freely voted. Each person can vote his/her own conscience. 

Which worldview narrative makes more sense? Which corresponds better to reality? Which is a narrative that gives rise to a society that has values and standards that promote individual freedom, but also limit anarchy? 

What is your narrative source? A book that comes from God or a communal consensus? What happens when the consensus breaks down and we’re left with everyman does that which is right in his own eyes? We get anarchy or tyranny. For that is the ultimate trajectory of there being no outside source of authority. It may take a while for it to fully fall apart into anarchy or tyranny of the strongest (might makes right), but that is the inevitable direction. A godless secular narrative has been tried – it was called Soviet Stalinist Russia; Nazi Germany, Mao’s  China and Castro’s Cuba. Those are the full blown version of godless secularism, seen at its worst, but they are the trajectory of all secularism. Some narrative must and will dominate. So do you want one that has no base for eternal significance, no base for real meaning; or do you want a narrative that explains our reality even though we may not like the explanation.  Do we want a narrative of meaninglessness or a narrative based on a personal creator God who entered into time to give Himself for his enemies? 

The values that most people aspire to, or want other to aspire to, such as love, justice, humility, compassion, courage, etc. don’t grow in the soil of godless secularism. Those values require a meaning to the universe, or they require that people at least agree on a common meaning so that they can live together. But a consistent secular view void of eternal meaning does little to nourish the values needed for healthy social relationships.

For those who want to hold onto the Judeo- Christian title yet who promote same sex marriage, I have a question:

“Where in the bible does God address how a same sex marriage should work?”

If one takes the position that “God made me this way, so it’s OK” then why is God silent on the issue? God addresses marriage from the beginning in the Garden. The cultural mandate begins with God telling Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply”. God addresses so many issues of life in both OT and NT, yet the bible never once recognizes same sex marriage, nor does it give any instruction about it. God addresses the male/female bond of marriage and compares it to the relationship of Christ and the church. God addresses the parent/child relationship. He addresses the boss/servant, pastor/flock, and Christian / state authority relationships. If SSM is approved by God, the why is God silent on man/man or woman/woman marriage?

There is no passage that says, “Husbands love  your husband as Christ loves the church”, or “wives be subject to your wife as the church is to Christ”, or “a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his husband.” 

If one goes with “it’s OK with God but the Bible has been corrupted by men” then you’re really just throwing out the whole book. Why even appeal to Christian truth or values to support same sex marriage if you really don’t believe in the authority of the Bible? At least be honest and leave God out of it. 

To support same sex marriage is to support a system that has within it the seeds of its own destruction. Had god started with Adam and Steve in the Garden we would not be here today. The SSM advocates talk of an “evolution” of thought on this issue; they seem to believe that as a society we are evolving and progressing to a place where SSM should be acceptable. The idea is that Obama is “on the right side of history” by embracing SSM. If this is an evolution then what makes us think the evolution has reached its final destination and stopped? Suppose we start with a naturalist/ secular worldview, then it certainly seems to violate the concept of evolution / survival of the fittest to think that a species would evolve to the place where its own reproduction is impossible. If SSM is the final destination, then the evolutionary process has gone haywire. 

Exactly where would same sex partnering fit into a purely naturalist evolutionary model? We don’t really see it in nature. When was the last time Animal Planet had a feature on same sex behavior among lions, elephants, monkeys etc. Even if that behavior did take place at certain times it is an evolutionary dead end. It does not promote the survival of the species. No species can build a flock, herd, gang, colony, or tribe on that lifestyle. 

Those who want the name Christian and still support SSM they must be asked, “Do you believe the bible is your authority? If so, in what way? If you have a view that goes against scripture who wins, you or God? Do you assume the throne of authority and say, “God must be wrong, because this just seems or feels right to me? Or do you say, “I may not understand it, but I see what scripture is teaching so I’m going to submit my will and judgment to the Word of God.”

That is the movement of faith and that is how we all must live if we want to follow God. Either we let god be god or we assume that place as autonomous creatures.

It seems that the burden of proof would be on the side of the SSM advocates – they need to prove that it is the best thing to overturn 6000 years of the universal human experience in order to redefine the foundational unit of society.

Once the definition is changed, why stop with SSM? Why not polygamy or sibling /close relative marriage? WHO IS TO SAY?

Carrying this out further (ideas have consequences), if a man marrying a man is the same as a man marrying a woman then aren't we saying that there is no real difference between a man and woman; they are the same. Will that be applied to other areas of society.... no separate restrooms for men and women; no separate competitions at the Olympics, but men and women competing against each other; no separate teams in college or organized sports, etc. Just think of the potential for real equality between the sexes now that the artificial gender distinctives are eradicated.

I’ll close with a quote from an online article at Harvest USA website.

No matter what the courts decide, how a congressional vote is cast or what the gay community would like to demand of us, the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, cannot condone gay marriage. The Church cannot condone gay marriage because we do not have the power to so. This is the spiritual issue at the heart of the gay marriage debate. The gay community wants to feel at peace with God without making peace with God. The Word of God has clearly declared that marriage is a covenant relationship between three parties, the man, the woman and God, (Genesis 2:24). Each party enters into the covenant relationship by their own choice. God will not enter into a marriage covenant with a homosexual couple. We cannot change the Word of God. He has been clear that homosexuality is wrong. God is against gay marriage and there is nothing the Church can do to change that. … The issue of gay marriage will be an ongoing challenge for the Church. Developing a full understanding of the underlying issues will be critical to being able to address the subject. This will be important in offering the world a godly and Biblically accurate understanding of God’s Word as it pertains to gay marriage. Hopefully, this deeper understanding will lead our congregations to become places of open dialogue where people can wrestle with what it means to love those who struggle with sexual sin in practical terms like how to accept the sinner and not the sin.

In order to be places of refuge our churches need to become places of safety. We will need to offer a safe place to disclose our struggles. We will also need safe places to wonder aloud about the questions of civil rights and the inequality the gay marriage debate has raised. We are called to actively wrestle with what kind of men and women God wants us to be on behalf of others who want to live apart from Him. This is an invitation to share in the sufferings of Christ by giving of ourselves for people who might never respond to the Gospel. It might also be an invitation to become part of the social change process.

As significant change continues to overtake our culture we will need to have a clear voice of truth to speak. We will need to establish our light to be able to impart the truth to successive generations. We have been entrusted with the truth of God’s own word. As His ambassadors we have been commissioned to speak for Him sharing His grace and mercy to a lost and weary generation (Huminski ibid)

Joyful Ascension Day

The Ascension of Christ is mentioned in all the major creeds of the Christian faith, but it is perhaps the most overlooked event in the life of Christ. Ascension Day falls 40 days after Easter, thus on a Thursday. My guess is that most of you have never been to an Ascension Celebration service. Sometimes protestant churches will acknowledge Ascension on the Sunday before or after the Thursday of Ascension.

Why am I telling you this now??? Because today, Thursday, May 17^th  is Ascension Day.

“He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty”

As Beethoven wrote in his Mount of Olives Oratorio…

(Hear it here. http://composition-life.blogspot.com/2011/04/beethovens-hallelujah_932.html)

Hallelujah! unto God’s Almighty Son.
Praise the Lord, ye bright angelic choirs,
In holy songs of joy.
Man, proclaim His grace and glory!
Hallelujah! unto God’s Almighty Son.
Praise the Lord in holy songs of joy.

A devotional reflection on the Ascension from R.C. Sproul

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/the-ascension-of-christ/

The Ascension of Christ

“Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” (v. 11).

- Acts 1:6–11

The gospel tells us we can be reconciled to God only if we trust in Christ, the King of God’s blessed kingdom. We must, therefore, understand who Jesus is and what He has done. The Apostles’ Creed summarizes the person and work of Christ, and we are examining the creed’s biblical basis as we make our way through the Heidelberg Catechism. Question and answer 46 of the catechism discuss Christ’s ascension, an event the contemporary evangelical church largely ignores.
The church must not neglect this significant event. In the first place, it reveals the nature of Jesus’ return at the end of the age. The catechism notes that the phrase “he ascended into heaven” in the Apostles’ Creed means that Christ was taken from earth into heaven before the eyes of the Apostles. Jesus’ ascension into heaven was not merely an invisible move of His soul, but an upward movement of His body and soul that the Apostles could see. Acts 1:9 says, “A cloud took [Jesus] out of [the disciples’] sight.” Jesus was physically present with His followers, but a cloud raised Him into the sky and on into heaven.
Jesus ascended visibly; thus, He will return visibly when He comes in final judgment. After all, the angels told the disciples that Christ would return just as He ascended (v. 11). People will see Jesus physically because He will come again bodily (1 Thess. 4:16). He will return in a cloud of glory, the same cloud that indicated God’s presence under the old covenant (Ex. 13:21; Lev. 16:2; 1 Kings 8:10–11).
In Matthew 24:1–31, Jesus anticipates His ascension. Many people believe Jesus predicted His final return to judge creation when He quoted Daniel 7:13–14 in Matthew 24:30. But as John Calvin and other scholars have noted, Daniel 7 refers not to the Son of Man’s descent from heaven but to His entrance into heaven to receive His kingdom. Matthew 24:1–31 does not predict the end of the world. It foresees events associated with Jesus’ enthronement as King of kings and Lord of lords, events that culminated in the AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem. The ascension of Christ recorded in Acts 1:6–11 is one of these events, the Son of Man coming to receive His kingdom as foreseen in Daniel 7:13–14 and Matthew 24:30 (Keith A. Mathison, From Age to Age, pp. 358–359, 377, 461).

Coram Deo

Jesus is indeed coming from heaven at the end of the age to consummate His plan and bring a new heaven and earth (Rev. 21). But He is not coming back to establish His kingdom and take His throne, for as Matthew 24:1–31 and Acts 1:6–11 inform us, Christ took this throne when He ascended on high and judged the city of Jerusalem in the first century. Jesus is reigning now, and because He is king, we can serve Him in confidence of His final victory.

Mayan 1%ers were good; today they are "bad"

I was watching a PBS show on "The Search for the Lost Maya" and it showed discoveries of the northern Maya ruins. The archeology team was excited to find ruins that showed the wealth of the ancient culture. It hit me that they'd found the mansions/palaces of the Mayan 1%ers and they were so happy to proclaim that "This was a civilization of wealth". It showed that they were advanced.
I found it strange that today the "PBS" crowd tends to dislike the 1% crowd (except when they want donations). The 1%ers today are viewed by some as the sign of an inferior culture that needs to "progress". The archeologist saw the wealth as a good sign; today some see wealth as evil. It all seemed rather odd.

The "unsocial media"

It's ironic that it's called "Social Media" because in many ways it make people unsocial; that is to say one becomes unsocial to the people we are actually with while we text and tweet to those who are far away. I like and use social media, but as a parent of six kids who went through their teen years when it all started exploding on the scene I've been frustrated. As times it has been hard to have a face to face conversation because the texts kept coming into my child's phone. Even if s/he didn't respond immediately it was a bit distracting.

On the up side of things I love having more instant contact with my grown kids and the ability to follow them and our grand-kids on Facebook and blogs.
Do we control the social media in our lives, or does it control us?
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/05/09/justification-by-twitter/

BTW: you can follow me on twitter @parisdawg

Grace & Men Conf 2012

The GRACE AND MEN CONF 2012 April 27-28, 2012- Perimeter Church

These are notes, not transcripts 

You can listen to or watch the messages from the Grace & Men conference April 27-28.

Messages from the Orlando event are also available along with the conferences from 2008-2010

http://www.thegospelman.com/audio/index.html

SCOTTY SMITH #1 – FRIDAY NIGHT

Psalm 73

This was a season in Asaph’s life when he got disconnected and it shows that we were MADE FOR WONDER, BUT ARE PRONE TO WANDER.

TWO Pulls that lead us to Wander…

1.    Filling emptiness

2.    Medicating our pain

Asaph wanders toward Position v.3; Prosperity v3; Power v4; Peace v5, 12

Medicating our Pain – Posing and Pretending

Pain doesn’t just go away with time; it requires the grace of Jesus.

Scotty noted three “themes” of success that have plagued him in his life:

1.    Notice me, but don’t know me – we have a deep insecurity outside our areas of competence

2.    The Wizard of Oz – “don’t look behind the curtain” and discover the real me. We must be careful not to confuse knowledge of grace words with knowledge of Jesus. We may know the words and the doctrines without knowing the person and the reality of grace in our lives.

3.    Protect your heart at all costs.

SCOTTY SMITH #2

SATURDAY morning

We were made for loving the triune God with all our heart. The Gospel answers the question – how is that possible? It happens through the story line of just, sanctification, and glorification. Justification does what we can’t do for ourselves. I fail to love God with my heart, let alone my neighbor. God’s mercies are more than a match for our hearts. Sanctification is not a to do list. It is becoming as lovable and as loving as Jesus, which won’t happen fully until glorification. Jesus is our judgment day. We don’t have to be afraid of God, but now we can FEAR Him.

Ps 73:21ff – the Wonder of Grace

Perfect love drives out all fear of God as our judge. Ps 73 Asaph’s wonder: cultivating a grace saturated heart. God is working in Asaph in the context of community.

vv 25-28 GRACE-SANITY.

Grace changes the price tags – we value things in a new way.

this is not girly poetry. It is masculinity. Asaph give three Affirmations:

1. Own your weakness in community as Asaph did. Who knows your first half of Ps 73? Pain, struggles, burdens, questions, temptations? I don’t just have bad habits. I have a broken, needy heart. Who is helping you believe the gospel? Who are you helping to believe the gospel. We need a GOSPEL POSSE.

2. Preach the gospel to yourself (and one another) every day. Get to know the lyric (theology) music (doxology= truth wrapped around my heart) and dance (missiology) of the gospel.

It is an enormous treasure house – search the immeasurable riches – the language Paul uses.

Asaph shows 3 G’s –

Grasped – our past. V 23

Guided- our present. V. 24

Glorified – our future. V 24ff

If you are focused on overcoming instead of the Overcomer, you will be so preoccupied with self. Jesus is your active and constant Good Shepherd.

The means of grace are not tools by which we earn things. They are gifts to enjoy freedom. We don’t need more than we already have, we just need to see what we have. Samuel Rutherford – God is more willing to give us grace than we are willing to confess our sins. The more you are convinced Jesus is your righteousness the more willing you are to surrender and do dangerous and difficult things.

We must learn to live “palms up” – it symbolizes surrender and receiving

3. Celebrate God and his story in corporate worship. Continue to make the sovereign Lord your refuge and “tell of his deeds.”

Friday Night – Tullian Tchividjian – Luke 4:16

Beware of the “buts” and “brakes” on Grace. Satan’s lie is that grace is dangerous  and must be kept in check.

Grace doesn’t come naturally.

Grace is not a App for a conditional OS; it is a new OS.

1.    Grace alone can liberate you. As men we’re afraid to “mess up” our lives; we want to “get it right”. We can either go the Way of Law or the Way of Grace. We resist the words “it is finished”.  

Lord, please restore to us the comfort of merit and demerit. Show us that there is at least something we can do, that we can even in a small way keep some small earning power in our own hands. Tell us that in spite of all our nights of losing there will be at least one redeeming card of our own. Lord, let your servants depart in the peace of their proper responsibility. If it is not too much to ask, Lord, send us to bed with a few shreds of self-respect upon which we can congratulate ourselves. But whatever you do, do not tell us about grace. Give us something to do, anything, but spare us the indignity of this indiscriminate acceptance.    Robert Farrar Capon, Between Noon and Three

The worst people get the best stuff = GRACE Rom 5:8

Read “The gospel for those broken by the church” Rod Rosenbladt

Once you give up, you’re free

• Doesn't unconditional grace lead to moral license? No! Grace doesn't create lawlessness; legalism does.

Rom 3-5

If you say, “I’m saved by grace so now I can sin all I want; I get all the grace I need so now I can go party.” Paul says, Rom 6 “you don’t get it”. It’s not that you need less grace, you need more grace. It’s not that you get grace too much and you’re out of balance so you need Law. You don’t get grace enough. You don’t need Law, you need to get deeper into the gospel – rom 6.

EX: Lincoln with mule and horsefly on his rump. His brother can and flicked it off. Lincoln said, “why did you do that; it was the only thing that kept him moving forward.”

Don’t we parent and preach like that? Keep the “horsefly” on their rump so they keep moving forward. The gospel isn’t about behavior modification, but heart transformation. We often settle for the former.

2) Grace alone can Liberate the Church

Attacks on morality come from outside the church; attacks on grace come from within the church. Somewhere we’ve come to believe that this whole things is about behavioral modification and personal moral improvement and grace doesn’t have the teeth to scare us into changing. That is what has happened all across the church.

We get a lot of self help Christianity and Law-lite; a to do list version of Christianity

We hear more about the Christian and his life than we hear about Christ.
“Do more, try harder” makes people give up. Legalism produces lawlessness 10 times out of 10.

People get burdened with trying to create their own record of religious behavior. We think grace produces lawlessness; wrong. Watch kids from legalistic homes when they go to college. Grace is not the obstacle to obedience; it is its catalyst.

As Spurgeon wrote, “When I thought God was hard, I found it easy to sin; but when I found God so kind, so good, so overflowing with compassion, I smote upon my breast to think that I could ever have rebelled against One who loved me so, and sought my good.”

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tullian/2011/06/16/first-things-first/

High octane grace breathes new life that transforms.  Here’s a question that shows you’re beginning to understand the gospel. You’ll find yourself asking

What are you going to do now that you don’t have to do anything? Gerhardt Forde

That is the scandalous nature of Rom 8 and of the Eph 2:8-9.

Paid in full forever; a done deal.

We don’t like the Forde question. When the heart knows we don’t have to do anything for Jesus it wants to do so much.

EX: when your wife love you when you’re a jerk does that cause you to be more of a jerk? NO it makes you respond with “honey, I’m sorry; please forgive me.”

Unconditional love meets with selfish failure= change.

Philip bliss  Freed from the law

1. Free from the law, O happy condition,
Jesus hath bled, and there is remission;
Cursed by the law and bruised by the fall,
Grace hath redeemed us once for all.
Once for all, O Christian, receive it,
Once for all, O brother, believe it;
Cling to the Cross, the burden will fall,
Christ hath redeemed us once for all.

2. Now are we free--there's no condemnation,
Jesus provides a perfect salvation;
"Come unto Me," O hear His sweet call,
Come, and He saves us once for all.
Once for all, O Christian, receive it,
Once for all, O brother, believe it;
Cling to the Cross, the burden will fall,
Christ hath redeemed us once for all.

3. "Children of God," O glorious calling,
Surely His grace will keep us from falling;
Passing from death to life at His call,
Blessed salvation once for all.
Once for all, O Christian, receive it,
Once for all, O brother, believe it;
Cling to the Cross, the burden will fall,
Christ hath redeemed us once for all.

SATURDAY MORNING – Tullian Tchividjian #2  Jesus + Nothing = Everything pt 2
            Galatians 5

The idea that grace produces lawlessness is ludicrous. It doesn’t even happen in our human relationships.  When your wife is kind to you when you’re a jerk is more of a motivation to repent than the law motivates.

 Gal 5:1 is a summary of what Paul is saying in this letter. What follows v1 is a description of freedom. Faith working itself out in love. V6 because he loved us we are freed to love others. Law turns your attention to you. Freedom turns you to others. Way too much spiritual narcissism in church today.  The Law says, “the goal of life is to get better”, but with that with that as a goal we get worse and more self obsessed.

The more I obsess about getting better the worse I get. I get more focused on me (ex of Peter walking on water). We sink when we obsess with how we’re doing. And we think this is godly. It is never honoring to God to take our eyes off of Christ. The Gospel frees me from getting (I have all I’ll ever need in Christ) and frees me to give.

Blessed self-forgetfulness = Sanctification

 People are so afraid of Rom 8:1. They want to qualify it. We really believe God’s love has to end. His forgiveness is based in what Jesus has done for us, so it is inexhaustible. The law produces works of flesh. The Gospel produces fruit of the Spirit. Similar to what he said in Rom 7.

We struggle flesh vs spirit. Luther said we are justified and sinful. The Christian life is experience as both/and (simul justice et peccator) – at the same time just and sinner.   While there may be some truth to the “good dog/bad dog” analogy, we are New creatures with a New nature and NEW CORE ID.

The battle with sin is a battle of unbelief and it is played out in works of the flesh (unbelief) VS fruit of the Spirit.

Before God we are sons, not slaves. Justified. But in our experience is this battle. JI Packer said every time we sin we have an identity crisis. Every temptation to sin is temptation to not believe the Gospel. We think increased independence equals freedom instead of more dependence on Christ equals freedom. We are desperately searching for something we already possess in Christ. In the moment of temptation we are looking for something that in Christ we already have. We give in because we want something that we don’t believe we actually already possess in Christ. Temptation has more to do with belief than behavior

The sin underneath all sins is that we can’t trust Jesus and we have to take matters in our own hands. – Luther. vv 18-19 the law turns us inward and leads to law-breaking. If we want to live by that rule we will indulge the flesh. The contrast is life led by the Spirit. As you see all you need you have in Christ the spirit produces fruit and these things grow. The Fruit of the Spirit is not produced by Law but by the Gospel. Law is active, something we do. Fruit is passive, something done in us. Paul is not being prescriptive, the fruit is done for us not something we do (descriptive). Real freedom happens only when the resources of the Gospel smash any sense of need to secure for myself what Christ has already secured for me.

Notes from McKay Caston   http://mckaycaston.com/

Tullian's first message on Jesus + Nothing = Everything, based on Luke 4:18-19.

• Unless we are making folks nervous with our preaching of grace, we are not preaching grace. We are like a declawed cat—too safe. Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that if we are not accused on occasion of antinominanism, we probably have yet to preach the radical nature of the gospel. 
• Why do people get so angry when grace is so emphasized? Dr. Doug Kelly says that if you want to make people mad, preach the law. But if you want to make them really mad, preach grace. 
• Stop qualifying grace! When I say, "Yes we are saved by grace, but..." we lose the gospel. When I say, "Yes, grace, but...", my flesh is fighting for its life. 
• Grace is not an app. It is an entirely new operating system.
• We don't need a different message every week. We need the gospel every week from a different passage, for each new passage will provide new grace-driven applications of the gospel for our lives. 
• The gospel sets us free from self- salvation.
• Doesn't unconditional grace lead to moral license? No! Grace doesn't create lawlessness; legalism does.
• Attacks on grace always come from within the church. In the earthly ministry of Jesus, the folks who hated grace the most were the Pharisees.
• A big question: Do we primarily want outward, short-term behavior modification or heart oriented, long-term spiritual transformation? You can have the first without the second. But if you go for the second, you usually get significant behavior change thrown in for free. You can have the first and still end up in hell. Just ask the Pharisees. 
• Grace is not an obstacle for obedience; it is the catalyst for obedience.

NOTE 1: It is this last point that emphasizes that justifying grace must not be disconnected from sanctifying grace. Theologically, they should be distinguished, but never separated, since it is faith in the justifying work of Jesus (John 15:4-5 / abiding in Jesus as my righteousness) that fills us with the Spirit and enables us to produce his fruit (Galatians 3:1-5; 5:16ff). This is why preaching and teaching on justification is so crucial, not just for positional righteousness, but for progressive righteousness (sanctification) and is why folks talk about "preaching the gospel to yourself every day." In other words, it is the nature of grace to sanctify. 

NOTE 2: When we speak of grace and gospel, we mean the substance of the person and work of Jesus, who died for our sin (as a legal substitute, not merely as a moral example). Grace requires law. It requires bad news (my total failure to fulfill the law) in order to have good news (grace=forgiveness, imputed righteousness, eternal love in adoption). So, to speak of grace and gospel is to speak of the person of Jesus and the benefits we receive from him through faith in his finished, redemptive, reconciling work on the cross. 

Here is a summary (Part 2) from last weeks Grace and Men Conference at Perimeter Church. For Part 1, just go here. The notes below are from Tullian Tchividjian's talk on Galatians 5:16-26.

• There are no human fingerprints on the golden chain of salvation (Rom. 8:29-30). So... 
• Don't fall into the trap of thinking that at your worst, God loves you less.
• Don't fight against our only hope of grace! Don't water it down. Fear not the sanctifying nature of grace.  
• Grace does not make a regenerate heart rebel. It melts my heart and compels me toward love-motivated obedience.
• My core identity is in Christ, but we have an internal war that rages between the flesh and the Spirit. Thus, our experience is simul justus et peccator.
• Sin is an identity crisis. When we sin we are dealing mainly with belief, not primarily behavior. This means that change in behavior must mot merely be the result of moral reformation via law, but spiritual transformation by the Spirit. 
• A failure to believe the gospel functionally (Jesus is my righteousness) gives birth to all of our sin.
• Obedience to Jesus is not drudgery or obligation; it is freedom and blessing.
• A genuinely gospel-driven life will enable us to manifest the fruit of the Spirit (which fulfills the law at the deeper, motive level rather than mere surface, outward, Pharisee level).
• Freedom is a life rooted in grace that fixes a gaze on Jesus as Redeemer. As I gaze and believe, fruit begins to grow on the branch as the Spirit fills us and influences us.

Obviously, there is much more to say. Nevertheless, I think it helps us see that that a radical justification focus is the critical element in bringing about the radically sanctified life. After all, we are not sanctified by talking about sanctification, but through living in union with Jesus as our perfect righteousness. In other words, the root of positional justification produces the fruit of progressive sanctification. 

Or as John Bunyan said, "Run, run the law demands, but gives me neither feet nor hands; 'tis better news the gospel brings: it bids me fly and gives me wings."