Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 186

Why I Have Cooled On Multisite

I have been back and forth on the multisite question. When I first heard of the idea years ago it sounded crazy. "Pastors preaching by a recorded video or by a live feed? That's hardly church." But as I studied and thought about the issue more I came to understand why some churches chose multisite. It can steward the talents of the preacher. It can save money. It allows a church to get bigger (in one sense) without getting bigger (in another sense). And it gives you another beachhead for ministry.

With these positives I was happy to see our church explore the option of multisite over a year ago. Call me indecisive, but I've now swung back in the other direction. I can't prove multisite is wrong. In fact, it may be the best option in some situations, especially as a temporary measure. But something I read from Martyn Lloyd-Jones cemented in my mind a crucial weakness of most multisite approaches. New technologies and new methods always have trade-offs. Sometimes the pluses outweigh the negatives. And as I think about it more, multisite has one huge negative I don't want to live with unless I absolutely have to.

All along my hope was that multisite might be possible by a "circuit-rider" approach whereby I (or whomever) would still preach in person at each location. Some multisite churches use that approach, but I don't know of any personally. Other multisites use different local preachers from week to week. But most use some kind of video, either pre-recorded or streamed. It seems that the long-term strategy for a growing church committed to a primary preaching pastor involves video at some point. I don't think such an approach is sinful, but as I've reflected on it more, it feels like a real blow to the dynamic nature of preaching.

Lloyd-Jones explained this for me:

Another element to which I attach importance is that the preacher while speaking should in a sense be deriving something from his congregation. There are those present in the congregation who are spiritually-minded people, and filled with the Spirit, and they make their contribution to the occasion…The preacher–though he has prepared, and prepared carefully–because of this element of spiritual freedom is still able to receive something from the congregation, and does so. There is an interplay, action and response, and this often makes a very vital difference. (Preaching and Preachers, 84)

Later he adds:

The preacher then is a man who for these reasons and in these ways makes contact with the people who are listening to him. Far from being detached, there is rapport. This comes our in his voice, in his manner, in his whole approach; everything about him shows that there is this intimacy of contact between the preacher and his congregation. (90)

So upon further reflection, I just can't see myself sacrificing the dynamic Holy Spirit give-and-take of the preaching event unless it seemed like every other option had been exhausted. I want to see the people I'm preaching to, even if there are lots of them to see. I want to be at the back of the sanctuary to shake hands, even if I can't shake every hand and may forget too many names. Most of all, I want to know when I'm connecting and when I'm not, when I said something funny or something dumb, when they are crying or when they are sleeping, when I sense God at work and when I feel that God has done something wonderful in our midst as we worshiped together. I want that rapport, that connection, that freedom, that interplay which cannot come by video.

My heart is not hard to multisite, much less is it hard to those who use it. There may be situations or seasons where multisite is the best of several less than perfect options. But for the privilege of live preaching to live people in the same living space in the shared presence of our living God, I have cooled on the idea.

Doug Wilson's Wise Words on Birth Control

I don't usually just link to other stuff floating around the web, but this piece by Doug Wilson on birth control seems especially balanced and wise.

Here are some of my favorite points:

2. Notwithstanding, the Scriptures say nothing definitively about birth control considered as such. Despite the anti-family bias that created the default assumptions of the world around us, we still have to be careful not to go beyond what is written. We especially have to take care not to go beyond what is written. Slavish following of the world is bad, but so is knee-jerk reaction to it.

7. While the Scriptures don't say anything definitively about birth control as such, they do teach an enormous amount about the blessing of faithful covenant seed. This is one of the three main reasons for covenant marriage — the begetting of a godly seed (Mal. 2:15). This should be taught and emphasized in the church, and is the only really effective way to counter the world's anti-child bigotry. If this is effectively done, visitors to your church will think you must teach against birth control, and they will think this because of the large teeming population at the three foot level that they can see during fellowship hour.

8. More is involved in raising up a godly seed than to have a man with dogmatic convictions about birth control, matched only by his unwillingness to feed, read to, educate, pay tuition for, bestow upon, and love the results of his dogmatism. There are no promised covenantal blessings for the self-absorbed proprietors of stud farms.

11. As each married couple make their decisions about this, and as pastors help them, they should take care to make careful distinctions with regard to motive, as well as a sharp distinction between principles and methods. We must learn to distinguish between a couple postponing fruitfulness for no reason other than that the worldlings told them they should spend some time surfing together in Argentina first, and a seasoned married couple with six kids who stop having them because their covenantal hands are quite full. It appears that the former do not understand the creation order at all, and that the latter don't have any problem at all understanding it. To focus on birth control in isolation interferes with such essential distinctions from being made.

Whether you have a quiver full of kids or are newly married, you'll do well to read the whole thing.

HT: Challies

Great Advice on Preaching from a Great Preacher

The preacher's danger:

To love to preach is one thing, to love those to whom we preach is quite another.

The golden rule:

At this point there is one golden rule, one absolute demand–honesty. You have got to be honest with your text.

The definition of preaching:

It is theology on fire.

The purpose of preaching:

What is the chief end of preaching? I like to think it is this. It is to give men and women as sense of God and His presence.

The romance and the realism of preaching:

Any many who has had some glimpse of what is it to preach will inevitably feel that he has never preached. But he will go on trying, hoping that by the grace of God one day he may truly preach.

Taken from Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers.

RCA Integrity Annual Leadership Conference

RCA Integrity is a renewal group in the Reformed Church in America. The aim of our annual conference is threefold:

Celebrating the gospel
Renewing the local church
Encouraging new partnerships

This year's conference will be held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois on May 16-17. The cost is $50. We are pleased to welcome Ligon Duncan as our 2011 keynote speaker.

More information about the conference can be found at our newly designed RCA Integrity website. Registration is now open, though the web registration isn't functioning yet. Check back in a week or so to register online, or simply print out the registration form and mail it in the old fashioned way.

We realize others outside the RCA may be interested in this conference. Last year we had a few people from other networks and that was fine. But please keep in mind that space is limited and the focus of the conference is to build up RCA pastors, students, and lay leaders.

What a Marvel is Man

I like Jeopardy! anyways, but this week has been especially intriguing. In two games aired over three days Ken Jennings, the 74-game winner, and Brad Rutter, the all-time money champ, go head to head with Watson.

Actually, that's not true. Watson has no head. He's a computer–a supercomputer three years in the making whose total cost to IBM may be as much as $1-$2 billion dollars. It's one those Gary Kasparov vs. Deep Blue, man vs. machine stories that makes the news every few years.

The first game finished last night. Watson trounced the humans by more than $25,000. It wasn't even close. Round One goes to the machine.

And yet, I'm still left scratching my head at the genius God gave to mankind. Let me explain.

Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter have roughly 3 pounds of gray matter (pink really), enough to fill the palm of your hand. Watson is too big to fit on stage. What you see on t.v. is a monitor, some sort of avatar. The real Watson is comprised of 90 IBM servers enclosed in ten racks. Score one for the humans for being more compact and mobile. Seriously, how is this a fair fight when Watson gets 90 brains working for him offstage?

And consider this: Watson has 16 terabytes of memory, equal to all the information in print at the Library of Congress. And Jennings and Rutter still knew some questions the computer didn't. Sure, they got smoked (mostly by not ringing in first I surmise), but they didn't have a million books within their immediate mental reach. I'm amazed they beat a supercomputer on any question whatsoever.

The difference is that humans do better at understanding the intricacies of human language, the puns, the double meanings, the hidden clues. Watson is an amazing machine to get most of these clues, but as one article pointed out, he excelled at the questions that you can find by searching on google. He did worse at those that required more sophistication.

Watson was marvelous at coming up with "cut and dried" answers: questions pertaining to song lyrics or historical facts. It seemed to falter though at those "nuanced" questions so prevalent in Jeopardy!, the ones where the answer takes a bit of creative thinking and is often not so apparent. Take for instance one question, "From the Latin for end, this is where trains can also originate." The correct answer, "terminus" was given by Jennings. Watson, gave the incorrect answer for the question, but technically got the part right about "From Latin for end" with its answer, "finis." It's these types of subtleties that Watson was unable to grasp.

Likewise, Watson missed the Final Jeopardy clue about a city with two airports, one named after a WWII hero and the other after a WWII battle. Both Jennings and Rutter guessed Chicago, the correct response. Watson, on the other hand, wrote, "What is Toronto??????" The strange thing is the category was "U.S. Cities." Thankfully for Watson he bet a computer-like figure of $947 and still leads by a mile after one game.

The biggest surprise, though it shouldn't have been, is that Watson can't hear. On Monday's show, Watson gave the same wrong answer that Jennings gave seconds earlier. He's a brilliant computing machine, but he can't hear what the other contestants say. Score one more for man.

Of course, the win-win for humans is that even with Watson cruising to victory over the humans, the fact still remains he was created by them. He (really "it") owes his existence to man. He would be nothing without the uber-smart people at IBM. So I'm left marveling at the genius of man to invent a computer that can surpass human knowledge in so many ways and yet is dependent on human knowledge for its existence and can still miss the Final Jeopardy clue many educated (and frequent flying) Americans would know.

One thing is for sure: no one who watched Jeopardy! yesterday should wonder if those three amazing contestants–brilliant and intelligent as they are–are not the product  of a yet more intelligent designer. What a marvel is man. And what a marvel is the Maker.

Does the Kingdom Grow?

When you look at the Gospels and examine the verbs associated with the kingdom, you discover something surprising. Much of our language about the kingdom is a bit off. We often speak of "building the kingdom," "ushering in the kingdom," "establishing the kingdom," or "helping the kingdom grow." But is this really the way the New Testament talks about the kingdom? George Eldon Ladd, the man who put kingdom back on the map for evangelicals, didn't think so.

The Kingdom can draw near to men (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; Mark 1:15; etc.); it can come (Matt. 6:10; Luke 17:20; etc.), arrive (Matt. 12:28), appear (Luke 19:11), be active (Matt. 11:12). God can give the Kingdom to men (Matt. 21:43; Luke 12:32), but men do not give the Kingdom to one another.

Further, God can take the Kingdom away from men (Matt. 21:43), but men do not take it away from one another, although they can prevent others from entering it. Men can enter the Kingdom (Matt. 5:20; 7:21; Mark 9:47; 10:23; etc.), but they are never said to erect it or to build it. Men can receive the Kingdom (Mark 10:15; Luke 18:17), inherit it (Matt. 25:34), and possess it (Matt. 5:4), but they are never said to establish it. Men can reject the Kingdom, i.e., refuse to receive it (Luke 10:11) or enter it (Matt. 23:13), but they cannot destroy it.

They can look for it (Luke 23:51), pray for its coming (Matt. 6:10), and seek it (Matt. 6:33; Luke 12:31), but they cannot bring it. Men may be in the Kingdom (Matt. 5:19; 8:11; Luke 13:29; etc.), but we are not told that the Kingdom grows. Men can do things for the sake of the Kingdom (Matt. 19:12; Luke 18:29), but they are not said to act upon the Kingdom itself. Men can preach the Kingdom (Matt. 10:7; Luke 10:9), but only God can give it to men (Luke 12:32). (The Presence of the Future, 193)

I've quoted this section several times, probably on this blog before. But when I've used it in the past I've been uncomfortable with the line "we are not told that the kingdom grows." It seemed to me that the parable of the sleepy farmer (Mark 4:26-29) and the parable of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32) clearly teaches that the kingdom grows. But as I've studied the passages more carefully I think you can make a good case that Jesus is not teaching about the growth of the kingdom as much as he is demonstrating that the kingdom of small beginnings will, at the close of the age, be the kingdom of cosmic significance. The kingdom may look unimpressive now, with nothing but a twelve-man band of fumbling disciples, but one day all will see its glorious end.

To borrow a tired cliché, the kingdom is what it is. It does not expand. It does not increase. It does not grow. But the kingdom can break in more and more. Think of it like the sun. When the clouds part on a cloudy day we don't say, "the sun has grown." We say, "the sun has broken through." Our view of the sun has changed or obstacles to the sun have been removed, but we have no changed the sun. The sun does not depend on us. We do not bring the sun or act upon it. The sun can appear. Its warmth can be felt or stifled. But the sun does not grow (science guys, don't get all technical, you know what I mean). This seems a good analogy for the kingdom.

God certainly uses means and employs us in his work. But we are not makers or bringers of the kingdom. The kingdom can be received by more and more people but this does entail growth of the kingdom. We herald the kingdom and live according to its rules. But we do not build it or cause it to grow because it already is and already has come. As Ladd put it, "The Kingdom is the outworking of the divine will; it is the act of God himself. It is related to human beings and can work in and through them; but it never becomes subject to them…The ground of the demand that they receive the Kingdom rests in the fact that in Jesus the Kingdom has come into history" (A Theology of the New Testament, 102).

Monday Morning Humor

Guys, some last minute Valentine's ideas, with my captions to aid in the discernment process:

Creepy, yet strangely comforting.

It's the gift that keeps on taking.

Whenever she's forced to make crummy food all by herself she'll think of you.

Because you can't bear to be apart, ever, not even when you should be.

The Beauty of Holiness

Jonathan Edwards:

As the beauty of the divine nature does primarily consist in God's holiness, so does the beauty of all divine things.

Herein consists the beauty of the saints, that they are saints, or holy ones: 'tis the moral image of God in them, which is their beauty; and that is their holiness.

Herein consists the beauty and brightness of the angels of heaven, that they are holy angels, and so not devils (Dan. 4:13, 17, 23; Matt. 25:31; Mark 8:38; Acts 10:22; Rev. 14:10).

Herein consists the beauty of the Christian religion, above all other religions, that it is so holy a religion.

Herein consists the excellency of the Word of God, that is so holy; "Thy word is very pure, therefore thy servant loveth it" (Ps. 119:140). "I esteem all thy precepts, concerning all things, to be right; and I hate every false way" (ver. 128). "Thy testimonies, that thou hast commanded,a re righteous, and very faithful" (ver. 138). And: "My tongue shall speak of thy word: for all thy commandments are righteousness" (ver. 172). And: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple: the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes: the fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever: the judgments of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether: more to be desired are they than god, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and the honeycomb" (Ps. 19:7-10).

Herein does primarily consist the amiableness and beauty of the Lord Jesus, whereby he is the chief among ten thousands and altogether lovely; even in that he is the holy One of God (Acts 3:14), and God's holy Child (Acts 4:27), and "he that is holy, and he that is true" (Rev. 3:7). All the spiritual beauty of his human nature, consisting in his meekness, lowliness, patience, heavenliness, love to God, love to men, condescension to the mean and vile, and compassion to the miserable, etc. all is summed up in his holiness. And the beauty of his divine nature, of which the beauty of his human nature is the image and reflection, does also primarily consist in his holiness.

Herein primarily consists the glory of the gospel, that it is a holy gospel, and so bright an emanation of the holy beauty of God and Jesus Christ:herein consists the spiritual beauty of its doctrines, that they are holy doctrines, or doctrines according to godliness.

And herein does consist the spiritual beauty of the way of salvation by Jesus Christ, that it [is] so holy a way.

And herein chiefly consists the glory of heaven, that it is the holy city, the holy Jerusalem, the habitation of God's holiness, and so of his glory (Is. 63:15). All the beauties of the new Jerusalem, as it is described in the two last chapters of Revelation, are but various representations of this: see ch. 21:2, 10-11, 18, 21, 27; ch. 22: 1,3.

The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 2

Should Churches Select Elders by Casting Lots?

It is not uncommon to hear of churches that select their elders and deacons by casting lots. In fact, I've been a part of two congregations that voted to change their election process to incorporate lots. Usually this involves a double slate being chosen by some combination of the church leaders and a nominating committee and then a final selection by a "random" draw. In an effort to avoid a popularity contest and the hurt feelings that can result from winners and losers in a double slate, churches are deciding to choose their officers by pulling names out of hat.

It's not hard to find biblical examples of decision-making by lots. The Holy Land was parceled out by sacred lots (Josh. 18:6). Saul was chosen to be king by lot (1 Sam. 10) and Jonah went overboard in the same way (Jon. 1). Most famously, Matthias was chosen by the casting of lots to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle (Acts 1:26). So there seems to be good wisdom in choosing our leaders by lots. After all, "the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" (Prov. 16:33).

And yet, I want to answer the question of this post with an emphatic "no." Churches should not select their elders by casting lots. Here's why.

1. We must be cautious in making Old Testament patterns of decision making our methods. Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and a completed Canon God guided his old covenant people in various ways. We no longer use Urim and Thummim drawn from Aaron's breastpiece to make decisions. So it's not safe to assume we should use lots either.

2. Fine, you say, that was the Old Testament. But didn't the apostles use lots in Acts 1? True, but there is good reason to think Matthias was a special case. For starters, the apostolic band was a unique group that had to be chosen directly by the Lord (e.g., Jesus handpicking the Twelve and personally calling Paul). So when the apostles needed one and only one replacement for Judas, and they had two to choose from, it made sense that lots would determine the selection. But there is no other instance of lots ever being used again to determine church leadership. As Bruce Waltke remarks, "Indeed, there is never another recorded use of anyone in Christ's church going before the Lord to cast lots. We have been given God's Word, and His Holy Spirit resides in us, so we do not rely on merely rolling dice" (Finding the Will of God, 48).

3. By contrast, when the New Testament speaks of elder selection it is with the word "appoint." Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in every church (Acts 14:23). Titus was to appoint elders in Crete (Titus 1:5). We don't know exactly how elders were chosen. In these pioneering church contexts it seems like the church planter was key in establishing the first elders. But as a general rule I believe there is freedom for congregations to use nominating committees, have a congregational vote, or leave the selection up to the elders. What seems to be excluded by the word "appoint" is a passive process where we expect the Lord, by lots, to "show which one of these two you have chosen" (Acts 1:24).

4. If double slates are the problem, change your by-laws and get ride of double slates. If you are worried about hurt feelings or popularity contests maybe that's an indication your current elders should do more to train, evaluate, and select future leaders, without the use of an awkward double slate.

5. God is sovereign over all things. He superintends the rolling of the Scattergories dice, the shake of the Magic 8-Ball, and the falling of sparrows and hairs. But this does not mean he intends for us to employ these means in making decisions, especially on the other side of Pentecost and with the completion of Sacred Scripture.

6. If these foregoing reasons are not convincing, consider this last one: you don't really believe in the casting of lots. Sometimes we talk like it's especially spiritual to make decisions by providentially-random draws. But would you choose your pastor this way? If God wants us to cast lots to determine his will, why not throw darts at a a list of pastoral candidates? Why don't you narrow down your choice of a spouse to a couple of good choices and then when you propose explain, "I flipped a coin and you came up heads. Congratulations, want to get married?" We don't really trust lots to make wise decisions for us in other areas, so why would we use it for one of the most crucial decisions in the life of your church?

Churches, and especially the existing leaders, should do the hard work of selecting new officers. Relying on the length of straws or a random number generator to choose elders is not super-spiritual. It is imprudent and without Scriptural precedence. God will guide your selection process, but he hopes to use training, evaluation, discernment, biblical qualifications, and human brains along the way.

Speaking of Authority…

I now own all seven volumes of Hughes Old's magisterial series on The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church. At more than 4000 pages I've only read a small fraction of the work, but what I've read has been consistently edifying and fascinating. For the most part, Old finds something to like in most preachers (it would be hard to write 4000 words if you disliked most of what you were reading and hearing). But he does not like everything in the history of Christian preaching.

On a sermon from Harry Emerson Fosdick, the liberal's liberal, Old writes:

One can well imagine that his congregation was completely satisfied that their preacher had made the doctrine of the divinity of Christ personally relevant. Others, however, might wonder if the God who is totally other had in fact been totally ignored (Vol. 6, 546).

About Norman Vincent Peale, the popular preacher of positive thinking (and, gulp, an RCA minister), Old says:

The embarrassing thing about his ministry is that he won such an enormous following preaching from the pulpit of such a historic church (Vol. 6, 5730)

And worse:

We know that Peale never made any attempt to expound a text of Scripture in his sermons (Vol. 6, 574).

So Old is not a cheerleader for any and every kind of preaching. Which is what makes it all the more interesting to read in this last volume his take on contemporary preachers.

On Sinclair Ferguson:

As I have said several times, I am not in the business of handing out the senior preaching prize, but there is no denying it–the preaching of Sinclair Ferguson is exemplary no matter on which side of the Atlantic one considers the question. (Vol. 7, 135)

On Tim Keller:

The sermons of Tim Keller are oratory, not literature. One gets the impression that as informal and charismatic as his preaching may be, the preacher has a sense that it is through the preaching of the Word of God that the church is built up, nourished, reformed, and enlivened. There will be those who will insist that no one brought up in the postmodern age can possibly listen to such preaching, but obviously they are wrong. (Vol. 7, 152).

The most striking chapter I've read so far is on John MacArthur. Old notices time and again how MacArthur never "has the least shadow of doubt but that these miracles took place exactly as they are recorded." He comments, perceptively, that MacArthur has no interest in defending the accuracy of the Bible. "He simply assumes is is all quite reliable. This basic assumption that the text of Scripture is reliable is part of the foundation of his effectiveness as an interpreter" (Vol. 7, 555).

One gets the impression that while listening to MacArthur's sermons, Old is forced to wrestle with his own view of Scripture and the supernatural.

The place where I have always had the greatest trouble is the whole matter of exorcism. I really do not believe in Satan, demonic spirits, and demon possession. Maybe I ought to, but I don't. I am willing to agree that I may have been too strongly influenced by the intellectual world in which I was brought up to fully grasp the full teaching of Scripture, but that is the way it is. What is more than clear to me after listening to these sermons is that those who can take the text the way it is seem to make a lot more sense of it than those who are always trying to second-guess it. Surely one of the greatest strengths of MacArthur's preaching ministry is his complete confidence in the text. (Vol. 7, 556)

I was surprised, saddened, and a little confused by that paragraph, but I suppose Old it at least being honest. It's safe to say MacArthur isn't the ultimate example of preaching for Old, and yet he can't get away from his simple allegiance to the text and the sense of divine authority that comes as a result. When he comes to summarize MacArthur's preaching, it's as if he can only find one thing he likes about it. But that one thing is enough.

Why do so many people listen to MacArthur, this product of all the wrong schools? How can he pack out a church on Sunday morning in an age in which church attendance has seriously lagged? Here is a preacher who has nothing in the way of a winning personality, good looks, or charm. Here is a preacher who offers us nothing in the way of sophisticated homiletical packaging. No one would suggest that he is a master of the art of oratory. What he seems to have is a witness to true authority. He recognizes in Scripture the Word of God, and when he preaches, it is Scripture that one hears. It is not that the words of John MacArthur are so interesting as it is that the Word of God is of surpassing interest. That is why one listens. (Vol. 7, 557-58, emphasis added)

And all the plain looking, personally dull, oratorically deficient stick-to-the-Bible-and-nothing-but-the-Bible preachers said, "Amen."