H. Henry Williams

Weekend Message Q&A

Here are the questions I received from this weekend's message.

Q – I really appreciated your sermon on this topic this week! As a former Catholic, I often have felt we EFree folks forget how significant communion should be in our faith journey, even if we are just "remembering" and it isn't for salvation purposes (only Jesus saves, not something we do). How would you suggest we take this a step further to our time OUTSIDE of these church walls? Often times, I still think of communion as something I do at church. Clearly, in Jesus' day, it wasn't a church function only.....it was with your family, at your home, and together as well as corporate worship times. It is also more than symbolic ideals, as you shared, so it should be something more long-lasting in my thoughts and my faith journey. It shouldn't become a ritual I do every week, or once per month only at Church. How could we go further with this do you think?

A – I think you may have answered the question. The early church celebrated the Lord’s Supper as part of community meals. I know of some churches that celebrate it in their small groups. A church I visited a few weeks ago only celebrated it at a monthly meal of their church community until recently. I think we (that includes me) need to deepen our experience of this meal. And I think it has as much to do with our experience of anticipating Christ’s return and eagerly anticipating his kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. But it also has to do with the depth of our community life as a church. I know I have a long way to do on this.

Q – Awesome message! When talking about one’s often twisted history of communion in the church, were you calling out [any particular kind of] church? I grew up for many years with the strict rules, regulations, and “being worthy enough” to receive communion. Please clarify. I certainly have lived through it. 

A – I wasn’t calling out any particular church denomination. In fact, I had churches like the ones in our own particular tradition in mind. Damaging religiosity is everywhere, in every church tradition.

Q – I just wanted to make a slight note to you about a part of your message today that I found very confusing. It was towards the later part of the message when you were talking about the verse in 1 Cor about not taking communion in an "unworthy manner".

I felt like you were very passionate about it but I had a hard time following what you were trying to say. [My husband] made the comment that might be assuming people understood the traditional or "high church" interpretation of that passage. I felt like you laid out very well why you disagreed with that interpretation, but I didn't understand what you were necessarily disagreeing with….

Maybe I wasn't following along as well as I could have been, but it would have been very helpful if you could have given a quick "This is what churches have mistakenly taught about this passage" and "This is what I believe scripture actually saying" then laid out the reasons why.

A – I’m guessing you were not alone. I could have been much clearer. I should have focused in more on that point. I tried to take on way too much with too little time.

My basic point is that churches too often put unnecessary barriers to people at Communion. And I’m not even talking about requiring membership in their church. I'm talking about the idea I’ve heard throughout my life that if you have any “sin in your life” or if you have relational conflict with anyone you should pass on Communion. I can’t find that teaching in the Bible, and my concern is that when people hear things like this they begin to put up even more personal barriers to taking Communion. And then, when they take it, I’m afraid they’ve become arrogant enough to believe they no longer have “sin in their life” or they are relationally whole. Everyone who takes Communion is unworthy apart from Christ, and we can’t add anything to what Christ has done.

What complicates it is that people misinterpret the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 by ignoring the context of those words (i.e., the problem he clearly describes and he is addressing). The problem was that the rich people were going ahead and eating before the poorer folks arrived. The poorer folks would go hungry. And some of the rich folks would even drink too much. So all of Paul’s words have to do with this particular relational injustice and sin, not whether or not the Corinthians had unconfessed sin or relational conflicts in their lives.

Q – Why didn’t Pharaoh die during the 10^th plague? Wouldn’t he have been the firstborn?

A – I can only assume he was not the firstborn. Maybe he had an older brother who had died.

Weekend Message Q&A

Here is the question I received based from the weekend message.

Q – You talked about people not being honest when they twist the words if the Bible. Is this why some people are suspicious of Christians due to negative Christians who spread hate (ie westboro church)? Do we have an inner sense of truth even if we don't believe and that's why we don't believe the twisted messages? Why do people believe those hateful views?

A – I think it’s important for people to realize, first, that the Westboro church is basically a two or three dozen people all related to each other. As far as I can tell they are a group akin to the KKK and skinhead groups that use the Bible for their own purposes. They are not people of the Word—shaped by it or concerned one bit to really understand it. And I do believe they know they are twisting and using the Bible for their own purposes. They are haters, first and foremost. And, yes, their use of the Bible adds to the impression that you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say, so why bother with it.

I don’t understand it. I’m not sure anybody does. They are the stuff genocidal groups throughout history are made of. Except, in this case, this group doesn’t seem to have the evil genius of the ones who start movements.

As for people citing groups like this to discredit Christianity: I also believe that deep down that people who do this are well aware that this is unfair. Every philosophical, religious and political movement has people like this related to it. The person citing Westboro or other evil so-called Christian groups knows this. In fact, they have some people like this in their own families. They would not want to be discredited in everything they do because of their crazy uncle or evil great grandfather, but they discredit others by taking this kind of cheap shot. Just another way of suppressing the truth.

But they’re not alone in doing this. We, as believers, do the same thing in our daily life when we want to discredit others’ perspectives. I do this. It’s partly why I can see through it! And it’s only one more reason we as believers should be the humblest people on earth. We know better. We have the Bible’s witness to us that we are prone to suppress the truth, yet we still do it. We don’t need to win arguments or defame or look good because we have everything we need in Christ. Yet we use anger (aggressive and passive aggressive), cheap shots and bad logic to make our points in personal conflicts all the time. To win. We need God’s grace daily. We need to be people who offer God’s grace to people who hate us or try to discredit us. We can do it from the position of strength and acceptance we have in Christ.

Q – How do you share the message without sounding judgmental? I've been told that calling people (including myself) sinners is judging. Any insights would be helpful.

A – Aside from what I already said above, some people will think what they want to think no matter what we say or do. And when someone accuses us of being judgmental for calling ourselves and others sinners, we can thank them for proving our point—they just judged us (which, apparently, they think is a sin) and we can admit they are right about us (we are indeed judgmental).

Mid-Week Memo

Hi Five Oakers,

I have a few things I want to share with you.

#1 - Get a recap of the service with highlights of our prayers, readings and songs here.

#2 – Here are your comments from the Communication Cards:

• Thanks for the message today Henry. Awesome. 
• I love the pre-service song. I no longer freak out that I’m late but rejoice and feel welcomed to worship. Sorry I’m missing today’s meeting due to work but thank you for the letter this week as a reminder and I feel good about the by-law changes. 
• Apropos message for me – I just had a show as a tightrope performer. 
• Loved Henry’s, Mr. Roger’s sweater.  [Just bought another one for my collection from my collection--the Henry Williams Collection at Banana Republic!]
• Henry, love the car analogy! Thanks for another great and impactful message. Your gift is explaining complex things in a simple meaningful practical way – thanks for sharing this gift with me. Looking forward to the lighting station returning. 
• Great service! 
• Henry, thank you for the message today! I thought I understood this parable, but you brought a clarity and depth to it that totally opened my eyes! Fantastic message. 
• Great worship set. Loved the Twinkie transition to our question of the week. Wow, what a fantastic message – thanks Henry. Loved the soloist after the message – praise God. Loved the closing – “Oh Happy Day”. 
• Loved the explanations of the way our service is set up – it was very clear for new people, (I think). And I love the new tables that communion is on.  [I’m particularly happy with the explanation this week. I’m building it on the feedback from people at 10-Minute Connect and our members.]
• I loved your message, Henry.
• Great music! 
• I miss the drama skits! 
• Everyone who adopts a child goes through a decision making process accessing the kind of risk you discussed this morning; the God risk.
• Served at “Good in the Hood”, partner of Union Gospel, with my family serving needy families with groceries and serving a meal. Stomachs were filled, larders prepared for a holiday and smiles given freely. God  was glorified and His love shared. 
• Henry, you preach to the (your) right and make comments to your left. Try reviewing it – I notice it. [That’s because those people on the right need preachin’ at. Actually, good catch. I’ve been thinking about mixing it up a bit by putting my table on the right side. I wonder if that will make a difference. Not sure how else I could catch myself in the act or retrain myself. I haven’t looked yet, but I’m guessing you’re right.]

#3 - Here’s the message in 10 Tweets—Luke 19:11-27, “Risk Assessment.”

1. This passage is about assessing the risk of investing your life for God & his purposes…& the riskiness of not risking for God.
2. Be careful about what you risk your life on.
3. The citizens who hated him drop from view until the last verse in one quick Columbo move… “one more thing…slaughter them”
4. There is grace in the warning (still have time) & outcome (get what they want, out from under God's grace/rule).
5. There’s nothing safe about playing it safe. We will be held account for how we invest our one life in God’s mission or not.
6. Buchanan-We're well schooled that certain kinds of people don't inherit the K of G: wicked…rage fiends…Less prepared 4 who J adds: cautious
7. Risking for God is not about being a risk-taker. Jesus affirms effort—ANY effort.
8. Buchanan-Our theology determines our destiny…generous/gracious/kind God…do likewise…angry/demanding/miserly…do likewise
9. Gilbert –“My son’s trust was never in his own ability…It was in his father’s promise: “Come on kiddo. Jump. I promise I’ll catch you.”
10. When J says “slaughter them,” it’s metaphorical (points to final judgment). But Jesus was literally slaughtered (the Lamb of God) for us.

#4 – Here’s a question from the sermon:

Q - If people get what they want in judgment, does that mean those who want a wrathful God will get one? 

A – Not sure what you mean, but I think I need to qualify my statement a bit. Maybe that will address your question. When I say people get what they want it needs to be qualified: they want to be free of God’s rule in their lives and that’s what they get. They don’t get everything they want. They don’t get happiness.

Happy Thanksgiving! Pastor Henry

Wednesday Memo & Weekend Message Q&A

Hi Five Oakers,

I have a few things I want to share with you.

#1 - Get a recap of the service with highlights of our prayers, readings and songs here.

#2 – Here are your comments from the Communication Cards:

• Great steel guitar sound of – Moving and Majestic. Love baby dedications. [Me too! Tons of them this weekend. Sorry, 9:15ers, but it’s too full in that service to have all those families that come for dedication fit in, so no dedications for you. I’d love to see some 9:15 folks attend on Saturday or 11am. It would be great. But I’m not asking for that if it means displacing your kids.]
• My family has been coming since last December. We are from WI. I ask God, why so far away. Since the very first time I have come, God gives me a big hug when I come through the church doors, every week. What can I say, I love your church! [Wonderful!!!]
• Henry, thank you for sharing the truth so clearly for us all. Awesome message filled with new insights for me. Dan, great job with worship! Thank you Worship Band! [Loved Dan and the band. My thanks go out to them too. The opening song for response is a Dan original you can listen to here. His new album is available here.]
• Each week is great. But thank you especially for the opening worship songs… and ambiance. It prepared my heart and mind for being here to listen to God. [The first one at the Prelude was a Dan original.]
• Nice, Dan! Thanks for clarification on what repentance really means – hits home. 
• Great music, great message. So many hearts gathered in Praise. Thank you. 
• We praise you for always keeping our family strong by putting You first! 
• Praise God for all the babies being dedicated! Great sermon – awesome worship!
• Great music! After the election I needed God’s people more than ever this week. Confusion, bewilderment, disappointment. But I remembered Jesus doesn’t take sides, he takes over. He didn’t die for America, he died to save the world. We aren’t alive for the moment, we are alive for eternity. My geopolitical footprint changed this week, my heart was freed because I know we are victorious, we know the end. And if that doesn’t give us a sense of urgency (I must share my hope!) for the lost, nothing will. I’m so proud of you for the message Henry and how you transitioned from pleasing seeker to true seekers.
• I really appreciate Dan Lukas’ voice and stage presence in leading us in worship. I love the pins-on-the-map idea. But the map need to be bigger for those of us who live and work farther away from church (St. Paul, South St. Paul, West St. Paul, etc.) [Dan says: “Several of us mentioned the same thing as we don't live in Woodbury. We're updating it for the future.”]
• The way Dan sang “Before the Throne of God” should be on the church CD. Today’s message – I get it. Not sure why I always asked the question why God choose to save us the way He did, through His son, yet I get how. Because we can understand it. [Dan says, “My guess is, when we do a hymns project this will be on it. And probably like this: http://marshill.bandcamp.com/track/before-the-throne.]
• Timely message. Very real and passionate. Thank you! 
• Henry, your passion is so contagious. Thank you! 
• Why are we omitting the third verse in Cornerstone? It’s the most powerful verse of the song?: Then He shall come with trumpet sound. Oh, may I then in Him be found. Dressed in His righteousness alone, faultless, stand before the throne. [Dan says, “It wasn't omitted, just wasn't included in the arrangement I chose for the weekend. It's a great lyric, and the song does miss a little something when the lyric is absent. Here is the arrangement we used: link.]
• It would be great to include drama (live drama) again! The services have gotten quite predictable. This would add some sparkle to worship. Please pass on to programming. [Passed it on. Thanks.]
• Why did we start five minutes early? It was awkward coming in on time, but feeling late because music already started. [We always start five minutes early. We’ve been doing this for several months. It’s a bonus for people who get there early. We want people to get their early, so this s a reward. Two-thirds of our folks come in late, and that’s not an exaggeration. It also pulls people in from the Commons so they can be present for the call to worship.]
• It’s chilly today… breezy, in fact. Brrr! [Just trying to get more people to go for coffee at the Acorn Café. You of all people might appreciate that. Just kidding. Duly noted.]

#3 - Here’s the message in 10 Tweets—Luke 19:1-10, “Out on a Limb.”

1. Zacchaeus is a comical figure to most of us who grew up in SS. But he's a man who risks a lot to see J then stakes whole life on Jesus.
2. Z's story, 3 challenges to move: from snacker to seeker, seeker to saved, consumer to contributor to God's mission.
3. Z is willing to be undignified to see Jesus. Urgent. Jesus matches his urgency stride for stride. “Hurry…I must come to you home today.”
4. Crowd's reaction points to obstacle seekers face: the religious, moralistic crowd around Jesus then & today.
5. True seekers aren't derailed that easily; snackers are. Push through & discover J is put off by moralistic more than you are.
6. Too many people who say they’re seekers are really snackers…window shoppers.
7. When I preach I'm not going to waste the true seeker's time by begging for the attention of the snacker.
8. Z's sudden generosity NOT the grounds of his salvation but the fruit of his repentance (not an action but change of mind).
9. How much MUST I give is wrong ?. We should ask, help me reorder my life to give more & more to you, your kingdom & your concerns.
10. Tragic how many spend lifetime in church without experiencing this kind of transformation. Never leave confines of grumbling crowd.

#4 – Only got one question so decided to keep it until today. Here it is: So, did Zacchaeus have to stop being a tax collector? (Since the only “right” amount was what was paid to the government.) 

Answer: Not sure. Actually, collecting more than they paid out is not the issue since the system required a tax collector to collect more than he paid. It’s what capitalism is built on. But the system itself encouraged price gouging of a sort. The perception of being a “collaborator” was most troublesome. It’s a good question, but I don't know if we can know the answer. I don’t think Jesus ever addressed it in the Gospels.

#5 – I’m looking forward to the Visionary Marriage conference this weekend. Hope to see you there. It’s not too late to register.

#6 – Got this in an email regarding one of the lines from this coming week’s passage: “Wow. Have fun w/ this… :o) But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’” Thanks, I will. Come and see.

Blessings, Pastor Henry

 

 

Weekend Message Q&A

Here are the questions I received based from the weekend message.

Q – You certainly guided us through the biblical guidelines of marriage and sexuality in the last few weeks.  However, how about divorce?  Outside of unfaithfulness and desertion by an unbeliever, is there any grounds for a biblically guided divorce? If so, what/where is it?  I ask mainly for a close family member who is strongly considering divorce, but both are believers and there has not been unfaithfulness.  Thanks.

A – Here’s our Elder’s policy on Divorce and Remarriage Download DivRemarPolAug07. It's a good place to start.

Q – The I Corinthians 6 verse confused me a little bit. I thought by grace we are saved, does this verse mean homosexuals and the others in the verse are not? 

A – Here’s the passage.

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

I think you are assuming that Paul is saying Christians don’t do any of those things once they have been washed, sanctified and justified, but he is not. These verses have to be read in the context of the whole letter, of Paul’s writings and even in the context of the entire Bible.

In this letter Paul clearly assumes that Christians still sin—including the sins listed in this passage. In this letter he goes into detail about how Christians will at times live “according to the flesh.” Some translations translate “flesh” (when used in this sense) as “sinful nature.” 

Even in this passage Paul refers to the fact that we are made righteous only through Christ and by the Spirit’s work. So, it’s not about not doing certain things that we are saved.

But if a person’s life is marked by these sins, a person’s heart lacks repentance and change/growth isn’t evident in a person’s life, Paul is saying they can expect the same results as non-Christians at the judgment because that’s what they are, in spite of their association with the church and their verbal profession of Christ. Jesus spoke to this as well in the Gospels (Matthew 13:24-30; also John 10:25-30). Paul’s words are first a warning/exhortation that keeps the good "fear" of God on the forefront of the believer’s mind. It’s one of the ways God helps all his children persevere all the way to the end. It reminds us to stay vigilant. We are at war with sin and evil. Failure to be at war in our lives is a possible sign that we never enlisted! But his words also function as a reminder that there are always wolves among the sheep.

Q – You said we need to examine the policies we are voting on. Can you recommend a good non-biased place to read about the policies and the pros and cons of proposed policies? 

A – I don’t think this (or most topics) can be approached in an unbiased way. So you're going to need to go to your usual trusted sources. I recommend building a good stable of trusted sources for political and worldview issues—people and organizations that deal with a wide variety of issues in a biblical way. Here are some of my favorite organizations for this sort of thing:

• BreakPoint and The Colson Center.
• Christianity Today: Note that Christianity Today has a variety of different publications and blogs to which you can subscribe. Check out their "Media/Culture" and "Politics/Current Affairs" sections.
• Although I haven't used it much recently, World Magazine seeks to consistently bring a biblically informed worldview to today's news and issues.

Starting with these resources will introduce you to a variety of Christianity’s greatest thinkers.

Then, just to keep everyone honest, I recommend exposing yourself to thoughtful sources that don’t claim to be biblical in their orientation. One or two will do, but if you've been around Five Oaks for a while you know I listen a lot to the news on Minnesota Public Radio (including NPR news shows) and programs they carry like "Planet Money," "Marketplace," "Radiolab," and "This American Life." I also read the Pioneer Press, watch both CNN and Fox News and even get a dose of talk radio. None of these sources come from a particularly Christian perspective and you don't have to be an input nut like me to get a variety of perspectives.

Bring the Bible's teaching to bear on what you know learn from these resources and from trusted friends, then I'm pretty sure you'll be an well-informed voter.

Q – (1) For those of us who have decided to vote “yes” on the marriage amendment how do we respond to people who say that in the United States we have a separation of church and state and (2) something so biblical has no place in politics? (3) In my experience that question is always followed up with “how would you like it if non-Christian doctrine was forced onto you”? (4) In your opinion what are the secular reasons for voting “yes”?

A – I’ve taken the liberty to number the questions.

(1) I try to bring up a couple of ideas:

It’s debatable whether what the constitution says about church and state should be interpreted as a "separation of church and state." It’s good to remind folks that the terms “separation of church and state” are not in the constitution and that the phrase is a debatable interpretation of what is the constitution.

But whether or not it's a good interpretation, we know for certain that the framers did not want individual citizens to participate in the public square without their consciences (formed by their faith or lack thereof) engaged. In other words, I like to remind people that no one else leaves their convictions at home when they vote, so why should Christians?

(2) I guess I would point out that until recently every culture from every religion (including atheistic governments) for all recorded history have only sanctioned marriage between men and women. It’s not just a biblical position.

(3) As politely and respectfully as possible, I would ask, “Are you serious?” Tens of thousands of Christians have had their relatives (grandchildren, nieces, nephews, etc.) aborted—children that would not otherwise have died except that our government sanctions abortion on demand. Again, this doesn’t settle the issue as to whether or not the gay marriage amendment is a good law. It simply is a reminder that all laws arise out of the biases, ethics, convictions and worldview of those who frame them. There are very few if any unbiased, neutral laws that don't force something on anyone.

(4) This is a very important question. It assumes, quite correctly, that while we vote our consciences and convictions based on Scripture, it’s not profitable to try to convince people who don’t share our convictions about Scripture by appealing to Scripture. While we believe God’s precepts (his commands) are based on the principles he established in his creation, and those principles arise from the person of God (his character), this argument doesn’t fly with the general public. But if what we believe is true, doesn’t it follow that there should be arguments we can make based on reason and common grace? Here’s a BreakPoint commentary the late Chuck Colson wrote a few years ago that can serve as a starting point for making those arguments (link here).

Even so, I think it’s also important to point out the burden of proof actually lies with anyone who is advocating for changing something that has been universally accepted throughout history. What evidence do they have for suggesting “gay marriage” won’t negatively impact society or the institution of marriage? I think their argument would need to be compelling.

Everything I’m saying here assumes that gay marriage is not a good thing because God says it's not a good thing, but it makes no judgment on whether or not the amendment itself is good governmental policy.

Weekend Message Q&A

Even though I didn't give the message this week I'll try to answer the question we received regarding the passage:

Q – If marriage is so important to God, and he created it, why will there be NO marriage in heaven? Matthew 22:29-30. 

A – I don’t know the answer, but I think God may have given us a little clue in Ephesians 5.

“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:31-32)

If marriage always pointed us to Christ it may be that at the consummation of everything, in the new age, the highest purpose for marriage will have been completed so that it will be "unnecessary" in the new bodies we’ll inhabit in the new heaven and new earth. I don’t know why God established marriage in paradise (in the Garden) but not have it endure into the future paradise except for this reason.

Weekend Message Q&A

Here are the questions I received based on the weekend message.

Q – Should we keep in mind what was happening when something was written or the events that happened in the time the writing is in? For example, do we read something written now about a past event with the knowledge of the past or the present?

A – I’m not sure I understand the question. I’ll take my best shot at addressing some issues around historical context when reading.

• Historical context can refer to the occasion of a particular writing. For example, Paul writes 1 Corinthians in response to a letter church members wrote to him and he wrote in response to reports he had received by others who were familiar with the situation in Corinth, recent visitors and members of the church there.
• Historical context can also refer to the general historical/cultural situation in which the document was written. For example, in reading 1 Corinthians and the issues Paul faced there it’s good to know some things about life in that city socially, economically, religiously, etc. Even the history of that city. 
• The reader also has a historical/cultural context that impacts understanding. This can help and hinder understanding. It can especially hinder understanding when we are unaware of the extent to which our reading is impacted by our assumptions/worldview. And even if we are aware, we’re never completely aware of our own assumptions or the assumptions of the author. But our own context can also help. For example, American missionaries come from a world that is very skeptical of “miraculous” (even in the church), but sometimes theyserve in worlds that have not been as influenced by the enlightenment, where they still believe in spiritual realities. These missionaries have found, for example, that the new converts can relate to the miracles in Scripture and, in turn, they experience much more of the miraculous in their lives. This then has deeply impacted many of these missionaries who have brought a fuller and more accurate understanding of the Bible to American Christianity. All that said, if you go to another culture and immerse yourself in it long enough you begin to discover the that people are not all that different after all, no matter the culture. Their problems and joys are quite similar. This is true also if you immerse yourself in ancient literature. You are often shocked by how “modern” their thinking is. So the differences should not be overblown.

Q – I've known people who use historical/archaeological information to "prove" that the Bible is false because they can't pin down the people in the Bible to information/documentation in historical records. How do you get historical context in that case?

A – There are thousands of respected and credentialed historians and archaeologists that would say otherwise. Take a look at “probe.org” and enter archaeology into the search box. This would be a good place to start.

Q – Loving the story of God book! Thank you, Henry! Question in Genesis 1, many times it says “let there be,” etc. But when speaking of man it says “Let us make man in our image”. Didn’t google this, thought you shed light on this (if there is anything to share). Great worship set Justin! Praise Him! 

A – Not sure if this addresses your question but here’s what the ESV Study Bible says on that verse:

• Gen. 1:24–31 This is by far the longest section given over to a particular day, indicating that day 6 is the peak of interest for this passage. The final region to be filled is the dry land, or Earth (as it has been designated in v. 10). Here a significant distinction is drawn between all the living creatures that are created to live on the dry land, and human beings. Whereas vv. 24–25 deal with the “living creatures” that the earth is to bring forth, vv. 26–30 concentrate on the special status assigned to humans.
• Gen. 1:26 Let us make man in our image. The text does not specify the identity of the “us” mentioned here. Some have suggested that God may be addressing the members of his court, whom the OT elsewhere calls “sons of God” (e.g., Job 1:6) and the NT calls “angels,” but a significant objection is that man is not made in the image of angels, nor is there any indication that angels participated in the creation of human beings. Many Christians and some Jews have taken “us” to be God speaking to himself, since God alone does the making in Gen. 1:27 (cf. 5:1); this would be the first hint of the Trinity in the Bible (cf. 1:2).

Q – Wondering if there is a Bible App for daily reads – a good recommendation? 

A – Yep. The very best with lots and lots of choices for Bible reading plans is the YouVersion app and the YouVersion website. You get to check off each day you read in whatever plan you choose, and they’ll even send you reminders and encouragement when you fall behind. You can even recorded versions of every text in most of the primary translations.

Weekend Message Q&A

Here are the questions I received based on the weekend message.

Q – I've been using a reading plan to read through the Bible for the first time. How do you be attentive while reading from different books in the Bible? I'm using YouVersion app yearlong reading for reference.

A – There are two ways to go about this: (1) Read the Bible several times through until you begin to see the basic story line and can learn to be attentive to where you are in the story whenever you read it; or (2) find a good resource that helps  you get the framework of the Bible story and gets you to read the key passages. I suggest you start with my book because it gives a framework for the whole Bible before you read the whole Bible. If you’ve done that already, then just keep the two acts and 10 scenes in mind whenever you read.

There may be another issue you’re addressing in your question. It’s hard to read attentively when you’re covering a lot of material in one reading. It might be good to combine a yearlong Bible reading program with something like the Group Life study that drills in to a shorter passage of Scripture. A good devotional can help in this way too. If that’s too much, I suggest taking three years to complete the Bible so you have time for reflection.

Another suggestion for getting more out of large passages of the Bible: Wayne Cordiero has his church read through the Bible every year and they use an approach called SOAP. It will help you get more out of your reading. Check it out here.

Q – (1) How do you deal with Christians who insist that the old laws still must be followed in part to prove/justify their hatred? (2) What of those non-believers who point to the marriages in the Bible as being non standardized who argue against the "traditional marriage" view that the right wing are arguing to keep? What do you say to them especially since marriage is not just a Christian/Jewish institution? Sorry if this is a bit vague.

A – I’ll be brief, but you’ve hit on a lot of issues that really require a lot more attention than I can give it here.

(1) I’m never quite sure what to do if I suspect someone is using the Bible to justify their hatred. I have to be careful not to read motives into their words and actions (not to judge), but if hatred is what they are communicating with their words and actions, I have to call it what it is and I may need to call it out. It’s hardest for me to know what to do when it’s an elderly family member or an old friend. That said, the old laws are never old if they express God’s will. So the moral laws of the Bible still express the character and will of God. But they should never be used to hit people over the head, to be self-righteous or to be hateful.

(2) The Bible defines marriage in terms of one man and one woman. Yes, several key people in Bible times married multiple wives (although not as many as you think), but the Bible doesn’t condone it. Nor does it purport to hold these guys up as examples for marriage. The underlying premise of almost every passage is that THIS is the material God worked with—flawed, broken, sucky humans like you and me. God put the standard for marriage out there in Genesis, Jesus and Paul underscore it and the rest of the story records how we mess with his directions. And here’s one thing that becomes clear as the story unfolds: polygamy never works and only makes things worse. This happens in story after story.

Q - In your teaching tonight at service on Saturday 9/22, you mentioned that the new testament has one or more references to the meaning of the animal sacrifices performed in the old testament.  Can you call those out for us in your blog?

If I'm being honest, I'm still unclear as to why the animal sacrifice and ritual cleanliness / uncleanliness is part of the old testament. If the answer was just that people of that time had a different culture or different rituals, then I could accept it (or more accurately, dismiss it), but it seems like these acts were influenced by God and the prophets.  Why would God want his people to do these things? They seem completely foreign to what Jesus asks of his followers in the new testament, and I'm struggling to see the logic behind these specific portions of the old testament.  If this is addressed in great detail in the story of God series, then I will look forward to that.  I'm praying that I can come to some understanding on this topic.

A – The NT book that deals with this most extensively is Hebrews. But this subject really permeates the entire NT. For instance, you can’t fully understand or appreciate the Lord’s Supper without understanding the “cutting” of covenants, the need for bloodshed involved in sacrifice and the original Passover. Likewise, the Gospel of John is written with a focus on Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem during various OT prescribed festivals, and Jesus’ teaching in John ties closely to those festivals and how he is the fulfillment of each one. In addition, only John records the words from John the Baptist about Jesus: “The lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” That’s a reference to the sacrificial system and Passover in particular.

The Story of God study deals with the sacrificial system extensively, but not as much with the purity laws.

In actuality, you suggest a lot of this OT purity/ritual stuff is completely foreign to what Jesus taught. I don’t agree at all. It’s preparatory in his teaching. Most of his teaching doesn’t make sense if you ignore the OT. And he never says the OT rituals and such were wrong. In fact, after many of his healings he tells the healed to go and get the proper cleansings and clearances from the priests.

Essentially he does three things consistently when it comes to the ceremonial (purity) laws and the moral laws of the OT: (1) He attacks his contemporaries misunderstandings and abuses of the rituals and laws (including their focus on externals, which the OT did not do; see e.g., Luke 11:42); (2) he deepens their understanding of the laws (as he does in Matthew 5:21-48 regarding several OT laws); and (3) he shows how the laws are fulfilled in him and only by him. There’s more he does, but that’s a start.

One more thing: The exact nature of the rituals were often shaped by God within specific cultures. So, yes, the culture influenced it. If you keep in mind that culture includes language, you see that the whole Bible (literally every word) is conditioned by the culture in which it was revealed and delivered. But there is no other way of doing it. You can’t communicate with anyone outside of culture and time. And the Bible is self-aware of this fact.

So if you easily dismiss anything that is conditioned in some way by the culture, you’ll have to dismiss the entire NT as well. It’s also filled with weird things from our cultural perspective. Theologians speak of things in Scripture that are indeed culturally conditioned (and therefore not binding) and those that are transculturally normative (they apply in any culture even though they are given in a particular culture's language and thought patterns). Think, for instance, of the command to love your neighbor as yourself. The exact meaning of that in the OT referred to loving fellow Israelites. I might be tempted to dismiss it as culturally irrelevant since I’m not an Israelite, or I can see what is clearly there: a love ethic for my life as well. Of course, this isn’t the only passage that talks about love in the Bible either. So as I read the whole Bible it becomes even clearer that this is a central, transculturally normative command.

On the other hand, when it says “greet one another with a holy kiss” there is nothing in the text or the whole Bible to suggest this is transculturally normative. Kissing isn't portrayed as central to the character of God revealed in the Bible or central to the great commandment.  But we do know that this was the common way of greeting each other in Paul’s culture. If you're not sure about this and decide to greet me with a holy kiss, go to youtube and search "will smith slaps reporter." Let that be your warning. :-)

There’s a great chapter on this in a book I highly recommend: How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. Great book by two former professors of mine.

Weekend Message Q&A

Here are the questions I received based on the weekend message.

Q – What is the prayer book you mentioned? While we shouldn’t compare our progress to others, should we compare it to where we were? 

A – The prayer book is called The Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers and Devotions, edited by Arthur Bennett. I love this book. I have to read most of the prayers several times before they sink in, so I stay on one prayer for most of one week. And these kinds of prayers are an acquired taste. They are theologically rich. You have to give it time. Even then they are not for everybody.

Regarding the second question, I think it is very appropriate to compare where you are now as a believer to where you were before you turned to Christ. In fact, it seems to me that the Bible encourages it when it compares our lives in Christ to our lives outside of Christ (e.g., Colossians 2:13; 3:3; 1 Thessalonians 5:5). But when it comes to comparing, say, this year’s maturity to last year’s, I think we have to be careful. I don't have a chapter and verse on this, but I think it it’s best to focus on greater love for God and not on greater obedience when it comes to comparing where we are now to where we were. And I think, in general, the greater our love for God grows, the more we see the depths of our sin.

Back to the prayer book. Here’s a portion of the prayer I’ve been planted on for a few days now. I think it illustrates part of what I was talking about in the message.

I need to repent of my repentance;
I need my tears to be washed;
I have no robe to bring to cover my sins,
no loom to weave my own righteousness;
I am always standing clothed in filthy garments,
and by grace am always receiving change of raiment,
for thou doest always justify the ungodly;
 
I am always going into the far country,
and always returning home as a prodigal,
always saying, Father, forgive me,
and thou art always bringing forth the best robe.

Every morning let me wear it,
every evening return in it,
go out to the day's work in it,
be married in it,
be wound in death in it,
stand before the great white throne in it,
enter heaven in it shining as the sun.

Grant me never to lose sight of
the exceeding sinfulness of sin,
the exceeding righteousness of salvation,
the exceeding glory of Christ,
the exceeding beauty of holiness,
the exceeding wonder of grace.

 

Q – Learned a lot from the message Sunday, thank you! Ya kinda left us hangin tho, over your special favorite corn dog stand. Are you willing to share your discovery with the rest of us?

A – I’d love to share the location. To me, they have just the right amount of corn meal to hot dog ratio and just the right amount of crunchiness. Of course, I haven't tried all the stands, but when I've veered from this one, I've regretted it.

It’s the Corndogs/Lemonade stand not far from the Midway. It's right up the street from the Scotch Eggs (mentioned at the Saturday service) and homemade pretzels. We tried the pretzels for the first time and I think it may be the start of a new yearly tradition.

Weekend Message Q&A

Piece of advice: If you're about to delete a file and it says it will be deleted permanently, make sure you're deleting the right file. I spent about two hours writing this post today. I deleted it. I think I can rewrite it, but it will never be as good. It was the best post ever! It was brilliant. But now it's gone. Oh well, here's a poor substitute for most amazing post ever.

Here are the questions I received about yesterday's message:

Q – (1) In this weekend's message, you talked about how God wasn't being vengeful but was simply hurrying on judgment for decisions that people had already made. That decision being to live on their own and to reject God. If His will was to speed up judgment then, why does he not do the same now? Is Jesus the main difference? Why give us a chance when but not those of Lot's or Noah's times? I guess it falls under the idea of why does God not strike down those who decide to ignore Him? I realize that this is probably something that we don't get to know on this side, but it's one of those things that I've been curious about. (2) What about everyone born before Jesus? Do they not have the chance for salvation? (3) How do we help others prepare for the kingdom of heaven without being shut out? (4) And how do we keep from turning back? I know you mentioned that going deeper in the word helps us to live a life of not turning back but how do we know if we're turning back because we want what we had or if we're turning back because we want those who were there at that time?

A – I took the liberty of numbering your questions since you have several in there.

(1) Actually, ever since Adam and Eve the default mode of God has been to delay judgment. Judgments like the one on Sodom and like the flood are the exceptions in the Old Testament. And God does bring swift judgment in the New Testament as he does in Acts 5:1-11 and as Paul may allude to in 1 Corinthians 11:30. Again, it’s the exception. And we don’t know that he doesn’t do the same thing now from time to time. Unfortunately people look at present day tragedies and pronounce God’s judgment, but that’s not a good idea. It presumes knowledge that those people don’t have.

From a biblical standpoint, the question is why does he delay judgment? The ultimate answer is above our pay grade, but we do know it has to do with his mercy and his bigger redemptive plan (2 Peter 3:8-10).

(2) Romans 1-3 may provide some of the answers to your question. I’ll highlight two. First, Paul says that everyone has the opportunity to know God but everyone suppresses the truth about God. All humans are culpable for their own sins and rebellion against God. Second, Paul says that the Jews who lived before Christ came and put their faith in God (as God’s chosen people) and participated in the covenants to Abraham and Moses (including the sacrificial system that was always pointing to Christ), will be saved.

(3) We help others by pointing them to Christ. We're called to be signposts to Christ in our everyday lives. We announce the Kingdom. One of the most effective ways of doing that is by sharing your own faith story and including the basic gospel in your story. Second, demonstrate the Kingdom by loving others concretely—caring for hurting people, living a life that is focused on serving others, sharing your stuff, etc. Third, avoid self-righteousness like the plague by humbly confessing your sins to others. 

(4) The bottom line is that ultimately we don’t keep from turning back; God keeps us from turning back. The Bible underscores this in countless ways but several passages drive it home. Take a look at John 10:27-29, Ephesians 1:13-14, Romans 8:29 and Philippians 1:6. You are family now. God will not let you go. When he gave you his Spirit, he sealed the deal. You are in his grace. When he saved you he committed to finishing what he started. Your effort is involved, but it’s always an outworking of his grace and all our efforts to stay in Christ flow from grace.

Q - You mentioned in your sermon that God is speeding up what was going to occur
in the OT. How is that supported biblically?

A – That’s not exactly what I said but what I said is not exactly what I wanted to say either. So let me try again: When God brings swift judgment like he does in Sodom, he is, in essence, simply speeding up the inevitable consequences of what we’ve unleashed on ourselves.  In other words, our choice to sin unleashes forces of chaos and disintegration and death and human conflict. When God intervenes, as he sometimes does in the Bible, and he exacts violent judgment here and now, he is actually (and quite simply) speeding up the inevitable. He’s making happen now what inevitably will happen later as a result of our own choices—death and destruction. I don’t know that there is a chapter and verse supporting that idea. It’s more of a theological reflection on what can be observed in the Bible. And the idea is not original with me but has helped me come to terms with these kinds of passages.

Q - Yesterday, you mentioned not looking back that we should look to the Cross. We should lean into grace more to help us. If I understood you correctly, the more we embrace grace the less you look back. Do you have any books that you recommend about grace?

A – Yes, the deeper we embrace grace and lean into it the more we become the kind of people who are not preoccupied with this world or attached to our stuff and our way of life apart from Christ. A book I’d most recommend on grace is The Prodigal God by Tim Keller. But study and reflection on the Bible is one of the primary ways of going deeper with grace, so I also highly recommend participating in our Story of God small group experience. It majors on God’s amazing rescue mission and how the whole Bible tells the story of God’s grace from beginning to end.

Q - Are there Old Testament references to a second coming?

A – Actually, the whole Old Testament points to Christ in obvious and subtle ways (Luke 24:25-27,45-47). Sometimes it’s referring to him in his first coming (e.g., the whole sacrificial system and the suffering servant of Isaiah 53) and other times to what happens at his second coming (e.g., references to putting all things right and a kingdom that lasts forever). The prophets evidently were not able to distinguish between the first and second coming. Theologians compare it to looking at a mountain in the horizon and not being able to see that it’s really two mountains, one shorter than the other but blending to our eyes. So also the prophets would see both events as one, sometimes in the same sentence.  

Okay, I'm seriously disappointed I lost that other post. So sad.