The Aquila Report Archives - Page 18 of 942

Prelude to a Prayer

By Stan Gale — 5 months ago

Nehemiah adopts the posture of one who can make no demands, who will assert no rights. He casts himself upon the good pleasure of the God of heaven. He prays as a leader on behalf of a sinful people, among whom he counts himself. He does not cover up the sin that should disqualify him from seeking God but instead confesses it and runs to God who has extended the scepter of mercy, access, and promise.

O You who hear prayer, to You all flesh will come. (Psalm 65:2, NKJV)
How do you typically begin your prayers? Do you refer to God in the same way each time, perhaps “Father” or “Holy Lord” or “Almighty God”? In the model prayer Jesus taught us, He has us enter the presence of God by addressing Him as “our Father in heaven” and “Father” is a favorite appellation for Him, as can be seen in His high priestly prayer of John 17.
When Nehemiah heard the hard news of the state of his countrymen and of Jerusalem, he was moved to tears and moved to cry out to the “God of heaven,” the living and true God who ruled on high over all things. Now, as he turns to prayer, how does he begin?
He begins with a double name, invoking the generic name for God (Elohim) and the name of covenant bond (Yahweh). He is the God who has entered into personal relationship with a particular people. In using those names it is tantamount to invoking God’s invitation to access, “I am God, your God, and you are My people,” much like we would use the name “Father” to testify to our personal adoptive relationship with God through Jesus Christ.
Read More

.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{align-content:start;}:where(.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap) > .wp-block-kadence-column{justify-content:start;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);row-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-md, 2rem);padding-top:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);padding-bottom:var(–global-kb-spacing-sm, 1.5rem);grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd{background-color:#dddddd;}.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-layout-overlay{opacity:0.30;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kb-row-layout-id223392_4ab238-bd > .kt-row-column-wrap{grid-template-columns:minmax(0, 1fr);}}
.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col,.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{border-top-left-radius:0px;border-top-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-right-radius:0px;border-bottom-left-radius:0px;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{column-gap:var(–global-kb-gap-sm, 1rem);}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col > .aligncenter{width:100%;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col:before{opacity:0.3;}.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18{position:relative;}@media all and (max-width: 1024px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}@media all and (max-width: 767px){.kadence-column223392_96a96c-18 > .kt-inside-inner-col{flex-direction:column;}}

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 63

Are Black People My People?

By Samuel Sey — 5 months ago

The Bible commands us to love Christians, our church members, our families, and our nations in specific ways. But it doesn’t command us to prefer people with our skin colour over others. Black people are not my people, and white people are not your people either. Unlike our ethnicities, nationalities, and religions, our skin colours do not shape our core identities.

On my layover in Amsterdam between my flight from Ghana to Canada, a black man stood beside me at the airport’s arcade. I asked him a question, but he looked bewildered. I repeated the question several times until he finally said, “I do not speak your language.”
I was speaking in Fante, but he replied in English. I was 10 years old, and it was my first time outside of Ghana. He was the first black person I met who wasn’t Ghanaian. We had the same skin colour, but we had different languages, nationalities, cultures, and ethnicities.
He wasn’t one of my people.
White supremacists, woke people, and some versions of Christian nationalists, however, say otherwise. They maintain that black people are my people.
Earlier this week Stephen Wolfe, the author of The Case for Christian Nationalism, said:
“Christianity—as the true religion affirming what is true, good and beautiful— commands you to love all but to prefer your people over other peoples.”
In reply, I said:
“If he means Christianity commands me to prefer Christians over other people, he’s right. If he means Christianity commands me to prefer people with my skin colour over other people, he’s shamefully wrong.”
His preceding and subsequent social media posts suggest he was referring to people who share our skin colours, not people who share our faith. This, of course, isn’t the first time Stephen Wolfe and his group of so-called Christian nationalists have made concerning comments about “race.” Some of these Christian nationalists have embraced a soft version of kinism that is akin to Big Eva’s soft version of critical race theory.
Earlier this month, one of their own produced a “White Boy Summer” video that positively featured Nazi Germany propaganda and white nationalists. One of the people featured in the video is a former pastor who said:
“Why do they keep insisting that belief in racial superiority and inferiority means we’ve denied salvation to inferior races? 19th-c. Southern Christians believed in white superiority, and were more zealous and successful in evangelizing blacks than any “anti-racist” today…In charity we ought to expect this: Christians who humbly recognize their own superiority thereby recognize their special duty to seek the good of their inferiors. This is basic obedience to the fifth commandment.”
Many Christian nationalists celebrated the video. However, this is because some of them were just undiscerning about its racist agenda. However, when Doug Wilson shared his critique of the video, Stephen Wolfe replied:
“A better tactic would be friendliness to these young rightwing guys.”
He’s forgotten that friendship with the world is enmity with God. (James 4:4)
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 43

Those Who Make Them Become Like Them

By Brad Littlejohn — 5 months ago

If for most ancient idolaters it was the human form with its physical qualities that represented their highest conception of themselves, for us as moderns it is the human mind, a calculating rationality or unconstrained will, disembodied and stripped of embodied particularity. Pursuing this ideal, we constructed computers in this image—an image of ourselves as we hoped to be. Whereas ancient idols had mouths but did not speak, Siri speaks but with no mouth, and listens without ears. Having made such images and given ourselves over to them, we have increasingly become like them.

Have you ever stopped, in the middle of checking your notifications for the umpteenth time after some post you thought particularly witty or important, to reflect on how pathetic you must look: measuring your social significance by means of a number next to a heart icon? “137 likes…ooh…138—I’m really somethin’ today.”
Human beings crave social affirmation. There’s nothing wrong with that, on one level; that’s how God made us: “It is not good for man to be alone.” Like all natural desires, it was transformed into an unquenchable thirst by the disordering effects of the Fall, so that we engage in pathological attention-seeking behaviors, from the 3-year-old’s tantrum to the teenage boy’s death-defying-dare to the conquering general’s blood-soaked quest for glory. But buried beneath the often foolish and overwrought expressions of this desires lies a wholesome and very human urge to know oneself as one is known, to be seen and recognized and loved by one’s fellow man—and hopefully to see and recognize and love in return.
But in the digital age, something strange has happened to this fundamental human urge: it has become dehumanized. For human beings, the various means by which we give and receive social affirmation are manifold; indeed, no two are quite alike. I feel a warm glow when I receive tokens of my wife’s love, my children’s affection, my parents’ esteem, my coworkers’ respect, my customers’ satisfaction, etc. But these experiences are not quite reducible to one another, and indeed, we recognize it as a pathology in ourselves when, starved of recognition in one sphere of relationships, we try, leech-like, to suck such recognition out of another relationship—such as when a man thwarted in his workplace demands that his wife make up the difference. But digital technology encourages us—nay, positively programs us—to reduce each of these experiences into one quantifiable interchangeable measure of admiration: a number (or to be precise, two numbers: likes/reactions and reposts/shares). We have traded the infinite shades of qualitative difference between a child’s hug and a colleague’s pat on the back for a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, yes or no, one or zero. We have, in short, computerized ourselves.
As I’ve been reading and reflecting on digital technology over the past few months, a consistent theme has been the ways in which the digital is digitizing us—that is, how our technologies are changing our sense of what it means to be human and remaking us in their image. In debates over artificial intelligence, the question everyone wants an answer to is, “So can we actually create an artificial intelligence that matches human intelligence?” Well, no, we can’t, because human intelligence is always embodied (not to mention ensouled), and thus qualitatively different. There are always two ways of meeting a benchmark, though: you can raise your performance till you clear the benchmark, or you can lower the bar. If we can’t make computers human, we can at least make humans computer-like.
This is a constant theme of Anton Barba-Kay’s A Web of Our Own Making: even as we make virtual reality ever more realistic, the virtual does not lose its distinction from the real: we know that “Facebook friends” is not the same as “IRL [in real life] friends,” that cybersex isn’t real sex.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 42

The ‘Arcissistic EcoSystem Part 1

By Stephen McAlpine — 5 months ago

All ecosystems are in need of renewal and revival. Christian ecosystems especially. And I believe a marker of both renewal and revival is a brave commitment to flush out the toxins within a system whatever the personal cost to you, or the relational ties to others. We need to heed the words of 1Peter 5.

Arcissist NOT Narcissist
I received a lot of feedback concerning my recent post on the difference between what I now term”‘arcissists” and “narcissists”.
There were a few minor quibbles over why we have such a therapeutic culture, and a concern that the term “narcissist” is overused (hint: it is!). But the term “arcissist? Well it seems to fit the presenting issues I am talking about.
Okay, so the bloke (and it’s usually a bloke) might not be full blown narcissist, but he’s got a nasty habit of shredding and bullying anyone in his orbit who dares to challenge him. Or even if they don’t dare to challenge him.
The “arcissist” has a keen radar on everyone else’s issues, and very little on their own. They will pick and pick at your supposed sinfulness, but their rampant bad behaviour? They are – as I have heard it said – just being a little bit grumpy.
And there is a reason for that. In fact there are a number of reasons. The first reason of course is the lack of emotional intelligence in the arcissist themselves. Or perhaps – in theological terms – the presence of ongoing sin that hardens them and deceives them as to their true behaviour.
Arcissistic Ecosystems
But the arcissist is not the primary problem. “What?” I hear you say!, “How can that be?” Simply this: Bullying leaders would not be able to do what they do unless they are at the centre of an ecosystem that at the very least permits their behaviour by turning a blind eye, or encourages it by being the gatekeeper against all criticism.
In other words the arcissist needs an ecosystem in order to first survive and then to thrive. The behaviour and the overlooking of it by others, is reinforcing.
In all ecosystems there are macro and micro participants that keep the system going. So naturally this is also the case in the arcissistic ecosystem. Let’s unpack the macro participants today and see what the wider issues are, and we will look at the micro participants in the next post.
Macro: The Culture “Out There”
Throughout history the primary problem in churches has been the infestation of “out there” values “in here”. In other words the conformity to the world that infects the church. And it’s true of the arcissistic ecosystem as well.
When it comes to church ecosystems the wider culture has too often been allowed to set the tone. Now in a sense this has always been an issue for the church, and it presents in different ways at different times in history.
But in our current time, with its celebrity focus, and its oft-uncritical default commitment to impressiveness over integrity, and its desire to “get stuff done”, this problem has ramped up. All sorts of arcisissts are not only excused, but feted by church ecosystems. And it is having consequences.
When we see the secular world give oxygen to self-purposing, self-focussed and selfish behaviours, then it stands to reason that the water from that ecosystem will leak into the church pond. Especially without good Biblical critique.
We have seen this in the recent past with examples such as Mark Driscoll’s increasing volatility and platform rants. His church put up with it because it aped the wider culture’s commitment to the apex leader who “gets things done”. He also held all of the cultural, if not formal, power within the ecosystem, making it almost impossible, or at least very costly, to bring about change.
That we keep coming around to this arcissistic issue tells us that, unlike 3 John, in which the apostle calls out the toxic leadership of “Diotrophes, who likes to be first”, indicates we have not figured out how to solve it.
With failing attendances, weak leaders, and unclear direction, the modern day Diotrophes is, by contrast, seen as a strong decisive leader (and certainly thinks of himself as one, and is adulated as such by his followers).
But the fruit is so often bitter. The result is so often that other people are hurt and damaged in the process. The ends do not justify the means. It’s hard to see how we get to such leadership from following Christ. But hey, here we are!
Macro: The Culture “In Here”
Of course, just as Jerusalem at its worst back in the days of its idolatrous kings was not such much destroyed from without, as much as hollowed out from within, so too the church ecosystem. Arcissism, where it exists in wider church structures such as denominations, is too often tolerated – and often rewarded – by a system whose aim is to ensure its own survival first and foremost.
Church denominations have to examine themselves, and realise that their own structures may not only be implicitly encouraging such types of leaders, but that they may then be going out of their way to protect such leaders when they behave poorly (again).
There’s a myth that the likes of Driscoll got away with it – and continues to do so – because there are insufficient structures and leadership dynamics to stop him. He’s the biggest player in the house, the house that he himself built.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 47

Why We Should Expect Witnesses to Disagree

By J. Warner Wallace — 5 months ago

Written by J. Warner Wallace |
Thursday, October 10, 2024
I spent the first nine years of my career investigating crimes as a committed atheist. Even then, I would have approved the notion that witnesses who fail to agree on every detail, raise as many questions as they seem to answer and are inaccurate in some detail of the event, could still be trusted as reliable eyewitnesses. Even my old atheist criteria for eyewitnesses would have been sufficient to make the case for gospel reliability. I now know that the gospels actually exceed what I would require to consider them reliable.

I’ve worked more cases involving witnesses than I care to count. A career in law enforcement will put you in direct contact with eyewitnesses on a daily basis, starting with your very first night on the job. After interviewing literally thousands of witnesses over the course of twenty five years, I think I’ve learned something about reliable eyewitness testimony. I want to share three simple characteristics of reliable eyewitness testimony and relate these three characteristics to the Gospels:
Reliable Eyewitnesses Never Agree
In all the cases I’ve ever worked, from simple theft and assault cases, to robberies and homicides, I’ve yet to have a case where the witnesses of the event agreed on every single detail. It’s never happened. I’ve learned that perspective is important, and it’s not just one’s physical perspective that determines what a witness did or didn’t see. When you’re staring down the barrel of a robber’s pistol, you have a tendency to miss certain details that are picked up by the witness who is watching from across the isle of the liquor store. There are many factors that contribute to one’s perception of an event. Physical location, past experience, familiarity with a feature of the crime scene; a witness’ physical, emotional and psychological distinctives play a role in what they see and how they communicate this testimony after the fact. No two people are alike, so no two people experience an event in precisely the same way. If you’ve got three witnesses in a murder case, expect three slightly different versions of the event. Don’t panic, that’s normal. In fact, when three different witnesses tell me the exact same thing, I start to get suspicious.
Reliable Eyewitnesses Raise Questions
As a young, inexperienced investigator, I used to think that an eyewitness would answer all my questions about an event. I wish this were true, but the reality is that for every question an eyewitness answers about what occurred at a crime scene, a new question is often raised. There are times when eyewitnesses even raise more questions than they have answered. I’ve worked a number of cold-case homicides in which an eyewitness account was captured decades ago, at the time of the original investigation. After reading the testimony, I was left with a few troubling questions. How could the crime have occurred like the witness described it? How could the suspect have done what the witness said? There are times when an eyewitness just doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 51

Preaching to the Heart

By Sinclair Ferguson — 5 months ago

We need to return to a true preaching to the heart, rooted in the principle of grace and focused on the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.…And when you have experienced such preaching, or seen its fruit, you will know what true preaching is.

No more poignant or instructive description of the work of the minister of the gospel exists than Paul’s “defensive excursus” in 2 Corinthians 2:14–7:4. Every Christian preacher should aim to possess a good working knowledge of this seminal part of the New Testament, in which Paul simultaneously describes and defends his service as an Apostle of Jesus Christ and a minister of the new covenant. He uses this language explicitly when he affirms, “God has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant” (2 Corinthians 3:6). In what follows, he takes us from the outside of his ministry to its deep internal roots:
Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.
But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that His life may be revealed in our mortal body. So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.
It is written, “I believed, therefore I have spoken.” With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence. All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.
Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:1–18)
All truly biblical preaching is preaching to the heart. Therefore, it is important that we have a clear idea of what “preaching to the heart” means.
The Heart
In Scripture, the word heart only rarely denotes the physical organ. It characteristically refers to the central core of the individual’s being and personality: the deep-seated element of a person that provides both the energy and the drive for all the faculties (e.g., Deut. 4:9; Matt. 12:34). It denotes the governing center of life.
Interestingly, of the 858 occurrences of the Hebrew terms that are translated as “heart,” leb and lebab, almost all have reference to human beings (in distinction from either God or other creatures). Indeed, “heart” is the Old Testament’s major anthropological term.
Modern Westerners tend to think of the heart as the center of a person’s emotional life (hence its use as the symbol of romantic rather than volitional love). But the Hebrew conceptualization placed the emotional center lower in the anatomy and located the intellectual energy center of a person in the heart. Hence, the word heart is frequently used as a synonym for the mind, the will, and the conscience, as well as (on occasion) for the affections. It refers to the fundamental bent or characteristic of an individual’s life.
In this sense, when we think about speaking or preaching to the heart, we do not have in view directly addressing the emotions as such. In any event, as Jonathan Edwards argued with such force, the mind cannot be so easily bypassed. Rather, we are thinking of preaching that influences the very core and center of an individual’s being, making an impact on the whole person, including the emotions, but doing so primarily by instructing and appealing to the mind. Such a focus is of paramount importance for preachers because the transformation and the renewal of the heart is what is chiefly in view in their proclamation of the gospel (cf. Rom. 12:1–2).
This, in fact, is already implied in Paul’s description of himself and his companions as “competent ministers of a new covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6). Built into the foundation of the new covenant is the promise of a transformed heart: “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean. I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart. . . . I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh” (Ezek. 36:25–26).
No matter what circumstances under which we preach the Word of God, no matter to whom we are speaking, insofar as we too are called to be “competent ministers of the new covenant,” our preaching must always have the heart in view.
Threefold Openness
Paul speaks more fully here about his own preaching ministry than anywhere else in the New Testament. One of the key notes he strikes is that his preaching to the heart was marked by a threefold openness:

It involved an openness of Paul’s being, a transparency before God. “What we are,” he says, “is plain to God” (2 Cor. 5:11).
It also implied an opening out of the love that filled his heart toward the people to whom he was ministering. “We have . . . opened wide our hearts to you” (2 Cor. 6:11).
Within that twofold context—his own heart opened vertically toward God and horizontally toward those to whom he was seeking to minister—Paul’s preaching to the heart was also characterized by a disclosing (an opening up) of the truth. He expresses this in an illuminating way when he describes it as “setting forth the truth plainly” (2 Cor. 4:2), what the King James Version describes more graphically as “the manifestation of the truth.”

Thus, just as he is an open book in the sight of God, so also the preacher lays open the integrity of his life to the consciences and hearts of his hearers as though he were a letter to be read by them (cf. 2 Cor. 3:2). But these characteristics are never isolated from the way that we handle the Scriptures, opening up and laying bare their message in both exposition and application. The Corinthians had seen these hallmarks in Paul’s ministry. They were a large part of the explanation for his ministry’s power and fruit. They are no less essential to the minister of the gospel today, if he is to preach with similar effect on the hearts of his hearers.
Preaching to the heart, then, is not merely a matter of technique or homiletic style. These things have their proper place and relevance. But the more fundamental, indeed the more essential, thing for the preacher is surely the fact that something has happened in his own heart; it has been laid bare before God by His Word. He, in turn, lays his heart bare before those to whom he ministers. And within that context, the goal that he has in view is so to lay bare the truth of the Word of God that the hearts of those who hear are opened vertically to God and horizontally to one another.
Paul had reflected on this impact of God’s Word in 1 Corinthians 14, in the context of his discussion of tongues and prophecy in the Corinthian church. Prophetic utterance always possesses an element of speaking “to the heart” (Isa. 40:2). Through such preaching, even someone who comes in from the outside finds that “the secrets of his heart will be laid bare. So he will fall down and worship God, exclaiming ‘God is really among you’” (1 Cor. 14:24–25).
In the last analysis, this is what preaching to the heart is intended to produce: inner prostration of the hearts of our listeners through a consciousness of the presence and the glory of God. This result distinguishes authentic biblical preaching from any cheap substitute; it marks the difference between preaching about the Word of God and preaching the Word of God.
The presence of this threefold openness, then, is most desirable in preaching. When there is the exposition of the Scriptures, an enlarging and opening of the preacher’s heart, and the exposing of the hearts of the hearers, then the majesty of the Word of God written will be self-evident and the presence of the Word of God incarnate will stand forth in all His glory.
Man Small, God Great
There is a widespread need for this kind of preaching. We have an equal need as preachers to catch the vision for it in an overly pragmatic and programmatic society that believes it is possible to live the Christian life without either the exposing of our own hearts or the accompanying prostration of ourselves before the majesty of God on high.
It is just here that one notices a striking contrast between the biblical exposition one finds in the steady preaching of John Calvin in the sixteenth century and preaching in our own day. It is clearly signaled by the words with which he ended virtually every one of his thousands of sermons: “And now let us bow down before the majesty of our gracious God.” Reformed biblical exposition elevates God and abases man. By contrast, much modern preaching seems to have the goal of making man feel great, even if God Himself has to bow down.
So a leading characteristic of preaching to the heart will be the humbling, indeed the prostration, of hearts before the majesty of God on high. This is simultaneously the true ecstasy of the Christian, and therein lies the paradox of grace: the way down is always the way up.
But if, through the preaching of the gospel, we want to see people prostrated with mingled awe and joy before God, the essential prerequisite is that we ourselves be prostrated before Him. John Owen’s words still ring true even after three and a half centuries: “A man preacheth that sermon only well unto others which preacheth itself in his own soul. . . . If the word do not dwell with power in us, it will not pass with power from us.”
Preaching to the heart—through whatever personality, in whatever style—will always exhibit the following five characteristics:

A right use of the Bible. Preaching to the heart is undergirded by our familiarity with the use of sacred Scripture. According to 2 Timothy 3:16, all Scripture is useful (Greek ophelimos) for certain practical functions: for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If it were not for the fact that a chapter division appears in our Bibles at this point (giving the impression that Paul is now changing gears in his charge to Timothy), we would not so easily miss the point implicit in what he goes on to say. In 2 Timothy 4:1–2, Paul takes up these same uses of Scripture (teaching, rebuking, correcting, encouraging in godly living) and applies them. In effect, he says to Timothy, “Use the God-breathed Scriptures this way in your ministry!”
Those who love the richer, older theology of the Reformation and Puritan eras, and of Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Boston, may be tempted to look askance at the modern professor of preaching as he hands out copies of his “preaching grid” to the incoming class of freshmen taking Homiletics 101. But the fact is that here we find Paul handing out the last copy of his own “preaching grid” to Timothy. This is by no means the only preaching grid to be found, either in Scripture or in the Reformed tradition, but it certainly is a grid that ought to be built into our basic approach to preaching.
Thus informed, we come to see that preaching to the heart will give expression to four things: instruction in the truth, conviction of the conscience, restoration and transformation of life, and equipping for service. Let us not think that we have gained so much maturity in Christian living and service that we can bypass the fundamental structures that the apostles give us to help us practically in these areas.
Preaching, therefore, involves teaching—imparting doctrine in order to renew and transform the mind. It implies the inevitable rebuke of sin, and brings with it the healing of divine correction. The language of “correction” (Greek epanorthosis) is used in the Septuagint for the rebuilding of a city or the repair of a sanctuary. Outside of biblical Greek, it is used in the medical textbooks of the ancient world for the setting of broken limbs. It is a word that belongs to the world of reconstruction, remedy, healing, and restoration.
This brings us to another characteristic of the Apostle Paul: a masterful balance between the negation of sin and the edification of the Christian believer, “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” If we are going to preach to the heart, then our preaching will always (admittedly in different kinds of balance) be characterized by these four marks of authenticity.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 45

Colorado Supreme Court Dismisses Lawsuit Harassing Cake Artist Jack Phillips

By Alliance Defending Freedom — 5 months ago

Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, which upheld free speech for creative professionals like Phillips. ADF attorneys asked the Colorado high court to apply that ruling and similarly affirm Phillips’ free-speech rights in this case. Though the Colorado Supreme Court did not decide that issue in this case, 303 Creative provides enduring free-speech protection for Phillips.

Tuesday, Oct 8, 2024
DENVER—The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday to dismiss a lawsuit brought by an attorney who’s been harassing cake artist Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, for more than 12 years.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have been defending Phillips since 2012, when he was first sued for declining to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding because it violated his religious beliefs. Around that same time, the attorney who filed the most recent lawsuit against Phillips first contacted him, calling him a hypocrite and bigot. For more than 12 years now, Phillips has been relentlessly pursued and mocked by government officials and activists who disagree with his views.
“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner. “Free speech is for everyone. As the U.S. Supreme Court held in 303 Creative, the government cannot force artists to express messages they don’t believe. In this case, an attorney demanded that Jack create a custom cake that would celebrate and symbolize a transition from male to female. Because that cake admittedly expresses a message, and because Jack cannot express that message for anyone, the government cannot punish Jack for declining to express it. The First Amendment protects that decision.”
Phillips won his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, when the court found that Colorado officials who punished Phillips acted with hostility toward his faith. That ruling did not address Phillips’s free-speech rights to decline to create custom cakes expressing messages that violate his faith. Now, the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling has ended the most recent lawsuit against Phillips, dismissing the case because the attorney who filed it did not follow the right process. Like the prior win, this ruling does not address Phillips’ free-speech rights.
Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, which upheld free speech for creative professionals like Phillips. ADF attorneys asked the Colorado high court to apply that ruling and similarly affirm Phillips’ free-speech rights in this case. Though the Colorado Supreme Court did not decide that issue in this case, 303 Creative provides enduring free-speech protection for Phillips.
“We granted review to determine, among other issues, whether [the attorney] properly filed [this] case,” the Colorado Supreme Court wrote in its opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina. “We conclude that [the attorney] did not.”
On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ first case—in which he prevailed in 2018 after Colorado tried to force him to create a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—an attorney called Masterpiece Cakeshop requesting that Phillips create a custom cake that would symbolize and celebrate a gender transition. The attorney then called again to request another custom cake, one depicting Satan smoking marijuana, to “correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking.”
Phillips politely declined both requests because the cakes express messages that violate his core beliefs. The attorney then filed the most recent lawsuit, threatening to continue harassing Phillips until he is punished. Phillips serves people from all backgrounds. Like many artists, he decides to create custom cakes based on what they will express, not who requests them.
Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, and the sanctity of life.
Source

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 31

Pursue Healthy Eldership

By Murray Capill — 5 months ago

The elder-led church will only be effective…when their work is undertaken, not as detached directors, but as godly men active in church life and engaged in people’s lives.

Many elder-led churches are broken. Think, for example, about these all-too-familiar scenarios.
Laissez-faire elders: The elders are mere “yes men” to the lead minister. They look to him to be the star of the show and see themselves as gatekeepers there to ensure nothing excessive or terrible happens, and nothing happens too fast.
Divided elders: The pastor is under attack by a new, dominant elder. Quietly but forcefully, he’s undermined the pastor and rallied a couple of elders to see things his way. Church division and pastor burnout are just around the corner.
Micromanaging elders: The elders are active and hands-on. But their hands are on everything. Alongside matters of pastoral and theological significance, they discuss minor things like the coffee machine and staging for the Christmas carols event. They’re overwhelmed and behind because each issue they face has to be worked out from scratch. There’s no big picture of a gospel church in front of them, just a hundred separate issues that need to be addressed now.
To these scenarios, dozens of others could be added: elder-led churches where there’s unresolved conflict, a slow-moving bureaucracy, ineffective busyness, lone-ranger pastors, narcissistic leaders, or gospel-stifling traditionalism.
This litany of failure can make it look as if eldership itself is the problem. Pastor-led churches make progress; elder-led churches don’t. If, however, these church scenarios are examined through a biblical lens, it becomes clear the problem isn’t eldership per se but the way many elder teams work. The Scriptures, by contrast, unfold a picture of eldership that generates compelling and effective leadership for healthy, gospel-hearted churches.
Pathway to Health
Four themes in the Bible’s picture orient us toward what healthy elder-led churches look like.
1. Value eldership.
Eldership is at the heart of God’s leadership plan for his people. Elders are prominent throughout the biblical narrative, with some 100 Old Testament references to elders and a further 60 in the New Testament. Elders were appointed in every church (Acts 14:23) to be pastors (shepherds) and overseers of the flock.
The entire biblical narrative shows that eldership shouldn’t be thought of as an exclusively Presbyterian thing, a pragmatic thing, or a bureaucratic thing—much less a problematic thing—but as a deeply biblical thing. But eldership will only work well in a church when it’s valued by all: the pastor, the elders, and the whole congregation.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 37

Seeing the Face of God

By Bill Elliff — 5 months ago

I cannot imagine the unbounded joy and deep fulfillment of seeing God’s face. It would seem that one look there will explain everything. We will see who He is and understand the height, depth, width, and depth of His love.

There will no longer be any curse and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him. They will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.Revelation 22:3-4
Through the years, it has helped me to consciously enter the Throne Room of heaven when I come to prayer—to mentally and genuinely come, as Jesus told us to do in Matthew 6:6:
But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
This is not some weird, mystical visualization. It is simply meditating on what Jesus told us to do and the multiple pictures of the throne room, the throne, and “One seated on it” that John gives us in the Revelation.
I envision a door that enters God’s throne room. I walk through the door and close it behind me, shutting out everything and everyone of this world. I turn to face the Father to commune with Him.
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.

Post Views: 46

Stuck in Neutral

By P. Jesse Rine — 5 months ago

Written by P. Jesse Rine |
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
In many ways, the Christian academy has entered an uncharted territory, one that will require the fortitude of a pioneering spirit. For the sake of our callings as scholars and practitioners within Christian higher education, now is the time to lay aside our neutral world maps and get to the business of negative world exploration, cartography, and construction.

Leaders in Christian higher education must constantly wrestle with one fundamental question: How can we position faith-based institutions to flourish without losing their souls? While this perennial dilemma has taken various forms throughout American history, its complexity depends upon the degree of discontinuity between Christian orthodoxy and the values of society at large. In times of general alignment, this negotiation is fairly straightforward; in times of opposition, the challenge intensifies.
What, then, are we to make of our present moment? How and to what extent should Christian colleges relate to the wider culture in which they are situated? Conventional wisdom among many leaders within Christian higher education points to a constellation of cultural engagement tactics.
Seek middle ground. Promote pluralism. Exude civility and hospitality.
Articles appearing in the latest issue of Advance, the semiannual magazine published by the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and promoted as “the leading voice of Christian higher education,” illustrate how these tactics are typically justified. In “Stewarding Our Call to the ‘Middle Space’,” Jonathan Schimpf interviews Shirley Mullen, President Emerita of Houghton University and current member of the CCCU’s Board of Directors. Mullen describes the thesis of her new book, Claiming the Courageous Middle: Daring to Live and Work Together for a More Hopeful Future, which argues that Christians have a “particular calling” to function as “agents of active hospitality in a middle space—hosting conversations of ‘translation’ and ‘bridgebuilding’ that allow those on either pole to see each other as fellow human beings and not enemies or abstractions.” Mullen understands this calling as not limited to individuals; it also extends to institutions like Christian colleges and universities: “As believers who are entrusted with the tools of higher education, we also bridge aspects of the current polarization within our culture.”
While Mullen advocates for dialogue as a tool for navigating differences within society, CCCU Chief Communications Officer Amanda Staggenborg argues that difference is itself a social good. In “Meeting the Need for Faith in Challenging Political Times,” Staggenborg acknowledges our highly politicized environment and encourages readers to “lean into challenging conversations with faith and purposeful unity.” And why should the reader take such a personal risk? Because, according to Staggenborg, “inspiring and engaging in pluralism is the goal of a civilized society, both in and outside of higher education.” After reassuring the reader that “what we are experiencing in this modern political and cultural climate is not unique to history,” Staggenborg concludes by asserting that difference could actually be a source of faith: “Christians have found faith, not only in spiritual guidance, but in humanity. The core of a democratic society is the celebration of valuable differences of opinion.”
An essay by Staggenborg’s CCCU colleague, Vice President for Research & Scholarship Stanley Rosenberg, further surveys the current cultural landscape. In “Academic Criticism, Civility, Christian Higher Education and the Common Good,” Rosenberg traces the contentious contours of a public square marked by “incendiary comments, inattentive listening, ego-driven and hostile criticism, and polarized political positions” and lays partial blame for the current state of affairs at the feet of “incivility found in the modern American university.” How should Christian higher education respond? By countering the “damaging phenomenon” of incivility through an embrace of the Chrisitan scholarly vocation, which Rosenberg describes as “a particular form of caring, of expressing love, for our neighbour.” According to Rosenberg, the cardinal virtue of this scholarly vocation is hospitality: “Entrusted with the tools and content of knowledge, we are called to welcome others into the community of knowledge. This extends the grace of participation, profoundly reflects the vision of integration, and expresses a vision for the love of neighbour.”
The common thread running through each of these essays is a confidence in Christian higher education’s ability to maintain its mission and position within the wider academy by adopting a cultural engagement strategy. On the surface, the espoused tactics of bridgebuilding, promoting pluralism, and exhibiting civility and hospitality appear unassailable. Upon closer examination, however, a necessary precondition for the strategy’s efficacy comes into focus: an academic milieu characterized by mutual respect, populated with good faith actors, and committed to institutional diversity. Does a sober assessment of American higher education confirm such a climate, or have national leaders misread the current state of play?
To fully appreciate the dynamics of our present moment, we must first look to the past, for where we are today is far from where we started. The history of American higher education is largely a story of departure from founding commitments. As I’ve detailed elsewhere, the earliest American colleges were thoroughly Christian in nature and built upon a medieval model rooted in the Christian worldview. Over time, however, the American system secularized, beginning with the period following the Civil War. Although Christianity’s influence declined within much of American higher education over the following century, the system as a whole still sought to construct a unified understanding of the world under the banner of modernism, a scholarly project presupposing objective reality. This common intellectual framework fostered a forum where Christian colleges and universities could make the case for their particular truth claims.
The modern order would eventually give way to the postmodern turn, a cultural and philosophical movement that profoundly altered the postsecondary landscape. Instead of viewing language as a stable and unbiased medium of exchange for all individuals, regardless of personal background, postmodernists argued that meaning is inherently tied to one’s particular sociocultural context, and these contexts are inescapably shaped by power relations marked by privilege and marginalization. On the one hand, this reframing of reality resulted in the promotion of diverse perspectives within the academy, a move that appeared to be additive. This was the promise of postmodernism: intellectual discourse could be enlarged without diminishing existing perspectives. On the other hand, the ascendant critical theories that animated postmodernism sowed seeds of discontentment within the academy, which would flower into vines of ideological constriction. This has been the reality of postmodernism in practice: intellectual discourse must be policed to ensure that perspectives promoting oppression are excluded.
This progression within the academy at large—from principled pluralism to ideological gatekeeping—portends an inhospitable professional environment for Christian scholars, whose orthodox theological beliefs are viewed by many as oppressive. This gatekeeping is evident when detractors question elements of the emergent dogma, such as the concept of Christian privilege, which asserts that Christians enjoy certain benefits that accrue from the hegemonic status their religion has achieved in American society. Even the most rational and amiable of critiques can elicit a forceful rebuke.
Take the case of Perry Glanzer, a tenured full professor at Baylor University who has authored a dozen books and more than a hundred journal articles and book chapters. A scholar with particular expertise in the relationship between religion and education, Glanzer recently wrote a piece for the academic journal Religion & Education, a leading venue for publishing research studies that “advance civic understanding and dialogue on issues at the intersections of religion and education in public life.” His article explored complexities that are rarely acknowledged by scholarly treatments of Christian privilege, such as the disparities in experience across various Christian groups and the existence of secular privilege. It is important to note that while Glanzer critiqued certain narratives surrounding Christian privilege, he nevertheless accepted the notion that privilege exists and must be mitigated in order to foster an inclusive collegiate learning environment. His final paragraph concludes, “Overall, student affairs needs to champion and commit to creating the structures and conditions to which a just form of pluralism can flourish.”
Read More

Subscribe to Free “Top 10 Stories” Email
Get the top 10 stories from The Aquila Report in your inbox every Tuesday morning.