Enjoying God Blog

In my reading of the works of J. I. Packer I’ve come to greatly appreciate the Christocentric focus of his life and theology. This Christ-centeredness reverberates throughout virtually every page of everything he has written and echoes in nearly every word he has spoken. Continue reading . . .

In my reading of the works of J. I. Packer I’ve come to greatly appreciate the Christocentric focus of his life and theology. This Christ-centeredness reverberates throughout virtually every page of everything he has written and echoes in nearly every word he has spoken. For Packer, it is not enough to affirm the existence of “God” or to be theocentric in one’s overall perspective. The Christian life is one in which the revelation of God is centered in his Son, Jesus Christ. All true knowledge of God is first and foremost knowledge of Christ. This is surely what Jesus himself had in mind when he declared, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). We read again in 1 John 2:23 that “no one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.”

But what precisely does it mean to “know” Christ Jesus? It certainly begins with a solid and extensive grasp of the truths revealed in Scripture about the person and work of Christ. Yet, even non-Christians can study the Bible. Even Satan and his demons possess accurate understanding of the identity of Christ. Thus, at the center of Christian living for Packer is a very real, vital, personal engagement with Jesus himself, not as a distant figure of ancient history but as the living Lord who loves and gives and guides and encounters us in Scripture. I should let him unpack this for us himself:

“More particularly, Christianity (so it is af

Racial prejudice cannot be quantified in the way abortion can. So how do we get a grip on the horror and wickedness of racism? Perhaps listening to Martin Luther King himself will help. Continue reading . . .

Racial prejudice cannot be quantified in the way abortion can. So how do we get a grip on the horror and wickedness of racism? Perhaps listening to Martin Luther King himself will help. [N.B. MLK was and is a controversial figure. Elements in his personal life are deeply disturbing. But my focus is on the work he did as a public figure.]

At one point, a number of white pastors and religious leaders urged him to be more patient and not to demonstrate for the sake of racial harmony and justice. To that suggestion, MLK wrote the following (please remember that he wrote this in the mid 1960’s; the language and circumstances reflect that time):

“Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policeman curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your 20 million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she cannot go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she's told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoc

I’m often amazed how often people reveal an ignorance about what abortion is and what it does. Perhaps we’ve just grown so accustomed to its presence that we’ve stopped thinking and talking about it. Continue reading . . .

I’m often amazed how often people reveal an ignorance about what abortion is and what it does. Perhaps we’ve just grown so accustomed to its presence that we’ve stopped thinking and talking about it.

Merriam Webster provides a rather politically correct definition of abortion: “The termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus.” Make no mistake: Abortion is the intentional killing of unborn babies. It happens by inserting instruments into the mother’s womb tearing the babies into pieces and removing them.

Abortion is that act by which the life of the fetus is voluntarily and artificially terminated. Abortion is therefore to be distinguished from birth control. Abortion is the termination of an already existent entity (the fetus) whereas birth control is the prevention of the initiation of that existence.

After the 16th week of a pregnancy, saline abortion is often employed. A saline solution is injected through the uterine wall, effectively poisoning/burning the fetus to death. Anywhere from 24 to 36 hours later the mother goes into labor and delivers a dead baby.

Hysterotomy is essentially delivery by C-section, with this distinction: the child is delivered to be killed. On occasion, abortion by saline injection and especially by hysterotomy are unsuccessful, resulting in the delivery of a live baby. In 1977 a Boston jury found Dr. Kenneth Edelin guilty of manslaughter for killing the product of a hysterotomy. Dr. William B. Waddill, an ob

Last year’s acquital of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin has stirred up the debate over racism in a way that transcends any that I can recall. I don’t pretend to have the answer for this problem, although I highly recommend John Piper’s insightful and convicting book, Bloodlines, for those who want to dig more deeply. So let me say up front that what follows has been influenced greatly by John’s contribution to this volatile subject. Continue reading . . .

Last year’s acquital of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin has stirred up the debate over racism in a way that transcends any that I can recall. I don’t pretend to have the answer for this problem, although I highly recommend John Piper’s insightful and convicting book, Bloodlines, for those who want to dig more deeply. So let me say up front that what follows has been influenced greatly by John’s contribution to this volatile subject.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Day falls on the third Monday in January each year (this year it is next Monday, January 20). It is a day designed to awaken the people of our country to the urgent need for racial harmony and racial reconciliation. Sanctity of Life Day typically falls on the Sunday after January 22, the day marking the Supreme Court’s decision in the now infamous case, Roe v. Wade. Likewise, it is a day designed to awaken the people of our country to the devastation caused by abortion and the ever-increasing number of lives that have been taken. Thus, by God’s providential design these two issues, abortion and racism, are forever linked in our annual calendar.

That doesn’t mean that Christians in January each year devote equal time to both issues. In fact, it is somewhat unusual to find a churc

In the previous post we looked at a real man of God: Timothy. Today we turn our attention to Ephaphroditus. Continue reading . . .

In the previous post we looked at a real man of God: Timothy. Today we turn our attention to Ephaphroditus. A-who-da-what-us? No, Epaphroditus! Yes, it’s an unusual name, to say the least. It comes from the name of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love. Some have suggested that the parents of Epaphroditus were pagan devotees of the goddess, but that’s merely speculation. Aphrodite was also the goddess of gamblers. The custom in those days was to throw the dice and shout, “Epaphroditos!” or, “favored by Aphrodite!” Our Epaphroditus was himself a gambler of sorts: he risked his life for the sake of the gospel! Look with me at Philippians 2:25-30.

“I have thought it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus my brother and fellow worker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to my need, for he has been longing for you all and has been distressed because you heard that he was ill. Indeed he was ill, near to death. But God had mercy on him, and not only on him but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow. I am the more eager to send him, therefore, that you may rejoice at seeing him again, and that I may be less anxious. So receive him in the Lord with all joy, and honor such men, for he nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me.”

So who was this man and what had he done? Evidently he had served as an emissary or envoy on behalf of the church at Philippi. They had taken up a collection for Paul and entrusted it to Epaphoditus, who carried this monetary gift to the apostle in prison (see Phil. 4:14-19). Epaphroditus then remained in Rome (or Caesarea) with Paul and ministered to Paul as his personal aide. D

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that perhaps never in human history has the notion of being male, of being a man, of being masculine, been as distorted and warped as it is today. We need to re-learn what an ordinary man of God looks like. By the way, women you can still learn a great deal from this as well. If you are single, you can learn what kind of man you should pray for and seek as a husband. If you are a mother, you can learn what kind of man you should pray that your own sons might become. You can also learn what your husband needs most, and thus pray for him appropriately. So, don’t check out on me, ladies. You need to hear this as much as the men do. Continue reading . . .

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that perhaps never in human history has the notion of being male, of being a man, of being masculine, been as distorted and warped as it is today. We need to re-learn what an ordinary man of God looks like. By the way, women you can still learn a great deal from this as well. If you are single, you can learn what kind of man you should pray for and seek as a husband. If you are a mother, you can learn what kind of man you should pray that your own sons might become. You can also learn what your husband needs most, and thus pray for him appropriately. So, don’t check out on me, ladies. You need to hear this as much as the men do.

When the Apostle Paul thought of men he knew to hold forth as godly examples of what a man ought to be, two individuals came to mind: Timothy and Epaphroditus. He describes them in Philippians 2:19-30. I want to look briefly at what he says about Timothy in vv. 19-24. Here is what he writes:

“I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be cheered by news of you. For I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your wel

Our examination of Romans 14 has helped us to understand what both weakness and strength entail and how each believer ought to respond and relate to the other. We now conclude by articulating five principles that should govern our exercise of Christian liberty. Continue reading . . .

Our examination of Romans 14 has helped us to understand what both weakness and strength entail and how each believer ought to respond and relate to the other. We now conclude by articulating five principles that should govern our exercise of Christian liberty.

1) These truths in Romans 14 and the actions they require apply only within the community of faith. In other words, Paul is addressing how we are to live out our freedom in Christ in relation to other Christians. He is not speaking to those situations in which a non-Christian protests your exercise of freedom. Would there be a different set of guidelines to govern our relationships with unbelievers?

2) If someone says to me: "Your drinking of wine/beer is sin," should I cease? To answer the question we must first determine if the one who protests is a weaker brother. As we have seen, by weaker brother Paul is thinking of someone who not only has a misconception of what is inherently right and wrong, clean and unclean, but is actually himself induced or led to perform the action in question because of your participation. Paul is thinking of someone who is led to violate his own conscience because he is either untaught or excessively timid and fearful. His concern over your reaction to his abstinence leads him to do what his conscience forbids.

This must be emphasized, because the person who protests your expression of liberty may be a legalist. Legalists are in no danger of violating their conscience! They are not in the least tempted to en

We’ve come to the fourth question. Here it is.

(4) The fourth question to be addressed is: "What responsibility does the strong brother have toward his weaker brother?" Paul answers this question in vv. 13-23. His main point is that the liberty of the strong must be qualified by love. Two questions must first be answered: Continue reading . . .

We’ve come to the fourth question. Here it is.

(4) The fourth question to be addressed is: "What responsibility does the strong brother have toward his weaker brother?" Paul answers this question in vv. 13-23. His main point is that the liberty of the strong must be qualified by love. Two questions must first be answered:

First, is the exhortation in v. 13a directed to the strong or weak brother, or both? Some say it is the weak brother Paul is addressing because in vv. 1-12 judging was the fault of the weak (cf. vv. 3,4,10). But it is probably the strong Paul has in mind, and for three reasons: (1) in vv. 10-12 both the strong and weak are rebuked for presuming to judge one another; (2) the antithesis of judging is being careful not to put a stumbling-block in a brother's path (v. 13b), something only the strong can do in relating to the weak; and (3) vv. 14-15 are intelligible only if it is the strong who is being addressed.

This leads directly to a second question: "Why does Paul place so much of the burden on the strong brother? Why does he ask the strong brother to curtail his liberty out of love, rather than ask the weak brother to change his convictions about what is permissible for a Christian to do?" The reason is this: the weak brother is bound by his conscience; there is no flexibility or freedom for him to adjust his behavior, for in doing so he would be violating what he sincerely believes is God's will. The strong b

In the previous post we tried to answer the question: What constitutes spiritual weakness? Who is the weak brother or sister? We are now ready to ask and answer the second and third of our four questions. Continue reading . . .

In the previous post we tried to answer the question: What constitutes spiritual weakness? Who is the weak brother or sister? We are now ready to ask and answer the second and third of our four questions.

(2) The second question to be addressed is: "How are the strong and the weak to relate and respond to each other in regard to these matters on which they embrace differing convictions?"

To the strong, Paul gives two words of advice.

First, according to v. 1, he is to "welcome” the one who is weak in faith. To “welcome” means both recognition by the Christian community as a member of the body of Christ, and brotherly reception of him/her into the routines of Christian fellowship. In other words, don't discriminate against him because of his weakness. Show him the same affection and esteem you would a strong brother who shares your convictions on secondary matters. Be sure the weaker brother or sister is not made to feel inferior or unwanted or odd. Though his scruples are held in error, it is not through callous disputes or a critical spirit that his weakness will be turned into strength.

Be it noted that Paul is careful never to concede to the position of the weak as the correct one. He refuses to reduce the strong to the level of the weak, although he does call on the former to curtail their liberty out of love. The weak, however, ought to grow strong. The way to make them strong is not to offend them but to love them.

Second, the strong must not "despise" the weak (v. 3a). The tendency of the strong is to disregard the weak as one

As I said in the previous post, our approach will be to ask and then answer four questions. Continue reading . . .

As I said in the previous post, our approach will be to ask and then answer four questions.

(1) The first question to be addressed is: "Who is the weak brother?" Or again, "What constitutes weakness and strength?" Paul tells us three things about the "weak" brother or sister. First, he is a vegetarian (vv. 2,21). Second, he regards some days as having special importance (v. 5). Third, he does not drink wine (vv. 17,21).

The weak brother, then, is the one who entertains scruples on secondary matters. He has misgivings about the moral and spiritual propriety of such practices. The weak brother or sister is the one who has not sufficiently understood the truth of 1 Tim. 4:4-5; 1 Cor. 10:25-26; Rom. 14:14a. Weakness in faith, therefore, is not a failure to believe the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. It is, rather, a failure to understand the implications of such doctrine in the area of practical freedom. They had failed to grasp the truth of 1 Cor. 8:8 - "Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do" (cf. Mark 7:14-15). Douglas Moo elaborates:

"Paul is not . . . simply criticizing these people for having a 'weak' or inadequate trust in Christ as their Savior and Lord. Rather, he is criticizing them for lack of insight into some of the implications of their faith in Christ. These are Christians who are not able to accept for themselves the truth that their faith in Christ implies liberation from certain OT/Jewish ritual requirements. The 'faith' with respect to which these people are 'weak', therefore, is related to their basic faith in Christ but one step removed from it. It involves their individ