Sometimes it’s best simply to quote a much more expressive and gifted writer, than it is to paraphrase and butcher that writer’s eloquence. Here, then, is Jonathan Edwards in “A Narrative of Surprising Conversions,” from Jonathan Edwards on Revival:

Some, when in [the circumstances of a movement of revival by God], have felt that sense of the excellency of God’s justice, appearing in the vindictive exercises of it, against such sinfulness as theirs was; and have had such a submission of mind in their idea of this attribute, and of those exercises of it–together with an exceeding loathing of their own unworthiness, and a kind of indignation against themselves–that they have sometimes almost called it a willingness to be damned; though it must  be owned they had not clear and distinct ideas of damnation, nor does any word in the Bible require such self-denial as this.

This may sound horrible to you; can this be both a working and God and a state in which we’d desire our hearers to be? I think the answer is yes, given Edwards’ further explanation:

But the truth is, as some have more clearly expressed it, that salvation has appeared too good for them, that they were worthy of nothing but condemnation, and they could not tell how to think of salvation being bestowed upon them, fearing it was inconsistent with the glory of God’s majesty, that they had so much contemned and affronted.

This is a stunning recognition of the holiness of God and the depravity of man. Here is one more perspective on the matter:

Sometimes as the discovery of [God's justice], they can scarcely forbear crying out, IT IS JUST! IT IS JUST! Some express themselves that they see the glory of God would shine bright in their own condemnation; and they are ready to think that if they are damned, they could take part with God against themselves, and would glorify his justice therein.

The question is simple: what is of more value to you? Your salvation, or God’s glory? Can you imagine coming to the point where we would count ourselves condemned if that would most ratify and illuminate God’s glory? These are strong, difficult words. Praise be to our good God that we are not condemned, for and to His glory.

The following is a portion of a series of reflections on the book War of Words by Paul David Tripp. You may also want to read the first and second reflections in this series.

Tripp sums up the Biblical approach to relationships and communication on page 160: “We all need a redemptive perspective on our relationships.” The purpose of communication, then, is not to get a message across. It is not to make yourself heard, nor is it to achieve happiness, mutual understanding, or agreement on a controversial issue. The purpose of communication–and in fact, the message of the Gospel–is redemption. Tripp goes on to tell the agonizing story of a father and his son’s sin, ending with this comment about redemption: “[God] called [the father] to share in the suffering so that [the father] would share in the glory of [God's] work of change” (173).

Throughout Tripp’s final section on winning the war of words, there is no emphasis on achieving any goal other than God’s. Repeated focus is put on the heart. Further, the Christian is called to repent before speaking. That repentance is key in solving communication, rather than an established set of tips or techniques. “Repentance in Scripture is defined as a radical change in your heart that leads to a radical change in your life” (177). Heart change, then, leads to life change–and of course the words that are emitted from a Gospel heart will be aligned with the Gospel, rather than a personal agenda.

God’s mission through Jesus was and is to rescue sinful man. As part of that mission, every Christian is called to be a minister of reconciliation:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. –2 Cor. 5:17-20

There’s a simple and logical conclusion here. If all Christians are called to reconcile, and to be agents of God, then our chief end must necessarily be rescue and reconciliation. Further, it is the message of reconciliation we are entrusted with. A message is ultimately a collection of words. How does a Christian win the war of words? They seek to reconcile others to God through Jesus Christ. Ultimately, this end has little to do with winning for the individual at all.

The following is a portion of a series of reflections on the book War of Words by Paul David Tripp. You may also want to read the first and third reflections in this series.

There are many sins named in Scripture: envy, wrath, adultery, murder, hatred, and of course, a biting tongue. There are also many titles for Jesus Christ: the Branch, the Son of God, the root of David, and of course, the Word. John in particular speaks of Jesus as the Word:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. –John 1:1

What may be most interesting is that there are only a few correspondences found between a list of sins, and then a list of titles of Jesus. One of those correspondences is between words–a biting tongue–and Jesus as the Word. (The other apparent correspondence is between hatred and Jesus, as God, being named as “love.”) The conclusion, then, is this: while Jesus is the solution for envy, wrath, adultery, murder, and hatred, He not only is the solution for sinful words, but He is in fact the Word.

Quite literally, then, Jesus is both the solution to sinful words through His enabling of the offer of the gospel, and He is the solution by being the embodiment of God-glorifying words. He saves us from our words by being the Word. This seems different than, for example, the fruit of the Spirit. Pressing into Jesus produces in the Christian peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and so forth; but Jesus does not just produce God-glorifying words, but is in fact the Word itself (Himself).

Tripp puts this another way that is equally compelling: “words do not belong to us. Every word we speak must be up to God’s standard and according to his design” (15). What is God’s standard? Perfection and holiness, of course. But with regard to words, God’s standard is Jesus Christ Himself.

In an argument, this is a clear call to speak not just as Jesus would speak, but to speak Jesus Himself. Tripp addresses speech in confrontation this way: “The content of confrontation is always the Bible” (154). Our words in confrontation must be the Word, which is Jesus, the Word of God. “The truths of the gospel–both its challenge and its comfort–must color our confrontation” (155).

But it seems that there is more to this issue of communication that simple confrontation. There are often times when a word or phrase or tirade can easily be identified: that was sinful! that was not according to God’s plan! However, there is a wealth of speech that is not so clearly argument, confrontation, or ranting lecture. There is a wealth of speech beyond a God-ward sermon, beyond counseling from Scripture, and beyond exhortation. Taking Jesus–the Word–as an example, every word He spoke was in accordance with God the Father’s plan.

“Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.” –John 14:10

This implies that every word Jesus spoke was in accordance with God’s plan. Jesus’ casual speech to his disciples were according to God’s plan; his requests for a place to sleep; his instructions regarding a location to eat His last meal; even passing comments to His mother were according to God’s design.

Is not, then, the necessary conclusion that beyond the “good” words that edify, and the “bad” words that we must correct, there are no neutral words? While Tripp suggests the following words in the context of confrontation, they can be extended to every situation:

We all need a redemptive perspective on our relationships. Before we speak, we need to ask ourselves what the Redeemer wants to accomplish in the situation, and we need to be committed to be a part of it. (160)

Before it is possible to take Tripp’s gospel-oriented suggestions and admonitions toward improving communication, this stunning realization must be made: every word matters. Every word either is submitted to, and is embodied by, the Word; or every word rejects the authority of the Word. Every word, just like every thought, must be brought into captivity to Christ.

The following is a portion of a series of reflections on the book War of Words by Paul David Tripp. You may also want to read the second and third reflections in this series.

Just five pages into War of Words, Paul Tripp makes this astonishing claim: “God has a wonderful plan for our words” (5). Modern evangelicalism is quick to talk about God’s plan–and God’s plans–so this statement doesn’t sound overtly different, provocative, or perhaps even book-worthy. In fact, seminaries, churches, and parachurches have made so-called Christian counseling all the rage, so another book on godly communication should fit right into the local Christian bookstore.

However, it’s the following supplemental points that Tripp makes that stir a deeper thinking:

• Sin has radically altered our agenda for our words, resulting in much hurt, confusion, and chaos.
• In Christ Jesus we find the grace that provides all we need to speak as God intended us to speak.
• The Bible plainly and simply teaches us how to get from where we are to where God wants us to be.

This is an incredibly God-centric approach to communication. Nowhere in this list or the rest of the book is there a set of four, five, or six steps toward more effective communication, getting your point across, or active listening. Instead, Tripp argues that communication is broken because of sin. This is granted by most Christian counselors. However, Tripp’s argument continues: if the solution for sin is Jesus Christ and His reconciling death, then the solution for sinful communication must be a return to Jesus Christ, not a system or set of best practices.

Tripp lays this out early on: “I am convinced that we do not understand how radically the gospel can change the way we understand and solve our communication problems” (5). There are implications that run deep here, and bear meditation. Sin, the Bible would teach, affects the whole man. Further, as Jesus Himself says, what comes out of a man simply bears witness to what is inside that man.

“Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” –Matthew 15:17-20

Communication, then, reflects our sinful hearts. Consequently, an outward approach to improving communication–writing out your thoughts before voicing them, counting to ten internally, asking questions rather than making demands–is at best an attempt to restrain the effect of sin. But does this in fact deal with the actual sin producing the poor communication? Does this outward restraint do anything other than layer a sinful heart with external moralistic behavior? No.

A Biblical approach to dealing with words, then, looks past words. The Bible and Tripp’s book demand a return to the Gospel in all its power. Jesus, identified as the Word, is the ultimate solution for our words. A Christian who seeks to “improve” their communication is in fact denying a sin problem. Sin cannot be lessened in some continuous, long-term, quantifiable manner. It can be warred against, and repented of, and forgiven; in fact, this is the Christian gospel. Jesus died and rose so that we might make war against sin, repent of sin, and be forgiven of sin.

Sacred Marriage
Gary Thomas
Rating:

“Sacred Marriage” continues to be my go-to book on marriage (which by definition for me could be restated as “Christian marriage”). This is my third reading, and I still find myself underlining passages, “hmm”-ing out loud, and learning. Thomas treats marriage as a vehicle for relating ourselves toward God and sanctification rather than an end unto itself. That along makes the book unique and profound.

The subtitle explains the premise of the book: “What if God designed marriage to make us holy more than to make us happy?” This question is one that is explored on every page of every chapter. Thomas’ concept is simply stated, albeit hard to live: is the end of marriage personal happiness, or sanctification? It’s obvious that Thomas believes the end of marriage is indeed personal sanctification, and Scripture would bear out his conclusions.

Because of this unusual premise, the chapters in the book are not what you might expect. Each chapter deals with one area of personal holiness that marriage deals with: truth about God, good prayer, building character, serving, and so forth. In other words, you won’t find the typical chapters on “finances,” “in-laws,” “sex,” and so forth. That sort of inward focus–how can this or that area of marriage be improved–goes against the very nature of what Thomas writes: God is most glorified not when a marriage is pleasing to those involved, but when those involved are focused on Christ, rather than themselves or even each other.

As much as the book is excellent, though, it needs some complementing. Because of the Godward-focus, there are areas that married coupled should investigate, in light of a God-glorifying lens. Sexuality must be examined, probably in greater light than does Thomas. The same is certainly true for gender roles and headship. This is not an end-all resource, but it doesn’t seem to attempt that goal. It does purport to be a central guide and correction for marriages that are focused on satisfaction in self and each other, though, and that is much needed.

If you believe Scripture to be true, you really have no good excuse for not purchasing this book. It bears repeated readings, and will challenge your ideas about marriage many times over.

Reforming Marriage
Douglas Wilson
Rating:

I picked this book up as potential supplemental reading to another marriage book I’m using for some counseling, Sacred Marriage by Gary Thomas. Douglas Wilson is a well-known reformed author, and I knew I wouldn’t get “5 steps to happiness” or “7 tips for great loving.”

While I continue to think that this is best as a supplemental book, it is good material. Wilson ruthlessly insists that the husband is to worship God, not his marriage; and to head his household with respect, humility, and responsibility. I appreciate both of these views, as I believe they are most consistent with Scripture.

The book is fairly short; 144 pages. That makes it a quick read. In particular, the chapters on “Headship and Authority,” “Keeping Short Accounts,” and the section on Nice-Guy Syndrome in “Miscellaneous Temptations” are excellent.

For the lengths, the quality of content within that short length, and the readability, this is an easy recommendation. I continue to believe that, of what I’ve read, Sacred Marriage is the most thorough primer for marriage. This is a great text to add to that one, though.

He Restores My Soul
Jennifer Kennedy Dean
Rating:

I recently heard an interview between Mark Dever and Matt Chandler in which Chandler mentioned he often read “spiritual roughage”. I took that to mean that Chandler (and Dever, who assented to reading the same sort of material) often read books that had a high ratio of garbage-to-sound-theology. There are all sorts of benefits, too long to list here. Suffice it to say, though, all of those benefits were reaped with a reading of Jennifer Dean’s He Restores My Soul.

Intended as a devotional book, Dean provides an introductory section, a lengthy set of devotions arranged around a 40-day “journey” toward personal renewal, and a final section on organizing a retreat. Unfortunately, I spent as much time sorting out the theological problems and confusing non sequiturs as I did thinking and meditating on God.

Dean’s consistent use of New Age terminology and style detracts from her central message. Dean insists that her message is not a New Age approach to spirituality in her introductory section (page 8), but her language is more often rooted in modern spirituality than orthodox Biblical terminology. She speaks of the Christian’s “spirit-core” (26), repeatedly calls for “centering prayer” (26, 29, et. al.), appeals for the believer to “surrender to brokenness” (30), and much of her review is centered on the Christian’s own definitions of and feelings about spiritual power, brokenness, and crucifixion moments (42-43). Dean could make her points far more effectively by limiting herself to Biblical words such as “spirit,” “soul,” “repentance,” and “sinfulness,” and use Scripture to define terms rather than asking the reader to assess his own definitions and feelings.

Despite this misuse of language, Dean does consistently drive home the Scriptural truth that God Himself must create the new heart: “He inscribed His desires and thoughts on your new heart. He will cleanse your heart and keep it clean” (57). Further, she moves to a more actionable set of meditations, an aspect of her devotions lacking in the first week. On page 54, she asks the Christian to evaluate: “How is He doing His cleansing work? How is he purging His people from… sin?” She then answers immediately, attributing God’s working out of sin to “the blood of the Son.” This re-emphasis not just on Christ but on His effective work is both convicting and encouraging.

Most concerning, much of the devotional material is wrought with subtle theological error. From the first devotion of week 3, Dean relates that God’s engineering of salvation is “for the purpose of filling [the Christian] with Himself” (68). Yet God says in Isaiah 6 that the train of His robe fills the temple. It is instead the <i>Holy Spirit</i> that fills the believer (2 Tim. 1:14). God fills us with joy and peace (Rom. 15:13), but never inhabits or indwells us; that is not His role within the Trinity as revealed in Scripture. Dean often is casual with interchanging God the Father, Spirit, and Son, and this fosters a loose theology that ultimately is incorrect and misleading. On page 69, she says “…the Spirit of God is removing all unrighteousness and all flesh to make room for the presence of the Lord in your heart. He must be your heart’s only inhabitant.” Here, the Spirit makes room for the Lord, although it is the Spirit that indwells. Further, both of these confuse her earlier statement, which stated it is God that fills the believer with Himself.

Further, there is a conflation between the filling of the Spirit and the indwelling of the Spirit. Scripture does indicate that the believer is indwelled by the Spirit, but that it is also appropriate to pray for a full measure of the Spirit, or a filling of the Spirit (Acts 4:8; Eph. 5:18). However, Dean indicates that God (or the Spirit, or the Lord) “will not share His dwelling place. He will inhabit it alone” (69). The implication clearly made by Dean is that the Spirit will not indwell the believer until sin is removed. This is Scripturally false, and leaves the believer with no recourse for the sealing of their heart in God’s sight (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:13; 4:30).

The core of Dean’s message remains helpful and at least loosely tied to Biblical principles. Throughout the book, though, her tendency to play loose with theology, conflate the distinct persons of the Trinity, and not explain concepts fully weakens her message. Ultimately, only her theme of brokenness consistently shines through other issues within the book.

Brokenness, Biblically speaking, is simply admitting that we are all sinful beings, and that even creation itself is fallen. As Paul says in Romans 5, through Adam, death and sin entered into the world, and into all of us. We all stand guilty before God.

If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Romans 5:17-21

Brokenness, then, is a refusal to sin about our sin. In other words, a broken and contrite spirit (Psa. 51:17) admits, “I am sinful. I am worthless apart from Jesus Christ. I am wholly evil apart from God’s intervention.” It is a refusal to cover our sin with grave clothes; to lie, insisting that we are “fine” or “okay” despite the blatant sin written across our being.

Of course, like all things relating to our sanctification–distinct from our standing through justification before God–we must constantly affirm and re-affirm our brokenness. We must come to God over and over, confessing our sins, so that He might renew a right spirit within us (Psa. 51:10) and cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9).

Why would you want to lie to your Maker about what is obvious to Him, and to all around you? You are sinful, as am I. In admitting that, we qualify ourselves for salvation and the work of Jesus.

And Jesus answered them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”– Luke 5:31, 32

Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God
J. I. Packer
Rating:

Packer is well-known for his impeccable theology, and for condensing and explaining that theology in concise ways. This little work, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, is no exception. Packer tackles the seeming contradiction–what Packer rightly and clearly defines as an antimony–between God’s total rule over all things and man’s responsibility to evangelize. In short, Packer seeks to biblically answer the question, “Why should a Christian evangelize if God is going to save who he is going to save?”

Packer tackles the subject systematically. First, he treats God’s sovereignty, both logically and scripturally. This section is a delight, as it has a, “You already believe in this, you act in this, you just don’t want to admit it,” sort of feeling. Packer cleverly points out that every Christian praying for God to intervene in the lives, events, and occurrences of people and the world are in fact admitting God is sovereign. Every Christian who would plead with God, “Save my unbelieving mother!” in fact announces–whether they have come to terms with this or not–that God is in fact sovereign over salvation. Otherwise, why pray such a prayer?

Packer then goes on to deal with evangelism. This requires a short treatment of the gospel, always enjoyable in Packer’s Scriptural, clever, and brief style. Packer points out the various mechanisms that have taken over a straightforward presentation of the gospel, deals with the crutch of “evangelistic services and sermons,” and dispels myths about what “works” and what doesn’t. In the middle of this section is one of the book’s most effective lines:

If “evangelistic” sermons/meetings are thought of as special occasions, it is a damning indictment of our normal services.Finally, Packer engages the core material: the relationship between sovereignty and evangelism.

This section is quite short, as his foundation has been built well. Packer argues, again, logically and Scripturally. His thesis: not only does sovereignty remain comfortable with evangelism, it actually expands the scope (through requiring prayer to a sovereign God) and the impetus (God’s rule commands evangelism through the preaching of the gospel) of evangelism.

The only drawbacks to this book are its brevity in certain areas, and the kind words Packer has for subjects which he clearly feels less than kindly about. While his charity is appreciated, there are sections that might benefit from a nameless treatment of some of the furthest stretchings of evangelism, and how those stretchings might be brought back in line with Scriptural practices.

Finally, this is a work of theology, but it is largely a primer on both sovereignty and evangelism. If you are looking for a full treatment of either doctrine, this book will whet your appetite, but not fill you.

Then [Jesus] left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” –Mat. 13:36

Jesus is rolling his kingdom parables in Matthew 13. These are some of his first teachings that are are especially confusing. (I think much of the confusion around the sermon on the mount has surfaced looking back toward those words, rather than in the minds of contemporary listeners.) I love that in the face of these new and complex teachings, the disciples say, “Explain to us…” It’s such a simple and profound request, more so in light of 21st century Bible study.

Jesus has already told the disciples it has been given to those disciples to “know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” (Mat. 13:11). But here, the disciples are walking in that: “Okay, so tell us the secret here!”

I’m struck by this because as Bible students, we have a million resource to which we may make appeals: commentaries, marginal notes in our Bibles, theology email aliases, Logos and Accordance Bible software, professors, etc., etc. It has become impressively easy to dig into an exegesis of Scripture without every saying or praying, “Lord, Explain to me…”

I certainly think there’s a sort of saturation of the Word that has a Christ-facing implication and even foundation. Some might argue that explicitly asking Christ and the Holy Spirit to explain a passage, before studying every text and commentary, is redundant; the choice of the text as being primary and good, God-honoring tools and resources has in a sense been a plea for explanation. Then again, even typing out that argument feels utterly ridiculous; it requires arguing against asking Jesus and the Holy Spirit for help in prayer before coming to the Word that is Jesus (John 1) and is inspired by the Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16).

To be fair, there seems to be another possible extreme: one that so ignores Biblical, Christ-exalting resources that study becomes nothing but a plea to Christ for understanding. However, that approach presumes Christ never provides explanation through the men of his church who have made the same request before, and done the hard work of recording their study from which we might benefit.

It seems clear, then: to study without crying out, “Lord, Spirit, explain to me…” is insisting self-sufficiency. To cry out without a humble willingness to be buttressed by the work of other godly men is foolishness. Happily, there is a Christ-dependent middle ground: study and work based upon a trust in Christ answering an explicit and initial request: “Lord, explain to me [your word].”