In the case of Jehoshaphat, his reforms produce something far more interesting and engaging and serious than what had previously captured Judah’s attention. In what we might consider rather mundane detail, in commissioning teachers to go to the towns and people with an open Bible, this King was shepherding the people wisely and lovingly. Going back to the Bible isn’t a static process or a regressive move. Accepting all those profound ideas about the Trinity and atonement and the incarnation are treasures to wonder and share, not hide away in the too-hard drawer. 

Church must change! Bring on the great reset! Make Church great again!
Sloganeering can sound like a clarion call or like cringe. This self-absorbed need for redefining, refreshing and relevance has captured the attention of many strands of Christian thought and Church growth networks. It may sound new, fresh and revitalising, but there is rarely anything new under the sun. While Churches diagnose the issues with as much concurrence as a circus of entrepreneurs, evangelists and the local university student union,  and while answers are equally disparate, there is a semblance of agreement that in Australia our churches have taken some missteps, while others have leapt over the precipice and into the void.
We’ve had several visitors to church recently who are struck by the fact as a church we read the Bible and preach through the Bible, and we pray. Apparently ,many Melbourne churches don’t see the need to do this. My question for Melbourne churches is this, what are you doing? Who are you listening to? What are you teaching?
As a Church, we’re currently preaching through 1 and 2 Chronicles. After 18 years at Mentone Baptist Church, we were yet to explore this 2 volume work. I decided that 2023 is the year to do so. As I read, prepared, and preached I noticed that one of the recurring themes in Chronicles is this topic of reformation. While aspects of reform are to fore in many of the sermons, we gave it special attention for 2 weeks as we examined the life and times of one of the key reformers in Judah’s history, King Jehoshaphat.
Other than King Solomon, more chapters are dedicated to Jehoshaphat’s reign than any other King in 2 Chronicles. That fact alone caused me to take a good look at his rule and the events that took place under him. 
Jehoshaphat was a reformer. There are principles and lessons about his reforms that are useful as we consider what it means to reform the church today.  As you’ll see, these characteristics are not unique to Jehoshaphat, these features are found consistently throughout the Bible and yet they find vivid expression in this Old Testament period. 
The word ‘reform’ is used in politics and economics and law and education. When reform is announced, it means there’s something wrong, the system is broken or out of date and needs reforming. It requires fixing or renewing. 
Reform is famously used to describe one of the great Christian movements of history to which we owe so much today, the Reformation: with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and best of all, the Baptists! What happened is that throughout the 16th Century, Christians living in different cities and speaking different languages were convicted by God’s word that some of the official teachings and morals of Rome were in error and out of step with the Bible. Across Europe, people went back to the Bible, ad fontes, and God began to reform and renew thinking, theology, education, civics, ethics and more. The Bible again changed the world. 
This notion of reform didn’t however first appear in 16th Century Europe. We find reforms taking place in the Bible, and the reign of Jehoshaphat is one such example.
1. Every New Generation Needs Reform
Jehoshaphat is among many Kings of Israel and Judah who understood that each new generation need reforming. While he doesn’t initiate his reforms as quickly as someone like Hezekiah, he nonetheless commits to returning Judah to God’s covenantal promises. This is set in stark contrast to his northern contemporary, King Ahab, who flew the flag of progress and change.
17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat because he followed the ways of his father David before him. He did not consult the Baals 4 but sought the God of his father and followed his commands rather than the practices of Israel. 5 The Lord established the kingdom under his control; and all Judah brought gifts to Jehoshaphat, so that he had great wealth and honor. 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.
Jehoshaphat might be King but he understands God is God and his role under God is to serve and obey him. So begins the process of removing errant practices and ideas and returning the people to God’s revealed will in his word. 
Reform isn’t about maintaining dead religion or resisting the future or pining for the glory days of film noir or art deco. The Chronicler explains reformation is about devotion to God and a heart for His people. We read how Jehoshaphat’s heart was devoted to God’s commands. There is no distinction for Jehoshaphat between seeking God with his heart and following God’s words. Heart and mind, attitude and action, belong together and move in unison when we love God. We don’t choose between loving God and obeying the Bible. We don’t choose to be a heart Christian or a mind Christian.  
In loving God, Jehoshaphat leads Judah in reformation in these important ways:

He sought God and followed God’s commands
He removes idols
He raises up teachers to teach God’s words to the people of God
He appoints judges for the towns and regions

Jehoshaphat’s reforms include an aspect of the negative, saying no to false worship and removing practices and objects that distorted or altogether replaced the true worship of God. His reforms are also positive, sending out teachers and judges who will bring the people back to God’s words and cause them to live under the covenant.
7 In the third year of his reign he sent his officials … 9 They taught throughout Judah, taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord; they went around to all the towns of Judah and taught the people. (17:7,9)
5 He appointed judges in the land, in each of the fortified cities of Judah. 6 He told them, “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for mere mortals but for the Lord, who is with you whenever you give a verdict. 7 Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.” (19:5-7)
2. We Move Forward by Going Back to God’s Word
Jehoshaphat leads the people not forward and away from God, but forward with God by going back to the word. He is a word-centred leader which is evidenced by him sending out teachers to all the cities and towns of Judah, men who took the Scriptures with them and taught the people.
One of the myths embedded in some missiology and church planting manuals is that to reach people today we need to find new ways and innovations. If I collected $10 for every time I hear talks and blogs and books advocating fresh, relevant and powerful ideas for churches, I’d soon be in a position to buy the Vatican! 
Of course, not everything new in the world and not every innovation is bad and wrong; that would be silly. Mission and Church have a language. I don’t simply mean linguistic and verbal language, but there are communicative signs and symbols in the way we do music and the way we organise church meeting places and the way we connect the gospel with people’s lives and cultural moments. But attached to many plans and dreams for the future, is a hubris and misstep that believes reaching people for Christ today requires new methods and new messages.
New is superior. New is more interesting. New is more authentic.
Of course, this vibe runs deep through many facets of our culture: think art,  music, movies, and even ethics. Ethics today is like experimental art. In places like Melbourne, what’s noticed and praised are new expressions and new definitions for those big questions of life,  ‘who am I’ and ‘what’s life about’. He old old story lacks gravitas, it doesn’t sell tickets, or so we assume.
This thinking is of course myopic. Plenty of new ideas are also disturbing and dangerous. Think of the subject of the movie Oppenheimer: the atomic bomb!
In fact, ecclesial commitment to innovation often creates new problems rather than fixing old ones. The consumer bent model of church that provides a cinematic experience or the moshe pit frenzy, the slick preaching that feels like a Netflix special, or the stripped back lounge church where we don’t preach or sing or do Bible because that creates awkward conversation.
Neither am I not arguing for traditionalism or conservatism. We don’t need to clean out the organ pipes and take classes to understand thee and thou. The tie is not more faithful than the t-shirt, or jeans over the dress. It’s not that one hour on Sunday is holier than 2, or a 50-minute exposition more faithful than 20. Within God’s given shape for church, there is great flexibility and freedom. And yet Jehoshaphat understood that faith has particular content and contour which shapes all of life. 
The shape and trajectory of the local church is far less glamorous and sounds way less cool and exciting and all the other adjectives we use to appeal to our congregation’s hearts, time and money.  And yet, it is far more substantial.
Read More
Related Posts:

In the days of Jesus, it was not the Lord who disturbed the peace and purity of the Old Covenant Church, but it was pharisaical practices and deceptive use of language that disturbed her. Likewise in our day, it is not those who insist on the plain meaning of language who disturb the peace and purity of the church; it is those who seek to skirt around the “plain and common sense of the words” (cf. WCF 22:4) who trouble Israel.

I was reared Lutheran (ELCA). In my experience growing up and attending several different Lutheran congregations, the worship was fundamentally the same.[1]
Regardless of whether we attended a relatively conservative or relatively liberal congregation, the order of worship essentially did not change. It did not even matter whether we went to the “Contemporary Service” or the “Traditional Service,” for both shared the same basic structure. This was not because the various congregations shared the same theology or worldview, but because the congregations all followed one of the various “settings” in either the Green, Maroon, or Blue Hymnal along with the lectionary.
As a young person, it seemed to me the ELCA was united by a shared worship experience or order of worship. This observation held up even across worship styles and the theological spectrum.
In the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), our unity comes not because we share one common liturgy; we have no prescribed liturgy that comes from a denominational publisher or is imposed by the “Headquarters” (and according to some, there is no PCA Headquarters).
This is due – at least in part – to our Puritan heritage; the Westminster Assembly opted not to produce a “Prayer Book” dictating the forms of worship across the Three Kingdoms. Instead, the Assembly produced the Directory for the Publick Worship of God, which set forth “the general heads, the sense and scope of the prayers, and other parts of publick worship…” The Directory described generally what was to be done in worship along with the manner, focus, and general content of each part of the worship.
The unity in the PCA regarding worship, then, flows not from the imposition of a liturgy or lectionary, but a shared theology regarding worship and ministry, which is reflected in our mutual agreement to follow the rules and prescriptions set forth in our Book of Church Order.
In short, unity in the PCA is not the result of every elder and every congregation doing everything the same way (i.e., absolute conformity), but because of our shared theology and our compliance with the same theological rules and principles to govern our practice. We are bound together by our vows to uphold the same theological standards, and so our unity is nonetheless expressed in our diversity.
This system works well when elders and church courts operate in good faith and with sincerity and integrity in their words and dealings with each other. As Postmodernism seeps into the Church and impacts how even Christians understand and use language, this arrangement is becoming increasingly tenuous.

Jesus and the Pharisees

In the days of Jesus’ earthly ministry, the Pharisees were respected by Jewish society at large and admired for their careful preservation of Jewish culture. The Pharisees were revered for their reputation of strict obedience to the Law of Moses. But Jesus exposed their true nature as latitudinarians, as men who want broad license when it comes to (dis)obedience.
Jesus warned His disciples about the Pharisees: they were religious hypocrites.
Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms shall be proclaimed on the housetops. (Luke 12:1–3)
The Pharisees were one way on the outside: strict, pious, and sanctimonious; they gave off the appearance of grave concern for compliance with the Law of Moses and the Traditions of the Fathers. But Jesus foretold: the hidden guile of their hearts will be revealed.
Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for twisting the plain reading of God’s Law in order to circumvent it:
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or his mother, “Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban”’ (that is, given to God)—then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mark 7:9–13)
The Pharisees contrived a system whereby a person could be excused from aiding his father or mother if he had stipulated that upon his death all his possessions would be dedicated to God (Corban). Sinclair Ferguson describes the result:
The ruling of the Pharisees was that nothing could be done, even to alleviate sickness. The tragedy was that the Pharisees actually led those they advised to breach one of the great commandments. Under the guise of religious faithfulness, they encouraged disobedience to the law![2]
Pharisees of the First Century excelled at appearing religious while concealing the latitude, broadness, and license with which they approach the Truth. Pharisees defy God’s Law while at the same time appearing to be scrupulously devoted to it.
Pharisees did this not only with God’s Law, but with their own promises. The Gospels show us how Pharisees used language with both nuance and precision to minimize their duties. Many were taken in by their ruse, but the Lord Jesus Christ exposed them:
Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? (Matthew 23:16–19)
Do you see how clever the Pharisees were with their use of language? If they happened to make a vow they didn’t want to keep or had an obligation they did not want to fulfill, they could simply claim the latitude to disregard it by asserting the vow was not by the gold of the temple or the gift of the altar. They created new rules, new distinctions to undermine the fundamental principles of the Law.
Jesus rebuked this line of thinking in His Sermon on the Mount and commanded people instead to submit to the plain meaning of words: Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5:37)
The King’s words issue a strong warning for those who play fast and loose with language. The latitude the Pharisees presumed for themselves by words was explicitly condemned by Jesus as, comes from evil.
Far from being strict and rigorous in their devotion to God, the Pharisees abused language to give themselves a license to disregard God’s word, enrich themselves, and enhance their personal ministries.
Read More

[1] In the Lutheran congregation of my baptism and formative years, we used the Green and the Maroon; when we moved to Ohio we were part of several congregations. It didn’t matter whether we were at the hip church plant in the high school cafeteria, or the liberal congregation in Mentor or the relatively conservative Finnish Lutheran Congregation in Fairport Harbor, or even the awkward-college town congregation, the worship was pretty much the same. The hymns and tunes might be different, but what we did in the worship service was largely the same. The liturgy of the various ELCA congregations we attended largely followed the “Settings” contained in the Lutheran Book of Worship (Green) or one of the later hymnals such as the very creatively entitled, Hymnal Supplement 1991 (Maroon) or in the With One Voice (Blue).
[2] Sinclair Ferguson, Let’s Study Mark (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1999), 105.
Related Posts:

It is an irony that the very devices that are causing us so much stress—through non-stop social media, doom-scrolling the latest pandemic or war news, the fear of missing out on what is going on right now—have also become pacifiers that make us less likely to actually do something.

(LifeSiteNews)—A Saturday column in the Washington Post posed an unsettling question: “Are smartphones serving as adult pacifiers?” It begins with the story of a UPenn assistant professor observing that while working on her PhD, she often reached for her phone when she was stressed. “Just holding it made me feel good,” Shiri Melumud said. “It gave me a sense of ease or calm. It was similar to children who seek out their pacifiers when they are stressed. For many of us, our phone represents an attachment object, much as a security blanket or teddy bear does for a child.”
At first glance, the comparison doesn’t seem apt. After all, our smartphones often cause us active stress — social media companies intentionally use anger, fear, division, lust, or loneliness to monetize our attention and drag our eyeballs past more ads to keep their tabs running higher. But Melumud’s comparison went further. Like children, she noted, we often “become frantic” when we misplace our omnipresent smartphones, which serve as digital security blankets. We use them constantly, and for everything. We route our lives through these devices.
But as it turns out, the role of smartphones in our lives may be even larger than we thought. According to the Post: “[S]cientists studying the relationship between people and their smartphones also have come up with additional insights in recent years about how people behave when using them, including discovering that people can draw needed comfort by their mere presence.” In short, we genuinely form “a deep personal connection with our phones” that become, in some senses, extensions of our personalities—and we open up more on our phones than in other spheres of our lives.