Welcome to the online home of Tim Challies, blogger, author, and book reviewer.

Tim Challies

Challies on FacebookChallies on Twitter

Articles

April 25, 2006

I promised yesterday that today I would have a big announcement. Well here it is.

I am announcing the launch of a new web site. Well, a new/old web site. You may remember a site called Discerning Reader. Once a very popular and well-regarded site, it ran into all sorts of trouble, the details of which I do not care to expound upon. Suffice it to say that the site shut down and the domain name was offered for sale. I purchased the name and have created a new site. There is no connection between the old owners and myself.

As you may know, one of my passions is reading. I absolutely love to read and to help others find books that are worth reading. With tens of thousands of Christians books hitting the shelves every year, it is becoming increasingly difficult to sort the good from the bad and the better from the best. This is where Discerning Reader comes in. It is a site that features reviews written by discerning readers. There are currently several hundred reviews available with many others to be added in the near future. There are author biographies as well as a whole list of new (or upcoming features). Among the features are:

  • New York Times Bestsellers - We are reviewing many of the books that appear on the New York Times list of bestsellers. We hope to be able to expand this section to include all the books featured in the top position in nonfiction.
  • Expert Lists - We have asked some of the most discerning and widely-respected authors and teachers to send us lists of books they recommend for various purposes.
  • Where To Start Lists - Interested in beginning to read about a new topic? Let our experts guide you to books that will bless you as you read about spiritual disciplines, church history, systematic theology, family issues and more.
  • Church Bulletin Mini-Reviews - Discerning Reader now offers short, discerning reviews suitable for placement in church bulletins.
  • Bookworm Reviews - Discerning Reader has looked high and low to find other discerning book reviewers. Our “Bookworm” program features off-site reviews written by a wide variety of discerning reviewers. Check any of the titles in our database for these bookworm reviews.

Not all of these features are fully available yet, but they will be added in the near future. You may recognize the “bookworm review” program as the heart of what was once Diet of Bookworms.

I am quite excited about this site and am confident that it will prove to be of great benefit to the church. I invite you to visit the site, to take a look around, and to provide me with your feedback. Please spread the news as you see fit. Tell others about this resource!

Visit Discerning Reader

April 21, 2006

Christians are anticipating The Da Vinci Code movie with a mix of expectation and dread. The expectation is based on knowing that Jesus’ name will be, at least for a short time, on many tongues. This may create opportunities to discuss Him with friends, family neighbors and co-workers. The dread is based on the knowledge that Dan Brown, in his book, and thus in the film, took great liberties with history, presenting as factual a mix of fact, fiction and fantasy. He does not help the reader or watcher to know what is true and what is not, what is factual and what is only the product of his imagination. Brown is far from honest when he declares in the opening pages of his novel that “all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.” It has been shown by men far more knowledgeable and capable than I am that this is, plain and simply, nonsense.

It was only two years ago that another film exploded into the box office, causing people to consider Jesus as perhaps they had not considered Him before. Christians heralded the arrival of this movie, defending the film and its creator from charges of being outrageously violent and being anti-semitic. They lauded the film—praised it—as being a beautiful, accurate, stunning portrayal of the last hours of Jesus’ life. Yet in many ways this film, The Passion of the Christ, took as many liberties with the truth as does The Da Vinci Code. Just as Dan Brown has an agenda that he seeks to further in the work of fiction he declares to be fact, so Mel Gibson, who wrote, produced and championed The Passion of the Christ wished to further an agenda in mixing truth with error, fact with fiction.

This time, though, Christians are not embracing the film. Nor should they. Yet there is no small amount of hypocrisy in overlooking the unbiblical agenda of one man, celebrating his film, while criticizing another and lamenting his film.

I posted an early review of The Passion of the Christ and followed this review with several articles dealing with topics ranging from the inaccuracies of the film to my reflections on how God might use it nevertheless. I received no small amount of grief for criticizing the film and questioning the discernment of those who gave it a blanket endorsement. My review was read by tens of thousands of people and I received countless comments and emails questioning my motives, exhorting me to repent for posting it and occasionally even encouraging me to persevere. I argued in the subsequent series of articles that The Passion of the Christ presented a distinctly Roman Catholic version of the events surrounding Jesus’ life. I showed that Mel Gibson, while faithful to the text of Scripture in some areas, was willing to part from historical fact when his Roman Catholic faith required that he do so. Gibson could have created a film that was simply accurate to the Scriptures. Had he done so, it would have been consistent with what Protestants believe about Jesus’ life and death. Alas, he did not. Rather, Gibson created a film that portrayed Jesus in a manner that is consistent with Roman Catholicism and thus is, in many important ways, inconsistent with Scripture.

It was disturbing to see how many prominent Christian leaders voiced their support for this film and what terms they used to do so. They described the movie as being “factually accurate,” “very accurate [in the details],” “realistic,” “biblical,” “an accurate account,” “a true representation of Jesus” and “close to the Scriptures.” In certain aspects of the film this was true. Yet in many cases it could not have been further from the truth.

Before I proceed, allow me to grant that there is a difference in scope and seriousness between the inaccuracies found in Gibson’s film and those found in The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown goes so far as to suggest that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, fathered a child with her, and intended for her to be his successor as head of the church. When we compare what Gibson presented in The Passion of the Christ to these claims, Gibson’s errors may seem trifling. Yet the errors the The Da Vinci Code do not come with the endorsement, recommendation and praise of a multitude of prominent Christian teachers and leaders! Neither will pastors encourage Christians to attend this movie as an act of devotion.

Allow me to present just two of the more serious errors, or series of errors, that clearly show that Mel Gibson was attempting to portray Jesus in a way that was consistent not with Scripture, but with his own agenda of furthering his Catholic understanding of the Christian faith.

The first concerns Mary, whose role in Christianity is an obvious and well-documented point of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. Mary was presented in a light far different than what we find in Scripture. Gibson, consistent with Catholic theology, showed her taking a role as a suffering servant, suffering along with Jesus. This is necessary for her to assume her role as “co-Mediatrix.” She is presented as being Jesus’ support and strength during His trials; many times Jesus falls and is unable to get up, but after looking at His mother He finds the strength to carry on; the disciples all call Mary “mother”; Mary is shown submitting her will to God’s, saying “so be it” as if her consent was necessary for God’s plan to proceed (in the same way that Jesus’ consent was necessary). This is clearly not the Mary of the Bible, but the Mary of the Roman Catholic Church who reigns beside Jesus as Queen of Heaven.

The second error concerns the source for much of Gibson’s material. As I proved conclusively in an article entitled The Gospel According to Emmerich, Gibson drew heavily from Sister Anne Emmerich’s devotional book entitled The Dolorous Passion of Christ. Emmerich is known to some as being a mystic, stigmatist, visionary, and prophet who supposedly received visions from God in which He provided to her details about Jesus’ last days that are not contained in the Bible. This extra-Biblical account of Jesus’ suffering provided many of the intricate but important details in the movie. Among these are some fairly innocuous details such as Simon and Jesus linking arms as they held the cross and Pilate’s wife providing a cloth to Mary which she used to wipe Jesus’ blood from the floor. But it also provided inspiration for some of the more pivotal details. Gibson put Emmerich’s words in the mouth of Peter in an expression of unworthiness before Mary. “0, Mother,” Peter said, “speak not to me-thy Son is suffering more than words can express: speak not to me!” Most troubling, though, is that The Dolorous Passion of Christ provided many of the words Jesus spoke. A great number of Jesus’ words from the movie are drawn not from the Bible but from Emmerich. The movie makes no attempt to show what was drawn directly from the Bible and what was drawn from extra-Biblical writing.

Christians were willing and eager to tolerate the abuse of Scripture when it suited their purposes. Churches around the globe (though mostly around the North American continent) mobilized to take advantage of the opportunity to reach people through The Passion of the Christ. Marketing companies proclaimed it the greatest evangelistic opportunity since Pentecost. Thousands of churches encouraged their members to attend. Millions did. Many churches bought thousands of tickets and gave them to members of the local communities. Mel Gibson made hundreds of millions of dollars, largely through the efforts of Protestants (money he has since used, in part, to build a largely private Roman Catholic church where he can celebrate his Pre-Tridentine brand of Catholicism). Evangelicals were only too pleased to part with their money to support this film. It was disturbing, tragic even, to see Protestants commit themselves so fully to a film that was, in so many ways, inaccurate and unbiblical.

The Da Vinci Code, when examined objectively, may well be less harmful than The Passion of the Christ. Most Christians know that it contains error and takes great liberties with historical fact. The lines have been firmly drawn. But in The Passion of the Christ Christians were told they were watching fact when much of what they were watching was mere fiction, fiction that would seek to draw them not to the Christ of the Bible, but to the Christ of Rome and to His mother. They were told that Mel Gibson was a brother in Christ, when in fact his Pre-Tridentine Catholicism rejects the faith of Protestants. Just like Dan Brown, Mel Gibson brought his movie before the public as part of a wider agenda. And like Brown, this agenda was distinctly anti-biblical. Is it consistent then, or is it hypocritical that evangelicals were willing to embrace The Passion of the Christ but are so dead-set against The Da Vinci Code?

April 20, 2006

On the thirteenth of April, one week ago, John MacArthur was invited to be a guest on Larry King Live. I have lost track of the number of times that MacArthur has been asked to participate in King’s show, but it seems that when King needs a person to defend traditional, biblical Protestantism, he calls MacArthur. It is always a good choice.

When MacArthur appears on Larry King Live he usually appears as part of an interesting cast of characters. More often than not he is seated between Deepak Chopra on one side and Michael Manning on the other. Chopra is a New Age guru and founder of The Chopra Center for Well Being in California while Michael Manning is a Roman Catholic priest, pastor at St. Anthony’s Parish in San Bernardino, and host of The “Word in the World.” Last week, though, MacArthur found himself in different company. While he was still seated beside Michael Manning, every other one of the seven guests on the show, was Roman Catholic. The topic of discussion was a new, exploitive “reality” show entitled God or the Girl?. The show follows four young men as they wrestle with the decision of whether or not to train for the priesthood, knowing that this will require a life of celibacy.

For the first few minutes of the broadcast, King spoke with the four men who will be featured in God or the Girl?. He then asked questions of Anthony Podovano, a Roman Catholic theologian and author and Father John Bartunek, who is a Legionnaire of Christ (whatever that is) and rejected evangelicalism in favor of crossing the Tiber and becoming a Catholic priest.

He then turned to MacArthur. And this is what I love and admire about John MacArthur. MacArthur did not beat around the bush. He did not spend a few sentences seeking common ground and affirming his love and respect for Catholic tradition before addressing what he feels is error. No, he just waded in.

I think from a biblical standpoint we need to readdress this issue on a couple of fronts. Number one, according to the New Testament, you can’t be a pastor unless you are the husband of one wife and have proven that you’re able to manage your household well.

The apostle Paul also said that one of the false doctrines, he called doctrines of demons, 1 Timothy 4, is forbidding to marry. There is no biblical basis for this whatsoever. You can’t use Jesus as an example. He’s God in human flesh.

There is no biblical foundation. In fact, Paul said it’s better to marry than to burn. So, you put a priest in an impossible situation, then stick him in a confessional all day to listen to people reciting all their sexual sins and I think that’s just way over the top if you expect somebody to live a pure life with that kind of temptation thrown at them.

He then provided the historical basis for the Roman Catholic requirement of priestly celibacy. “I don’t think it’s a biblical idea at all and it came, as Father Manning noted, because priestly families were building fortunes and in 1079 when that became law at the Lateran (ph) Council, it was because Rome started seeing that money was being kept in these massive families. If you don’t have any children, you can’t pass on anything.”

A few minutes later he spoke of the tremendous blessing of marriage and family.

I took God and the girl. And my life — my ministry is aided by my wife and her faith and my children and my grandchildren, who undergird what I preach by the life they live.

They are the greatest support in my ministry. They give confidence to my — I’m not an island. They see me in a real world and they see my family surrounding me and they know what my life is like because it manifests itself in them.

A caller asked about homosexuality and King took the opportunity to press MacArthur, clearly hoping he would say something outrageous. MacArthur spoke of the sin of homosexuality and, when asked how Jesus would react to homosexuals, said: “I think he would endeavor to communicate the truth and the gospel. He would confront the sin and he would offer the salvation through repentance and faith in himself and his death and resurrection.” He quickly became involved in a back-and-forth with Manning who felt MacArthur had gone too far. As always, MacArthur slipped the gospel into his few minutes of camera time.

If you would like to read the transcript, you can do so here. I suppose the point in posting this is just to draw attention to MacArthur’s faithfulness. He stuck to the Scriptures and surely made an impact on Larry King’s audience. He did not back down and was not apologetic in defending the truth. And that, I think, is why King continues to invite him back.

April 20, 2006

The first job I ever had was delivering the Markham Economist & Sun, a small newspaper headquartered in a suburb of Toronto. I received no training, nor did I need any. On the day I began the job I was given a canvas bag, a large stack of newspapers and a list of houses that subscribed to the paper. I put the papers in the sack, consulted the list and left one newspaper in the mailbox of each house. It was that easy. As I got older and experienced greater financial needs, I sought a job that would earn me more money and found myself working at a gas station. I received only minimal training. I arrived on the first day clothed in my still-clean uniform and was told the following by the manager: “Go and serve that car. When you’re done I’ll tell you everything you did wrong.” So I went to the car, asked how much gas the person wanted to buy, turned on the pump, added the correct amount of fuel, took his money and bid him a good day. That was the end of my training.

As my life went on I had other jobs. I worked at Starbucks, a job which required three days of training. After graduating from college I entered the computer field which required a year of intensive training. And the learning and training continues to this day.

What I see as I look back on my two or three decades of work experience is that different vocations require different levels of expertise and thus different levels of training. Surely we would hope and expect that a man who intends to be a brain surgeon receive longer and more intensive training than one who wishes to be a cabinetmaker. Is one job inately superior to another? Not necessarily. But as the degree of difficulty and specialization varies, so too does the training required. And more accurately, the greater the collection of skills required for a particular job, the longer and more intense the training must be. A brain surgeon requires a vast collection of skills, ranging from the knowledge of human anatomy down to the ability to operate machinery and the ability to respond quickly, decisively and correctly in situations of extreme stress and delicacy. The skillset required is far more varied and exhaustive than that required to be a paperboy, a gas station attendant, a barista or a web designer.

There is no job that requires a greater collection of skills than the ministry. The Bible does not list the skills and qualifications necessary for many vocations. Yet the Scriptures dedicate a great deal of attention to providing God’s requirements for those who will labor in the gospel ministry.

The ministry is a special vocation. It involves a particular combination of talents, gifts and abilities. It is available only to men of upstanding character and ability. We affirm the importance and uniqueness of this vocation when we speak of the call to ministry. The church teaches and believes that those who are set apart by God for the ministry of the gospel are given a special calling by God so that they know and believe that they must answer this call and minister the Word. Those who labor in this ministry do so under direct orders from God. It has often been said that preachers are born, not made. That is to say that desire and training alone cannot produce a preacher, for the office is dependent upon particular gifts that are given by God only to some. Charles Spurgeon insisted that his college for pastors “receives no man in order to make him a preacher.” Martyn Lloyd-Jones was as emphatic, stating that “no college, or any other institution, can ever product a preacher.” God makes preachers; men train them.

Despite the difficulty of the vocation of pastoral ministry, we live in a time when pastoral training is regarded by many as being optional. There are some who eschew all manner of formal training, proclaiming that seminary training is a waste of time and effort—time and effort that could be dedicated to preaching the gospel. Not too long ago I wrote a brief article I entitled The Benefits of Ignorance in which I provided a silly parable about this type of person. I wrote about only one example, but I can think of many, and I am sure that each of my readers can as well. I don’t think we could successfully find a time in the history of the church when adequate preparation for gospel ministry has been valued less.

Even since I wrote that article, just a couple of months ago, I have come to a better understanding of why people minimize adequate training for the ministry. Before this time I think I have put the cart before the horse, so to speak, believing that the multitudes of pastors who have not been adequately trained for ministry have blinded the church to the distinct quality of the vocation. But I have since come to understand that minimizing the necessity of training for the ministry—thorough, deep, lengthy, intensive training—is a symptom of minimizing or overlooking the set-apartness of the calling of pastor. When we believe in and affirm the distinctive calling to the ministry of the gospel we will also believe in and affirm the importance of thorough preparation. And in our day, far too many evangelicals have lost sight of the set-apartness of this vocation.

A man who wishes to be a pastor and who understands the distinctiveness of this vocation will understand the necessity of adequate preparation. A man who wishes to spend a lifetime laboring within the local church and providing leadership within the body of Christ will understand that to do this most effectively he must be prepared.

There are, of course, many exceptions to this rule. It is not difficult to find examples of those who have had long and fruitful ministries without first attending seminary. Yet many of those men, men such as Charles Spurgeon, realized that they were the exception rather than the rule. Many of these men devoted themselves to preparing other men for the ministry through training programs and seminaries. I do not know of any notable Christian leaders who were both untrained and who advocated lack of serious preparation in others. Rather, they uniformly acknowledged and affirmed the importance of preparation. When we examine the history of such men we find that the exception proves the rule.

The logic is inescapable. If we believe in the special and distinct ministry of the Word, we must also be willing to deal with the fact that such a high calling requires a period of training and preparation. It is only when we lose sight of the distinctiveness of the calling that we will allow ourselves to minimize the importance of adequate preparation.

April 18, 2006

Stuart Derbyshire, a senior psychologist at Britain’s University of Birmingham says that pain is subjective. “Pain is something that comes from our experiences and develops due to stimulation and human interaction. It involves concepts such as location, feelings of unpleasantness and having the sensation of pain. Pain becomes possible because of a psychological development that begins at birth when the baby is separated from the protected atmosphere of the womb and is stimulated into wakeful activity.” Though the neural circuitry necessary to feel pain has been fully developed by the twenty-sixth week of gestation, he says, fetuses cannot feel pain because pain is a product of the mind as much as the body. The mind, he argues, develops only outside of the womb. A fetus has an undeveloped mind and hence feels no pain.

This is an interesting definition of pain. As I began to research and cross-reference this definition, I was surprised to find that others affirm the subjectivity of pain. The International Association for the Study of Pain, an organization that one would assume to carry some weight in this area, defines pain as follows: “An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage.” They provide a short series of notes which add supplementary information. “The inability to communicate verbally does not negate the possibility that an individual is experiencing pain and is in need of appropriate pain-relieving treatment.” In discussing the subjectvity of pain, they say the following: “Pain is always subjective. Each individual learns the application of the word through experiences related to injury in early life. Biologists recognize that those stimuli which cause pain are liable to damage tissue. Accordingly, pain is that experience we associate with actual or potential tissue damage. It is unquestionably a sensation in a part or parts of the body, but it is also always unpleasant and therefore also an emotional experience. Experiences which resemble pain but are not unpleasant, e.g., pricking, should not be called pain.”

Doctors for Pain defines pain primarily in physical terms. “Sensation of discomfort, distress, or agony, resulting from the stimulation of specialized nerve endings. It serves as a protective mechanism (induces the sufferer to remove or withdraw).” Most definitions I encountered in my research were similar to this one.

There is a problem with pain. How do we measure pain? If someone were to jab a needle in my arm and ask me how much it hurts, I might be able to express myself to some degree. I may be able to describe certain symptoms and tell the person where I feel the pain. But in all likelihood, I will say something like “5 out of 10.” This is exactly what the midwife has done in the past when talking to my wife during labor. This is an effective means of establishing how much something hurts, but it depends on prior experience. After all, when Aileen establishes that her labor pains register as a 7 on a scale of 1 to 10, that is premised on a prior knowledge of pain and on the ability to logically order previous experiences and discern which have been worse than others.

The problem with discussing pain in children is that they do not posess either the same quantity of experience of pain, nor the ability to express how this pain compares with other pain. Derbyshire is correct in his assessment that a child’s mind is not as fully developed as that of an adult. But this does not indicate that the child does not feel pain, nor that he does not feel terrible, agonizing pain. It seems clear that, even among well-intentioned doctors and researchers, those who are not motivated by either extreme in the abortion agenda, there is a great deal of disagreement on exactly when a fetus begins to experience pain. Yet the majority of doctors affirm that they do feel pain. We see this in the fact that when doctors perform fetal surgery, they provide anesthesia to both mother and child.

One ongoing problem with pain is that it is extremely difficult to study it. After all, how are we to gather data on this subject? Should we cause pain to children and attempt to measure it? Surely not. That would be immoral and tantamount to torture. Medical science lacks a “pain-o-meter” which can precisely diagnose the cause and intensity of pain. So all expression of pain is, at least to some degree, subjective in nature.

The psychology of pain is important, but only if it acknowledges that there is a subjective aspect to pain. It is true that there are some people who feel pain less acutely than others. It is true that there are some people who perceive pain to be pleasurable. Yet it is universally true, except for those with physical or neurological disorders, that people respond consistently to painful stimuli. We do not need to commission a study to know that children, when pricked with a pin for a blood test in the hours after birth, react by pulling the foot away from the instrument of pain. Most react by crying, letting their protest be widely known. Baby boys receive anesthesia when they are circumcised only days after being born. Do they not feel pain? To insist that all pain in all people is conditional and based upon psychology and human interaction is, quite frankly, ridiculous. To go even further than this and suggest that the psychological development required in order to feel pain does not begun until birth is nothing less than outrageous. Dr. Derbyshire seems to indicate that a person who cannot adequately express pain cannot feel pain. Lacking from this diagnosis is any type of convincing proof!

As you may know, the United States government is considering passing legislation that would require abortion doctors (a seemingly contradictory pairing of words) to disclose to women that their child may feel pain when being aborted. Women may then choose to anesthetize the fetus before it is aborted. Naturally, this is inconceivable to abortionists who have invested great effort in ensuring that women do not conceive of the fetus as human or as having the ability to feel anything. A blob of tissue cannot feel pain. But a child can.

Dr. Derbyshire, despite the timing of this study, suggests that the conclusion that fetuses feel no pain should have no impact on the abortion debate. After all, whether or not a fetus feels pain really has no bearing on the morality of abortion. The issue of abortion depends far more on the definition of personhood and the perceived rights of a woman to do what she wishes with her own body. In a sense he is right. Yet the fact that an unborn child feels intense pain as his body is torn apart is entirely relevant to the discussion. Our medical establishment, and in many ways our society, is premised upon the right of people to escape pain. We hate pain. We hide from it, flee from it, all with good reason. To know that a child suffers greatly as he is aborted is surely relevant to a discussion of the morality of abortion. There is something shocking, nauseating, heartbreaking about considering that a fetus feels the sensation of pain as his body is pulled apart within the womb that is meant to be his haven.

How many women are likely to request anesthesia for a child they are going to abort? I would suggest that very few would do this. After all, most women who believe that a fetus is a human being will not abort the child. This is the goal for many pro-life counsellors. Once they have convinced a woman of the fact that her fetus is a human life, the battle to save that life has nearly been won. The necessity of anesthesia is an admission that the fetus is human. Thus women who are sure of the humanness of their child will have no need for anesthesia (or an abortion) while those who regard it as merely a blob of tissue will have no need for anesthesia, for a blob of tissue feels no pain.

In the case of Dr, Derbyshire’s study, labelling pain as a psychological phenomenon is a handy cover for avoiding the undeniable truth that children feel pain, even if we do not know exactly how or to what extent. Pain is surely both physical and psychological, but there is no reason to entirely psychologize pain and insist that pain cannot be felt until the mind has fully developed. It is an absurd conclusion and one that serves only to further a deadly, immoral agenda.

April 17, 2006

As you may know, immediately prior to the Together for the Gospel Conference, there will be a meeting by and for bloggers. Timmy Brister, who has served as the organizer for this event, has called it “T4G: Band of Bloggers.” While the topic has not yet been finalized, it will be revolve around blogging, the gospel, and the intersection of the two.

The formal part of the meeting, which will be followed by a time of fellowship, will be a one hour Q&A discussion panel which will go from 3:00-4:00 p.m. I have been asked to participate in this panel, along with Dr. Al Mohler, Dr. Russell Moore and Justin Taylor. Here is a list of the participants which I have unapologetically stolen borrowed from Timmy’s site:


Tim Challies

Tim Challies is a web designer by trade. Although he is not in vocational ministry, his blog has proved to minister and impact a large section of the evangelical world. Tim graduated with a degree in history from McMaster University, and soon thereafter, Tim moved from being an aspiring historian to a web designer and started Websonix. Tim is also known for his numerous book reviews which can be found at Ex Libris, World Magazine’s book review blog of which Tim is the editor. Tim also owns and operates the Diet of {Book} Worms, an online collection of discerning reviews of Christian books. In the past, Tim has live-blogged several conferences including the 2005 Desiring God National Conference and the recent 2006 Shepherds’ Conference. He will be live-blogging the Together for the Gospel Conference this year as well. Commonly known as “The World’s Most Famous Christian Blogger,” Tim is a great success story of how he used blogging and his gifts for the glory of God.


Justin Taylor

Justin Taylor is the ESV Bible Project Manager for Crossway Books in Wheaton, IL. and has edited four collections of essays:. Beyond the Bounds, Reclaiming the Center, Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, and A God-Entranced Vision of All Things. Forthcoming are two more collections edited by Justin (Suffering and the Supremacy of God and Overcoming Sin and Temptation by John Owen). Justin previously served as Director of Theology and Executive Editor at Desiring God. Furthermore, Justin also operates johnowen.org, a website dedicated to the life and works of John Owen. His blog, Between Two Worlds, is a mix of theology, philosophy, politics, and culture, and is one of the most widely read blogs in the blogosphere.


Dr. Albert Mohler

Albert Mohler serves as the ninth president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. In addition to his presidential duties, Dr. Mohler hosts a daily radio program for the Salem Radio Network, writes a popular daily commentary on moral, cultural and theological issues, and keeps up a daily blog. Dr. Mohler is considered both in and outside the evangelical world as “the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the United States.” He has contributed to several books including Hell Under Fire, Whatever Happened to the Truth?, Here We Stand, Feed My Sheep, and The Coming Evangelical Crisis.


Dr. Russell Moore

Russell D. Moore, Dean of Theology and Senior Vice President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, serves as executive director of The Henry Institute. Moore has edited and authored two books: Why I Am a Baptist and The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. Moore is the senior editor of Touchstone magazine and executive editor of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Dr. Moore’s blogs at both The Henry Institute and Mere Comments (the blog of Touchstone magazine).

I am looking forward to participating in this event and hope that it will prove to be a blessing for all involved, whether by participating or by simply listening in. My strategy, if asked a question, will be this: “Hmm. You know, that’s a very good question. I know the answer to that, but I think I’d like to hear what Dr. Mohler has to say. Dr. Mohler?”

So if you are Louisville for the conference, why not come on by the Seminary on Wednesday afternoon and hang out with the blogging crowd!

April 14, 2006

Every Friday morning, before the sun rises, I get together with a couple of friends for a time of fellowship. We have been reading through and discussing Os Guinness’ book The Call. We are currently nine chapters in and are finding that, even if the book is a little frustrating at times as it seems to take a long time to develop, it has given us much food for thought. In the chapter we discussed this morning, Guinness discussed the importance of living life for an audience of One. He begins the chapter by reflecting on Andrew Carnegie and his lifelong desire to be able to parade through the streets of the city of his birth to prove to them that he had been able to become fantastically wealthy. He desired to be seen and known by a human audience.

Guinness talks about other examples of people who have been obsessed with the praise of men. He mentions Marlene Dietrich who would record the applause given at the end of her performances and would then play the recordings for visitors to her home. She would gather friends such as Judy Garland and Noel Coward and play them both sides of a record filled with applause, telling them solemnly what city each round of applause was from. Guinness quotes Mozart who wrote to his father, “I am never in a good humor when I am in a town where I am quite unknown.” He quotes an old French story which tells of a revolutionary who, when sitting in a Paris cafe, hears a disturbance outside. Jumping to his feet he cries, “There goes the mob. I am their leader. I must follow them!”

Such narcissism is shocking, yet is all too common. Just recently someone forwarded me a link to a copy of Sharon Stone’s rider, the document that describes her requirements when she accepts a role in a film. Reading the document is almost nauseating, yet is no doubt not uncommon for Hollywood standards. She demands, among other things, $3500 per week in unaccountable “per diem” funds, three nannies, two assistants, presidential suites, first-class travel, a deluxe motorhome, and the rights to keep all of the jewelery and wardrobe items she uses in the film. Even more shocking, to myself anyways, were the requirements dealing with publicity of the film. The rider insists that her name is given first position in the credits for the film and that her name be at least as big as the movie’s title. Her picture, if it appears in advertising, must be at least as big as, if not bigger, than any other person’s likeness. It goes on and on. As I read this I thought of a friend who used to work in the special events industry. She tells of a particular musician who insisted that no one turn their back on him. People serving him had to, quite literally, walk backwards when they left the room lest they turn their back on him. Reading this is enough to turn one’s stomach.

Guinness discusses narcissim in the context of audience. Christians are to be motivated to serve and to please an audience of One. We are to seek the pleasure of God. Guinness finds it odd that in a century which began with some of the strongest leaders the world has known—Churchill, Roosevelt, Lenin and Stalin—has ended with a “weak style of leadership codependent on followership: the leader as panderer.” He quotes Winston Churchill, a man who had an amazing way of cutting to the heart of issues. “I hear it said that leaders should keep their ears to the ground. All I can say is that the British nation will find it very hard to look up to the leaders who are detected in that somewhat ungainly posture.” At another time he said, “Nothing is more dangerous…than to live in the temperamental atmosphere of a Gallup Poll—always feeling one’s pulse and taking one’s temperature.” Violet Bonham Carter once said of Churchill that he was “as impervious to atmosphere as a diver in his bell.” Why was this? Because Churchill knew his mandate and sought to fill it to the best of his abilities. He was far from perfect. In many ways he was a troubled, rude individual. Yet he led the British nation through a dark hour and his name lives in history as the name of a great leader.

The application to the church is obvious. In our day we have leader after leader, teacher after teacher, telling us that the leaders of the church must take their cues from the people. Leadership is seen ever more as leading the people where they want to go, not necessarily where they need to go. Leadership is shaped by fleeting public opinion more than objective standards.

Yet what the church needs is leaders who serve the audience of One—leaders who, like Churchill, are sure of their calling and their mandate. They care nothing for the whims of their followers or potential followers, but only for pleasing the one who has called them to be leaders.

April 12, 2006

Why is it that when a person is looking for a house, driving slowly down a darkened street straining to see the numbers on the fronts of the homes or on the mailboxes at the end of the driveways, he automatically turns down the car radio? He does so because he instinctively knows that music or voices are a distraction. A person cannot focus as well on the task at-hand when there is noise in the background. Noise is a distraction.

I find that when I am writing, and especially writing something that requires deep thought and consistent logic, I need to remove background distractions, whether that means I turn down the music playing from my computer or close the door to my office to drown out the sounds of squabbling or playing children. I do this without thinking about it. As I strain to collect my thoughts and to put words to them, I automatically turn down the music. I am often surprised, when I have finished my writing, to find that the music has been turned off or the door has been closed. I may have no recollection of doing so. It is a natural reaction.

Many years ago I heard a sermon, one of the few I remember from my younger days, where the pastor suggested that we try turning off the stereos in our cars, especially when we are driving alone, and spend the time thinking or praying. He had apparently developed the practice of praying aloud when driving alone. It earned him some bemused looks from other drivers who saw him talking, apparently to himself, but because he found it a beneficial practice he swallowed his pride and continued to talk to God. I often make a decision—and it has to be a deliberate decision for I am accustomed to pressing the “play” button immediately after starting the car—to turn off the radio or CD player when I drive and find this time to be extremely valuable. My mind can process things and mull things over far better where there is silence. This is particularly true if the song I might be listening to is one that is familiar to me as then, whether I am aware of it or not, I tend to sing along. It is hard to think deeply when singing!

In our culture we have allowed ourselves to become notoriously busy. And all the time, while we are busily going through life, there is a great deal of “noise” in the background of our lives. It may be music that plays when we drive, when we work and when we play. It may be a television that is always turned on whenever we have a few minutes of downtime. Perhaps when we find fifteen spare minutes between picking the kids up from school and beginning to cook dinner we watch an episode of Judge Judy or catch a re-run of The Simpsons. The background noise may be a Blackberry that constantly beeps and buzzes as it receives emails or stock quotes, even when we are far away from the office. It may be a cell phone that keeps customers or employees in contact with us even on weekends and holidays.

It seems to me that, as society continues to move in its current direction, and as we become ever more “wired,” Christians will have to be deliberate about moderating and perhaps removing some of this ever-present background noise. If we are to be thinking people, people who think deeply and deliberately about spiritual matters, we simply cannot allow our lives to be overshadowed by the noise of technology.

I wonder how much we miss because of our busyness. I am often challenged to think just how much of life I miss while I check my email for the seventh time in a given evening or while I follow along online with a football game that I really don’t care about. Technology, it seems, is a great distractor. Technology sticks its foot in the door of so many areas of my life. When I sit down to read to my children we may be interrupted by a phone call. As we head outdoors to play, I may do a quick check of my email and spend fifteen minutes typing out a reply that could easily wait until the next day; and then, while I play with the children, I am distracted, mulling over what I might have or should have said. Maybe we duck out of church before the time of fellowship is complete so we will have time to get home, make a sandwich and fluff the cushions on the couch before kickoff time.

Truthfully, I cannot think of anything that distracts us so fully and completely and consistently as technology. For too many of us, technology is a master and not a servant. It is our owner, not our possession. We let it run and rule our lives. We allow technology to determine the course of our lives, taking us where it leads. We determine our schedules with TV Guide in one hand, a Blackberry calendar in the other. We invest countless hours in online friendships, many of which are shallow and insignificant, while ignoring people in our local churches and communities. Perhaps while ignoring even our own families.

Technology is a great servant but an evil master. Technology is proof of the greatness of God and something we ought to be thankful for. But why, then, have so many of us allowed it to rule and govern our lives? Why do we allow it to play such an important, transcendent role in our lives and in our families?

It may be as simple as escapism. Technology, and especially its many applications to entertainment, provide unparalleled opportunities to escape from reality, even if only for a few minutes. Through technology we can leave the drudgery of our lives to listen to music that glorifies freedom or to watch television or film where what happens is far more thrilling than what we experience at home and in the office. The purpose of much of modern technology is to allow us to take our entertainment with us no matter where we go. MP3 players allow us to take thousands or tens of thousands of songs with us in the car or on the train. Video iPods allow us to escape from work or school for a few minutes by watching (ironically enough) The Office or unlimited amounts of pornography. Portable DVD players allow us to keep the children quiet in the car while we take a vacation. No matter who or where we are, we can use technology as a brief escape.

Perhaps we use technology to hide. Maybe we hate to be alone with our thoughts. We have become so accustomed to constant noise that, like a baby who can only sleep in a room with a white noise machine softly humming, we can barely stand the sound of silence. Maybe we have lost the ability to think or even the desire to think, and so we anesthetize our intellects, we lull them into inactivity, by replacing them with noise.

Maybe we need constant noise from the cell phone or Blackberry or laptop so we feel like we are accomplishing anything. Perhaps we have bought into the lie that we need to be accomplishing something significant—something that either pays the bills or leaves us with another bill to pay—at all times. And so we take phone calls during dinner and answer emails in church. We check email compulsively and work while we should be resting.

Or it could be that we prefer the anonymity and safety of online relationships, relationships that allow us to be almost exhibitionist in what we reveal about ourselves, all the while hiding behind a mask of secrecy. We would rather tell our deepest secrets to strangers on the other side of the continent, strangers we know only by their online personas, than find and nurture deep and lasting friendships close to home.

We are busy. We are distracted. Too often we hide behind the noise. As Christians we need to ensure that we are mastering the noise, not allowing it to master us. We need to be in control of our cell phones, Blackberries, laptops and inboxes. We can and often should use this technology, but we must now allow it to control us.

April 11, 2006

Eat This Book: A Conversation in the Art of Spiritual Reading is the second of a five-part series of books being written by Eugene Peterson who is best known as the translator of The Message. This series of books comes in the twilight years of Peterson’s career as author, pastor and translator, and it allows him to reflect on his many years of ministry. It is a rather strange and wandering book in which Peterson meanders through a wide variety of topics having to do with the theme of Scripture. At heart, though, the book is an attempt to convince the reader of the importance of reading Scripture in order to promote life change. Peterson feels this is best done through the ancient practice of lectio divina. In many respects, then, this book is a beginner’s guide to that practice. The book also contains a great deal of information about Peterson’s philosophy of Bible translation and it is to this topic that I will turn my attention today.

In a section entitled “Caveat Lector” (or “let the reader beware”), Peterson shows concern with the response that the Scriptures are to evoke in us. “The words printed on the pages of my Bible give witness to the living and active revelation of the God of creation and salvation, the God of love who became the Word made flesh in Jesus, and I had better not forget it. If in my Bible reading I lose touch with this livingness, if I fail to listen to this living Jesus, submit to this sovereignty, and respond to this love, I become arrogant in my knowing and impersonal in my behavior. An enormous amount of damage is done in the name of Christian living by bad Bible reading” (page 82). This shows, I think, that Peterson is genuinely concerned with how Christians read the Bible. He realizes that, when read with an impure heart or out of poor motives, the Bible can be used to cause all manner of harm. Great damage has been done by those who know the words of the Bible best. Satan himself knows and quotes the Bible. But is the problem with the Bible or with the reader?

Peterson further voices this concern in a metaphor. “The Christian community is as concerned with how we read the Bible as that we read it. It is not sufficient to place a Bible in a person’s hands with the command, ‘Read it.’ That is as foolish as putting a set of car keys in an adolescent’s hands, giving him a Honda, and saying, ‘Drive it.’ And just as dangerous. The danger is that in having our hands on a piece of technology, we will use it ignorantly, endangering our lives and the lives of those around us; or that, intoxicated with the power that the technology gives us, we will use it ruthlessly and violently” (page 81). I do not feel that this is a fair parallel. I know of people, and you probably do as well, who have been simply handed a Bible and been told to read it. They read and were changed. They read and were saved. There is a vast difference between an adolescent who takes the wheel of a car and a man or woman who is given a Bible. While I appreciate Peterson’s concern, what he fails to take into account is the fact that the Holy Spirit works through Scripture as the primary means of changing lives. The metaphor that compares a Bible to a car and an adolescent to a reader is simply not fair or accurate. It gives far too little credit to the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is possible that Peterson feels that the Scriptures are somehow a little bit deficient? That they are not the best way that God could have revealed Himself to us? “There is a sense in which the Scriptures are the word of God dehydrated, with all the originating context removed—living voices, city sounds, camels carrying spices from Seba and gold from Ophir snoring down in the bazaar, fragrance from lentil stew simmering in the kitchen—all now reduced to marks on thin onion-skin paper” (page 88). While this is true, at least to some extent, what Peterson fails to mention is that this is exactly how God intended to give us the Scriptures. God never refers to His Word as “dehydrated” or in any way deficient. Yes, we need to invest time and effort in knowing, studying and understanding them, but we do so knowing that the Scriptures, exactly as they are, are just what God desired that we have. Any fault we perceive in them is a fault within us.

In these three quotations, three of a number I could have referred to, I think we see an important piece of the puzzle that led to The Message. Eugene Peterson feels that the equation of person plus Bible can lead to all manner of hurt and pain and destruction. This is, in many cases, true. Yet it seems, as we will see, that Peterson’s solution is to change the Bible rather than to focus on the people. The Bible is good and perfect and true. It is the people who cause the trouble.

In a chapter entitled “God’s Secretaries,” Peterson examines Nehemiah 8 where the Israelites, having just rediscovered the Scriptures, stand before Ezra as he reads them to the assembly. And as he reads, select Levites “give the sense” of the passages. “ ‘Gave the sense,’” he says, “did more than merely provide dictionary equivalents to the words that were being read that day. The Levites’ interpretive translation work engaged the lives, the hearts and souls, not just the minds, of the people: at first they wept and then they rejoiced ‘because they had understood the words that were declared to them’ (Neh. 8:9-12). This is the intended end of true translation, to bring about the kind of understanding that involves the whole person in tears and laughter, heart and soul, in what is written, what is said” (page 125). It is interesting and helpful, I think, to compare Peterson’s philosophy of translation to that of the English Standard Version. In the preface to the ESV we read, “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on ‘word-for-word’ correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.” Note the difference. The ESV seeks, in so far as possible, to bring the original text before the reader. Peterson seeks to bring about the understanding and response of the original reader. The ESV values words while Peterson values response.

We continue with words found almost at the end of the book. Peterson has continued to discuss The Message. He now sets his sights on essentially literal translations, suggesting why he feels they are less useful than a more dynamic translation. “Translation is a complex activity that takes place between a polarity of two questions. The question asked from one pole is, ‘What did she mean?’ ‘What did he say?’ answered strictly on its own terms yields a literal translation. Find the German word equivalent to the English word and that’s it. ‘What did she mean?’ requires an imagination, often a poetic imagination, that brings the ‘world’ of the German text into the ‘world’ of American English…” He quotes Sebastian Brock: “In the case of free translation, it could be said that the original reader is forced to go to the original; or, to put it another way, in the first it is the reader who is stationary, but in the second it is the original” (page 169).

His distaste for literal translation soon becomes more apparent. “In my work as a pastor and writer, teacher and preacher, I began to gather observations and witnesses on the nature of translation, noticing how unsatisfactory ‘literal’ turns out to be and how conveniently it serves as a cover for avoiding the obvious intent of words spoken or written” (page 170). And again, “Preference for the literal has a long life. But I have come to believe that it is an unthinking preference…The language [in a literal translation] is lobotomized—the very quality that gives language its genius, its capacity to reveal what we otherwise would not know, is excised. Extreme literalism insists on forcing each work into a fixed immovable position, all the sentences strapped in a straightjacket” (page 171).

And then, finally, we see exactly what Peterson presented in The Message and why he did so. “[T]he most important question is not ‘What does it say?’ but ‘What does it mean and how can I live it?’ I wanted to gather a company of people together who read personally, not impersonally, who learned to read the Bible in order to live their true selves, not just get information that they could use to raise their standard of living” (page 176).

I found it an interesting and worthwhile pursuit to piece together this information and to try to understand what lies behind The Message (and behind other dynamic or paraphrastic translations). What it led me to see is that this type of translation relies on a particular class of person—the rare person who can both interpret and translate the Bible. Peterson believes that the Bible should already be interpreted before it is read, so that interpretation and translation are one and the same. The reader is then left in a position whereby once he reads the Bible, he can immediately respond correctly to it. Peterson sees himself and other translators as standing in the role of the Levites of Nehemiah 8, giving the sense of the Scriptures in order to evoke the right response.

This philosophy differs substantially from the more literal translations, where emphasis is placed primarily on words, not meaning. With a literal translation we are given, in as much as is possible, access to the original words of Scripture. It is then up to the individual Christian, not a particular class of “translator-interpreters”, to interpret Scripture and to apply it to our lives.

The problems with Peterson’s approach are numerous, but are too varied to discuss in this article. Perhaps I can discuss them at another time, though I have written about Bible translation enough times that it may not be necessary.

April 10, 2006

Yesterday morning in church we sang a song I knew from the album “Songs For The Cross Centered Life” but had never had the privilege of singing during a worship service. The song was “I Come By The Blood” by Steve and Vikki Cook. It is quite a recent song, but one whose expression of theology is easily equal to many of the old hymns. It proves, as do many of the songs recorded on the albums released by Sovereign Grace Music, that modern music can be as full of meaning and depth as songs that were written long before. Here are the lyrics:

You are the perfect and righteous God whose presence bears no sin
You bid me come to Your Holy place, how can I enter in
When Your presence bears no sin
Through Him who poured out His life for me, the atoning Lamb of God
Through Him and His work alone, I boldly come

The chorus has some wonderful lyrics, but all I heard or understood was this:

Bold bold bold bold bold, bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold bold
Bold bold bold.

To be honest, I heard little of the rest of the song. I was just overwhelmed by that one word: bold. I was moved almost to tears. No, let’s be honest. I was moved to tears by that simple word. I stopped singing and just thanked and praised God for the boldness He gives. I stopped and thanked Jesus for the boldness He won for me through His sacrifice. It was a blessed moment.

I think the significance of the moment was brought about, at least in part, by what I experienced the previous evening. Brian McLaren had been in town the night before. Having read many of his books and having invested a fair amount of time in studying what he teaches, both as a Christian author and as an apparently reluctant leader in this strange movement conversation known as emergent, I thought it would be both interesting and useful to hear him speak. The event was held in Richview Baptist Church and the setting was informal. McLaren sat in the front of the auditorium with the audience arrayed around him, grouped around small tables. It was a small gathering of probably only forty or fifty people which made it a good setting to ask questions and to hear from McLaren in a reasonably “safe” environment. I asked no questions, choosing instead just to listen.

McLaren, as we have come to expect, never really answered a question. At one point one of the men in attendance, who clearly had a great deal of respect for McLaren, asked him whether this was natural or whether it was deliberate and something he had had to work at to perfect. McLaren, in as lucid an answer as we got all night, responded that it is something he does deliberatly. I have no doubt that this is the case, but unfortunately, I found it exceedingly frustrating, though certainly not surprising. One might expect that, when attending a Question and Answer session, one might hear some answers. But this was not, unfortunately, the case. Instead, we were subjected to long, rambling discourses that seemed to do anything but address the actual question.

Of course while McLaren was not always lucid in answering questions, in a sense he answered questions simply by not answering. He made statements throughout. In fact, he made a statement by not bringing a Bible with him to the event. And really there did not appear to be any Bibles at the event (and, conspicuous by its absense, was any type of prayer). When asked questions, there was only one occasion where McLaren referred to Scripture as the foundation for his answer, and even then he took a verse far out of context (in an attempt to show that God is, essentially, unknowable). I do not recall a single time that he answered a question by recommending a verse or passage of Scripture. While he widely quoted or recommended the works of other authors and mystics, he did not seem to show any real knowledge of the Bible or trust in and affection for Scripture. For an evening led by a man who is considered one of the world’s most important and influential evangelical leaders, it was certainly surprising that Scripture played no role.

Throughout the evening, boldness was absent. The faith of the emergents, the postmodern faith, is a faith that is devoid of boldness before God. It is timid, angry, tentative, questioning. It is not a faith of assurance and boldness. It emphasizes the unknowability of God more than what God has revealed to us about Himself. The faith McLaren commends is a faith that always questions, always doubts. It seems that the only faith McLaren hates is the faith of a person who knows what he believes and is convicted by Scripture and by plain reason that what God has revealed is truth—true truth. As others have observed, the real enemy of the Emerging Church is conservative, biblical Protestantism. McLaren will commend anything or anybody, it seems, except those who have a faith built upon the truths revealed in the New Testament epistles.

I think that last sentence is important. It struck me while driving home from church yesterday afternoon. McLaren mentioned at one point how many times he has studied and read the gospels since he professed Christ many years ago. But when he spoke of the book of Romans, he did so without the same reverence. When I examined the evening and pieced it together with what McLaren has revealed of himself in his books I was led to conclude something that startled me. Brian McLaren loves the red letters of the Bible, but hates the black. The red letters so easily support the type of Christianity he is attempting to build and promote, but the black interfere. He can reconcile Jesus with his faith, but he is stopped short by Paul. Brian McLaren loves Jesus, but does he love God in the same way?

This postmodern faith, a faith that seeks to emulate Jesus but without the explanation and application taught by Paul and the other apostles, has no certainty, no boldness. This was brewing in my mind as I reflected on the evening. It was brewing in my mind as I drove to church on Sunday morning. And it brought tears to my eyes on Sunday morning as I worshipped and thanked God for the boldness He provides and makes available to those within whom He has done His work.

“…Jesus Christ our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through our faith in Him.” (Ephesians 3:12)

Jesus Christ gives boldness to His people. It is not a rash and arrogant boldness that takes refuge in our own intellectual capacities, but a boldness that what God reveals of Himself through Scripture is real and right and true and knowable. It is a confidence that we, simple human beings, can know and understand God. This is what Paul celebrates in the final verses of Romans 11. Having spent 11 chapters discussing the greatness of God, he bursts forth in a song of praise for all that God has revealed of Himself. “Oh the depths of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” This is an expression of wonder for all God has chosen to reveal about Himself to mere sinful, hate-filled human beings. It is an expression not of timidity but of boldness! Not of tenativeness, but of confidence!

We can share in this expression of praise, and so should we, for knowledge of God is a gift of God. Confidence is our privilege, boldness our birthright. We can know God and we can have confidence in what we know, as long as it accords with the words of Scripture—not merely the red words, but the black words too.

Pages