Tim Challies

This is the best kind of post, in my opinion: Where I get to ask a few questions and let someone else do all the work of answering them. Particularly, when the someone else is smarter than me.

That was the case when I got to do a little conversation / interview with Tim Challies. Click here to go to the interview at Challies Dot Com or read the premise below and then head on over.

In NHL hockey politics (which is big news here in Canada) there has been lots of talk over the last couple years about “the code.” Rumor has it that there is some moral code that guides how players hit each other or when they fight. Supposedly everyone knows it and it is universally seen as “dirty pool” when someone breaks this code. However, whether the code actually exists is a matter of debate.

It’s clear that for the average blogger with a readership of 20, anything is fair game. You can say whatever you want about whomever you want in whatever way you want whenever you want because only he and his mom will read it. But I think a lot of people suspect that there is a “code” in the evangelical blogging world. There are certain places you cannot go, certain things you cannot say, certain people or ministries that you cannot criticize.

I wanted to actually explore this a little bit, so I took the following questions to the biggest blogger I know, Tim Challies. I wanted to find out, “Is there a ‘code’ amongst big-name bloggers?”

'The Code' in the Christian Blogosphere: An Interview with Tim Challies.

Post from: Julian Freeman

An Interview with Tim Challies

Related posts:

1. Audio Review of ‘the Shack’ by Tim Challies On Monday at the Toronto Pastors Fellowship, during the Q&A,...
2. The Heir Apparent to Challies.com? Okay, so maybe he's not quite at Challies status yet,...
3. Sermon Prep and Preaching: An Interview with Pastor Paul W. Martin Recently for my homiletics class, I was given the assignment...

Scoldings are hard to hear. Especially when you feel misunderstood.

I'm really having a hard time obeying Tim Challies. He told us that we need to listen to John MacArthur. MacArthur has begun a series critiquing the 'Young, Restless, and Reformed' movement and Tim says we need to listen to him because he's older, wiser, and proven. He has perspective and experience that we do not. He has seen more, lived more, and earned the right to speak.

I agree. But man, it's hard to hear.

I talked to Tim about it. The best analogy I could give him (ironically enough) is that of a young adult being scolded by a parent. When I read MacArthur's post I can't help but feel that he's the dad who is disappointed in how I've turned out (i.e. I'm not like him) and I'm the son who thinks, 'My father just doesn't get me.'

MacArthur's opening comments about the positive things in the movement feel condescending -- you know he is about to lower the boom. And then he does. And it's so predictable. When Tim first mentioned to me that MacArthur would be doing this series the first thing that came into my mind was this: 'He's going to tell us to dress in suits.' And then I thought, 'Don't be so harsh. Go in with an open mind. Be ready to hear.' So I read. And this is what I read:

But for heaven's sake don't dress for hardball. HCo. clothes and hipster hair are essential tools of contextualization. The more casual, the better. Distressed, grunge-patterned T-shirts and ripped jeans are perfect. You would not want anyone to think you take worship as seriously as, say, a wedding or a court appearance. Be cool. Which means (of course) that you mustn't be perceived as punctilious about matters of doctrine or hermeneutics. But whatever you do, donot fail to pay careful attention to Abercrombie & Fitch.

And yes, the italics are his. The one paragraph italicized and set apart from the rest. And it's about clothes. Really? And then he adds this:

I sometimes think no group is more fashion-conscious than the current crop of hipster church planters—except perhaps teenage girls.

Was that really necessary? Is that really going to win a hearing with the crowd he's 'admonishing'? Or is it merely a dig so that all the MacArthurites around the world can rejoice that they've struck down another foe?

I feel like he doesn't get me. It seems like he's so angry at Mark Driscoll that he hasn't taken the time to get to know me. Like the father who thinks his son is the same as the rock stars on MTV. That's Driscoll, not me.

Sure, for some fashion may be a thing. But it's not for me. I just don't care about clothes, as long as things are done decently and in order. Even his analogies fall short. A lot of people in our generation don't wear suits to weddings or to court. Or to funerals for that matter. It's not that I pay careful attention to Abercrombie; it's just that I don't think what I wear to church is nearly so crucial to the gospel as you.

This series seemed to me like it could be a really good thing. I honestly was looking forward to reading it, once I preached some truth to my heart. But this tone and these opening observations make it hard. Very, very hard.

But now here's the most frustrating part for me. When a wise parent scolds, the wise child listens. Even when the child feels self-assured. In life I've seen this. Things that older parents and older Christians have told me -- though I didn't believe them when I was younger -- have proven to be true as I've grown up. And I'm sure, in some senses, even though I may hate what MacArthur says now, I need to grin and bear it. I know we need to grow up as a movement. I know I need to grow up as a man. And if a proven man like MacArthur can't scold me, then who can?

If I listen only to those who agree with me, is that to my credit? Even the pharisees do that...

Post from: Julian Freeman

You Just Don’t Get Me…

Related posts:

1. Five Thoughts & a White Flag: Now Time to Listen Five quick wrap-up thoughts before I wave the white flag,...
2. The Church Benefits when the Pastor Preaches Tim Challies has been live-blogging the T4G Conference. There have...

I'm thankful for the discussion on the passage, which is tough on any understanding, so I thought I'd contribute my 2 cents. Here's the passage in question:

11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control. (ESV)

The Context

Before getting to verse 15, let me offer a word on the passage. Paul is very clearly addressing the church with very plain, straightforward instructions on how they are to function in a normative sense. He is hoping to come to them soon to give these instructions in fuller detail, but in case he is delayed, he wants them to know how to behave right away (1 Tim 3.14-15).

Furthermore, all these instructions on how the church is to operate (their 'godliness') is to be built on the foundation of the 'mystery' of Christ, which is the gospel (1 Tim 3.16). That's what he's doing in this whole section of the book, so that's what we can expect to find here. In other words, we won't here find temporary fixes based on temporary principles, nor will we find allegories or metaphors, but plain pastoral instruction on how to behave because of the gospel.

The Instructions

Now, to our section. Verses 11-12 give the instructions: women must not teach or have authority over men, but should learn quietly, with all submissiveness. Now, don't miss the obvious. Paul actually commands women to learn in the churches. That is stunningly ground-breaking. Women were not typically allowed to learn, but Paul here commands it. He wants women who care about theology because they love their God. Nevertheless, they are to learn in a manner fitting their role as women.

The Reason

If verses 11-12 give the instructions then verses 13-14 give the reason for the instruction. Paul, a wise pastor (like a wise parent) won't give blanket instructions with a 'because I say so' attitude to a church that loves him. If they are to obey God in a way that honours him, they need to know why this type of behaviour honours him. So he expresses that this was always God's order--it's the way God made it. Why did God make it like that? He doesn't answer here. The mind of God is the mind of God. But we know what we need to know to honour him: he made it this way on purpose, and we'll do well to keep it that way.

What's significant about God's order in this context, however, is that it was inverted in one famous instance: the fall of humanity. There Satan dishonoured God by ignoring his order, and encouraging Eve to do the same. When Paul says 'Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived,' he's not saying outright that Adam wasn't deceived, and still less is he saying that women in general are more gullible than men. Anyone with a half a brain and a few years' worth of living under their belt knows that there are just as many gullible men out there as women. What is Paul getting at then? In saying that Eve was deceived, he's emphasizing that it was Eve that Satan came to; it was Eve who was tempted; it was the woman who took the lead. Satan inverted God's roles and brought destruction and death to all mankind.

So the instructions are don't invert God's order in the male-female relationship in the church. And the reason is that this is the way Satan operates to bring disorder and destruction. But again, as the gospel-centred pastor that Paul is, he will not simply draw out principles and command them without rooting them in the gospel (remember the pattern of 1 Tim 3.14-16). That would be to motivate by law, not gospel, and in the NT it is grace that compels obedience (cf. Rom 6.1-14). So verse 15 offers the gospel hope which is to undergird all of our actions in maintaining role distinctions within the church.

The Gospel-Hope which Compels Endurance

Paul, building on his case from Genesis 2-3, recalls that even the curse (which would bring a competitive striving for ruling the home between the woman and her husband) still brought a promise of deliverance through childbearing (Gen 3.16). Immediately after the curses, comes these words: 'The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living' (Gen 3.20). Before the curse and after the curse, God's plan was unchanged--women had a role; but it will be cursed with pain now, so that they must endure. Mary would ultimately fulfill this purpose and promise, giving birth to the Saviour of the world, who delivers us from the curse (Gal 4.4-5). The creation of woman in the image of God, the promise of the seed of the woman bringing salvation, and the coming of the Saviour from a woman all give nobility to that role. Paul is reminding the Ephesian women that this is no second class calling, but was the role and the means essential for bringing salvation to men, women, and children worldwide. They will do well to follow in the pattern set in creation and in redemption.

As for the word 'saved,' I think it is best to take that in the typical Pauline sense of 'salvation from sin and judgement.' But it's important to see that it's in the future tense. He is holding out the completion of the work of salvation in a holistic sense--you will be saved, if you endure. The work of salvation will finally be accomplished, if you persevere, content in your role. This fits well with the curse-redemption motif, and with the Satan-temptation motif as well. Just a couple chapters later Paul says, 'So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. For some have already strayed after Satan (1 Tim 5.14-15).' There again we have a reference to biblical femininity and being 'saved' from the temptations of Satan who would induce discontentment and uprising from the God-ordained role. Just as Eve would have been saved, and just like younger widows will be saved, the women of the church will be saved by contentedness in fulfilling their role.

But the trouble with this, of course, is that it seems to make childbearing and role-fulfilling a work necessary for salvation. But the remainder of the verse takes care of that. These women will be saved as they persevere in 'faith, love, and holiness.' Those are important concepts, as related to salvation within the letter of 1 Timothy. Paul has already said that the aim of his gospel-protecting charge is 'love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience (holiness) and a sincere faith' (1 Tim 1.5). That only comes from the gospel. Those things that women are called to persevere in are only found in the gospel. Again, in 1 Tim 1.13-14, Paul says of himself, 'though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy … and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.' So even the apostle Paul had no other hope of holiness, faith, and love, than what is found in the gospel Christ Jesus. The gospel which was, after-all, first prophesied to a woman (Gen 3.16) and first witnessed by women at the tomb (Luke 24.10-11).

Conclusion

So what am I saying? That Paul is laying out a gospel-hope as the foundation for living in godly submission as a Christian woman. Christian women, though called to submission in their role, and denied the role of teacher in the church, are no less human and are in no more need of salvation than men. Their role is dignified, honourable, pleasing to God from the beginning of creation to now, and was used powerfully by God in the redemption of humanity. Women are, at the end of the day, to be saved in the exact same way as men--even the apostle himself: clinging to the gospel of Jesus, and walking in a manner worthy of that gospel.

The 'self-control' he reminds them of, then, is merely a concluding word, noting that all of what he has written to women from verse 9-15 can only be carried out as they use gospel-gained self-control to persevere in their role, thus saving themselves from the temptation of Satan and the judgement that follows it.

Again, at the end of all the debate, I really don't think that the practical outworking of all this will be much different from this interpretation than from Tim's or Mary's, but I do think this is probably the best way to understand Paul's line of reasoning in this text.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Saved Through Childbearing (1 Tim 2.15)

Related posts:

1. Doctrine and Love This morning I was blessed in my reading of 1...
2. Egalitarian or Complementarian: How to Decide? Both the complementarian and the egalitarian positions ultimately must stand...
3. The Gender-Issue Landscape Seeing as how I've been giving some really broad, yet...

What better New Years resolution could there be than to spend more time hearing from God in his word?

As you may or may not remember, last year I posted a Bible reading plan that I had put together. I was thrilled to have a few brothers and sisters eager to use it. I even got the big thumbs-up from uber-blogger extraordinaire, Tim Challies.

This year I made a few revisions to that plan (largely to the order of the reading for the NT books). As I've had a couple people ask, I thought I’d post the new plan here for this year for any more people who are still looking for a Bible reading plan for 2011.

You can download the 2011 Bible Reading Plan here.

• Reading Through the Bible (2011)

While there are certainly myriads of Bible reading plans out there, I’ve found this one pretty helpful. Here are some of the features of it.

• You will find that you are reading through the OT and the NT simultaneously. That helps keep you from getting too bogged down at certain points.
• OT prophets are placed in (roughly) where they would have ministered chronologically. This helps break up the monotony of reading through huge chunks of narrative and prophets, by intermixing the two. It also helps you understand the historical and redemptive context for the prophets.
• The NT is organized into bodies of literature. You begin with the the Petrine body of literature (Mark, which was sourced from Peter's eye-witness account, and Peter's epistles). Then you read Matthew and the other books written particularly for Jews. Next, with Luke-Acts and Paul's epistles, you read through material written for Gentile audiences. You will conclude the year with the Johannine body of literature (all the books written by John).

Overall, the variety and structure hopefully helps to ‘change things up’ enough that it doesn’t feel like every other time you’ve tried to read through the Bible.

Let me know if you’ve got any questions / comments / suggestions for improving the plan for next year!

And just as a PS, here's Piper talking about the Bible. I offer it as a little 'kick in the pants' to get reading!

Post from: Julian Freeman

Bible Reading Plan for 2011

Related posts:

1. Bible Reading Plan for 2010 Pretty much any Christian who has lived for a little...
2. Bible Reading Plan for 2009 Pretty much any Christian who has lived for a little...
3. Reading Leviticus If you're on my Bible reading plan (there are at...

If you haven't checked it out yet or haven't looked in a while, make sure you go look at Good News for Toronto.

Post from: Julian Freeman

The Heir Apparent to Challies.com?

Related posts:

1. Evangelism in the City of Toronto Here are a few links you might be interested in...
2. An Interview with Tim Challies This is the best kind of post, in my opinion:...
3. Good News for Toronto! Some of you may remember that a while ago Paul...

Note that this review was given off-the-cuff in a Q&A session. Tim has done a thorough review of the book for you to read here.

But, if you're lazy and would prefer to listen to a 4 minute audio review, rather than read one, you can download the audio review here.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Audio Review of ‘the Shack’ by Tim Challies

Related posts:

1. Free Audio Resources from ChristianAudio.com Every month ChristianAudio.com gives away a coupon code to download...
2. Tim Challies’ Admonition to Toronto Pastors Yesterday was the March meeting of the Toronto Pastors Fellowship--and...
3. An Interview with Tim Challies This is the best kind of post, in my opinion:...

Friend and fellow church-member, Tim Challies, brought the charge, 'Pastor, Train Your People to Think Biblically!' The audio and text are now both available online. Click here to check out the paper and the mp3.

Here's an excerpt:

I think we ought to pause to draw out this point just a little bit. One of the areas where discernment most often goes awry is in this area of speaking truth with love. Those who emphasize discernment are typically able to voice the truth; it is love that is far too often lacking. Many ministers, and perhaps even you, can testify to the damage done to churches in the name of discernment. Just recently pastor James MacDonald wrote that he has seen more damage done to the church by Christians with the gift of discernment than by anyone else. Many ministers have erred themselves in this regard, emphasizing truth at the expense of love. It is here that we should remember the Bible’s injunctions to remain childlike. We can go back to 1 Corinthians 14:20 and see Paul’s exhortation to “Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.” When it comes to what is evil, we need to remain as little children, being innocent toward all evil things. Too many people who emphasize discernment spend inordinate amounts of time seeking out evil, dwelling upon evil, all in the name of refuting it. There is great danger in filling our hearts and lives with what is evil. So as you train your church in discernment,  do so in a way that encourages and edifies rather than in a way that tears down and destroys.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Tim Challies’ Admonition to Toronto Pastors

Related posts:

1. Toronto Pastors Conference 2009: Building Healthy Churches We are thrilled to announce that registration for the 2009...
2. Audio Review of ‘the Shack’ by Tim Challies On Monday at the Toronto Pastors Fellowship, during the Q&A,...
3. Resources for Pastors I can't believe that the Toronto Pastors Conference is less...

But really, I haven't posted because of the usual culprit: The Tyranny of the Urgent. Busy-ness has come to town again, and things get dropped. That stinks, but it appears at this point to be life.

In some ways I'm envious of Martha's situation (read the story). The text says she was 'distracted with much serving,' while her sister 'sat at Jesus' feet.' Serving is good. Sitting at Jesus' feet is better.

I'm envious of Martha because Jesus was there, and he could tell her. She may have wasted a day in distraction, but she was able to learn what was best for her in a moment. Jesus made it clear what she should have done; what her priorities should have been.

From talking to several brothers and sisters from GFC over the past couple weeks I've been overwhelmed by this reality: life is full of good things. People are busy. They are 'distracted with much serving' as they do everything good... even things that are commanded.

But the reality is that some things are good, some things are better, and some things are best. Martha learned that, and so must we I.

So what should I be doing? What should my priorities be? When things get busy, what should get dropped? Our culture lies to us: it says that busy-ness and productiveness determine worth. If you want to be important, you must be busy. Busy=important. Our flesh lies to us: it says that we are able to get everything done. There is no need to prioritize or put limits on what we take on, since busy=important and I want to be important, therefore I should be busy and get everything done. No wonder we drink lots of coffee. We believe that nothing should ever get dropped, because we're sufficient.

I believe the lie far too often. I need to learn to drop things--even good things--for the sake of what is best. The first step there is humility to actually say, 'I can't get everything done.'

How do I determine what is best? I read the Word and let God's truth determine priorities. So first of all, I need discernment: how do I prioritize being a Christian husband, father, pastor, friend, son, grandson, brother, etc. But, I would argue, that's definitely doable. The part that's even harder still is actually creating--and sticking to--a schedule that reflects these priorities and doesn't create sinful anxiety. I've got a long way to go.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Good / Better / Best

Related posts:

1. Good for My Humility… ? This morning I lost at squash. That's normal. How badly...
2. Want to Give a Good Christmas Gift? Today on his 'Cheap Seats' blog, CJ Mahaney has some...

The move titled Fireproof (website, Challies dot com review) will be released all throughout the States (but apparently not in Canada) in two weeks. I was able to go preview this movie with TIm back in July--and thoroughly enjoyed it.

I'll be the first person to say that I was not expecting much. I was expecting even less when I heard that all the actors in the movie were volunteers and amateurs (i.e. they are not paid for acting in this movie). I expected less still when I heard that the movie company was started by a church. But when the movie began, I was very pleasantly surprised.

The action scenes were phenomenal--especially given the budget with which the film was made. The acting was quite good through most of the movie (although, admittedly, some of the secondary characters were noticeably amateur). The plot was somewhat predictable, but intriguing nonetheless, and there are one or two great little twists that make it just that much more of a tear-jerker by the end.

I'm no movie critic, but really, neither are you if you're reading this, so take my word for it: this is a great date movie. Take your significant other out and enjoy this movie. It ties marriage and our need for Christ together quite well. Even the gospel presentation is remarkably well done, considering it's context in a movie.

Check out the trailer below.

Post from: Julian Freeman

Fireproof, the Movie

Related posts:

1. News on the Release of Fireproof in Canada Finally, some good news on the release of Fireproof, the...
2. Update / Info on Fireproof Showing in Toronto A quick update on the showing of Fireproof here in...
3. Fireproof Playing in Toronto Some time ago I had the privilege of seeing the...

If we reject an over-emphasis on God's love as the basis of his character, we run the the risk of focusing too much on his justice or transcendence. If we seek to reject the feminist tide of our culture and hold to biblical distinctions between male and female, we run the risk of keeping women back from the legitimate ways that they are to serve and minister in the body of Christ. The examples are endless, and for every false doctrine there is an equally-wrong opposite reaction offered in an attempt to correct it.

Tim Challies made a comment once, when reviewing a Brian McLaren book, that McLaren appears to love Jesus, but to hate God (i.e. the Father). Bruce Ware made a nearly identical statement in a theology course I took with him recently. They both made the statement because... well... it's true. But here's what concerns me--I wonder how far we are from being the same.

I would never suggest that anyone at GFC or in our circles hates the Father. But I do wonder how our love for him compares to our love for Christ.

For whatever reason, the tide of our Christian culture seems to be waxing strong in our love for and devotion to Christ. Perhaps because of the resurgent emphasis on biblical as opposed to systematic theology. Maybe it is the fact that we tend to focus more on the fulfilment of our salvation, rather than the promise and story leading up to it. Maybe it is our culture's disdain of authority (and especially authority held by a male, patriarchal figure). Maybe it is just the fact of Christ's 'like-us-ness' that makes it easier for us to imagine him. Regardless of the reason, it is far more common to hear a Christian these days talking about their love for Christ than it is to hear a Christian talk about their love for the Father.

Growing in our love for Christ is always a good thing. But growing in our love for Christ at the expense of our love for the Father is not a good thing. But is this a genuine problem?

Think through the songs you sing in church. Think through the Bible reading you like to do most. Think through your conversations you've had recently with fellow believers. How central to your conversation, your reading, or your worship is Father himself, distinct from the other members of the Trinity? Are the affections of your heart warmed the same way when you think of God the Father as when you think of Jesus?

It was the Father's will to create. It was the Father who chose us to be in Christ before the foundations of the world. It was the Father who planned in eternity past to send Christ, the Father who promised Christ, and the Father who carried out that plan. It was the Father's will to crush Jesus to save you. It was the Father who had to withhold his wrath for thousands of years and then bear it all on his only true Son, thus breaking an eternity of perfect union and unbroken fellowship. It was the Father who looked away from Christ in anger in order to look to you with grace.

It was the Father's plan to send his true Son to make you an adopted Son. It is the Father who gives you his Spirit. It is the Father who holds the king's heart in his hand, who governs all this according to the counsel of his will, and who will bring about the end of all things in the fulness of time. It is the Father's throne on which Christ sits, and to whom Christ will return the kingdom at the end of time. 

How is your love for the Father?

Post from: Julian Freeman

Beware the Pendulum

Related posts:

1. The Primacy of Praise to the Father Sunday's post reminded me of something that Dr Ware taught...
2. The Heavenly Father There was a time in my Christian life when I...