Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for July 26th, 2012

There are other agencies in the world which can deal with many of the problems of man kind. I mean by that, things like medicine, the State, even other religions, and cults, and psychology and various other teachings and political agencies. These are all designed to help, and to relieve somewhat, the human condition, to ease the pain and the problem of life and to enable men to live more harmoniously and to enjoy life in a greater measure. They set out to do that, and it is no part of our case to say that they are of no value. We must observe the facts and grant that they can do good, and do much good. They are capable in a measure of dealing with these things. But none of them can deal with this fundamental, this primary trouble at which we have been looking.

Not only that, when they have done their all, or when even the Church coming down to that level and operating on that level alone, has done her all, the primary trouble still remains. So I would lay it down as a basic proposition that the primary task of the Church is not to educate man, is not to heal him physically or psychologically, it is not to make him happy. I will go further; it is not even to make him good. These are things that accompany salvation; and when the Church performs her true task she does incidentally educate men and give them knowledge and information, she does bring them happiness, she does make them good and better than they were. But my point is that those are not her primary objectives. Her primary purpose is not any of these; it is rather to put man into the right relationship with God, to reconcile man to God. This really does need to be emphasize at the present time, because this, it seems to me, is the essence of the modern fallacy. It has come into the Church and it is influencing the thinking of many in the Church– this notion that the business of the Church is to make people happy, or to integrate their lives, or to relieve their circumstances and improve their conditions. My whole case is that to do that is just to palliate the symptoms, to give temporary ease, and that it does not get beyond that.

~Martyn Lloyd-Jones~ Preaching & Preachers (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan; 2011) p. 40-41 via The Old Guys

Read Full Post »

Jim Hamilton from Southern Seminary writes:

The editor of the Journal of Discipleship and Family MinistryTimothy Paul Jones, has generously granted me permission to post my essay from the most recent issue (table of contents).

Here’s a taste of “A Biblical Theology of Motherhood“:

What is a biblical theology of motherhood? A biblical theology of anything seeks to describe both the storyline and the network of assumptions and presuppositions and beliefs assumed by the biblical authors as they wrote. The only access we have to what the biblical authors thought or assumed is what they wrote. When we pursue biblical theology, what we are trying to get at is the worldview reflected in the assumptions of the biblical authors, the worldview from which their statements spring, the worldview in which their statements make sense. If we are trying to establish a biblical theology of motherhood, we want to see how motherhood fits in the plot of the Bible’s big story, how it interacts with other aspects of the story, and how these things shed light on the direct statements about motherhood in the songs of the Psalmists, the Proverbs of the sages, and the instructions of the apostles. Story and statements inform one another, each expositing, affirming, and explaining the other. This study will begin with motherhood in the Bible’s story before considering the Bible’s statements about motherhood.

You can read the whole thing here.

Read Full Post »

At one point in the Silver Chair [by C. S. Lewis] the characters are deciding whether or not to obey Aslan.  When Puddleglum suggests that they should obey Aslan, a girl named Jill responds, “Do you mean you think everything will come right if we do [obey Aslan].”

Puddleglum responds, “I don’t know about that.  You see Aslan didn’t tell [us] what would happen.  He only told us what to do. . . it may be the death of us. . . but that doesn’t let us off from obeying Aslan.”

Lewis’ point was that Christians should obey God even when it looks as though obeying him will make our lives more difficult.  We must trust God’s word, rather than how we think things will turn out.

The Bible is full of examples of men and women when they didn’t know how it would turn out.  Daniel didn’t know that the lions wouldn’t eat him when he was ordered not to pray.  David didn’t know for sure if he could win against Goliath.  Shadrach, Meschach and Abendigo didn’t know that they would be spared death in the fiery furnace. They courageously told the king:

“O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.4 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.” (Daniel 3:15-18)

They followed God’s word, even when it required great risk.

If there is an area in your life where you know that obedience is needed, then stop worrying about how things will turn out and obey God.  Entrust yourself to the sovereign God of the universe.

Chris Brauns

 

 

Read Full Post »

David Murray:

There are 600 million people with disabilities in the world? Why so many? What’s God’s purpose in this?

God’s purpose? Surely a good God has nothing to do with people having disabilities?

Yet, in Exodus 4:11, God claims a role in disability: “Who has made man’s mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?”

David shares three purposes disabilities fulfill.  Keep reading this article that first appeared in TableTalk.

But why? Why disability, Lord? What’s your purpose?

Read Full Post »