Grace4Growing

2025 Reading: A Year in Review

Tue, 16 Dec 2025 19:48:09 GMT

My 2025 Reading List

Reading is my favorite pastime. Some men love to hunt. Others prefer to fish or play golf frequently. Many men enjoy working with wood or fixing up old cars. I like several of those things, but none so much as holding a book in one hand and a cup of black coffee in the other.

Last December I decided to keep track of my reading in order to publish the list in this blog and on social media. I am going to list the in chronological order of my reading and give brief comments on them. I enjoyed most of them. A couple of them were more of a chore. Some were pure delight! Several of the books were not written by Christian authors and, accordingly, present un-Christian worldviews and values (in spite of being good literary works). I prefer to read widely—especially well-known works of literature. I kept a little journal and recorded each title along with the date I finished the book and a few brief notes.

Without further ado, here’s the books I read in 2025.

The Bible (God)

I normally read six chapters of Scripture in the morning (3 Old Testament, 1 Psalm/Proverb, 2 New Testament) 6 days per week (I read my preaching text on Sundays). This usually puts me through the Bible in about 250 days. For a few years I read the Bible 2x per year. I estimate that I’ve read through the Bible about 30 times since I started at age 20, and it remains wonderful every time!

The Tower of Babel (Bodie Hodge)

This was a good read to start the year. I love Answers in Genesis more than any other Christian ministry I can think of, and this book did not disappoint. Chapter 17 was a bit of a slog to get through, being 70 pages long. Other than that, I found Bodie’s trace of the world’s ancestry back to Noah’s family fascinating.

Desiring God (John Piper)

“God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.” This book is John Piper’s manifesto on what he calls “Christian Hedonism.” It is an excellent and convincing book, and I highly recommend it. It is not an easy read, though, so be ready to invest much mental effort.

Christianity & Liberalism (J. Gresham Machen)

Machen’s major assertion is that “Liberalism” (by this he means liberal “Christianity”) is, in fact, not Christianity at all. Liberalism is a completely different religion than historic, biblical Christianity. He eloquently and convincingly proves his point by comparing the two throughout a survey of several cardinal Christian doctrines.

If you replace “Liberalism” with “Progressive,” Machen’s argument becomes just as relevant today as it was one hundred years ago when he

published it.

Happy Lies (Melissa Dougherty)

This book exposes the influence of “New Thought” philosophy on Christianity that now manifests itself with self-obsession and the search for self-empowerment. She brings good content, but writes in a more conversational style than I prefer. The book needs better editing and several sentences were poorly written. Melissa Dougherty is a YouTuber and this was her first book. Happy Lies is a good resource for the subject is covers.

Strange New World (Carl Truman)

I came across Carl Truman through the “Mortification of Spin” podcast, and picked up this book as a result. It is a well written, deeply thoughtful exploration of what is the modern concept of the “self.” Truman traces its origins and demonstrates its historical development into the modern expressions of the LGBTQ+ community.

The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (Nicholas Carr)

I heard about this book on a podcast (cannot remember which one). I do not think Carr is a Christian, so he writes from a Darwinian point of view. In spite of that, he makes some good observations. He demonstrates how the use of computers and internet/phones has changed the way we think. There was one chapter in this book that plodded along for a while, but Carr’s overall use of clinical data to bolster his arguments is convincing. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

Martin Chuzzlewit (Charles Dickens)

Charles Dickens is my favorite author for several reasons. One of those reasons shines through these pages: poetry. Dickens writes his narratives in vivid, poetic imagery and style. It is not quite poetry and not quite prose. He makes the perfect hybrid. Most modern readers are bored by this style, but it is, perhaps, my favorite feature. The BBC did a good miniseries of this book a while ago, but watching a movie adaptation of Dickens never can capture the beauty of his pen.

The Widening of God’s Mercy (Richard & Christopher Hays)

A friend recommended this book to me and asked my opinion. The book was written for one singular purpose: to convince Christians to abandon biblical teaching in the area of sexual morality and accept the LGBTQ+ movement’s teachings on the subject. The authors make their case by attempting to prove that God changes (employing the Bible’s anthropomorphic descriptions of God). If they can prove that God changes, then they can prove that God’s decisions and values concerning sexuality have also changed since the Bible was written. I found this book entirely unconvincing especially because the “exegesis” in it was very shoddy. The authors are very talented writers, but they lack in logic and persuasiveness. I wrote a detailed report on this book, and I might publish it here at some time in the future.

The Way We Live Now (Anthony Trollope)

I read this for the pure fun of it & was not disappointed. This was the first Anthony Trollope novel for me. It was unusual in that, I hated all the characters and yet enjoyed the book. Usually, I don’t like a book unless I’m fond of at least one of the protagonists. I will look to read more Trollope in the future.

Through Gates of Splendor (Elizabeth Elliot)

Elizabeth Elliot, wife of missionary and martyr, Jim Elliot, recounts the mission of the five men who were killed by the Auca Indians in Ecuador while attempting to reach them with the gospel. Most of the book describes the men and their mission with their death at the end. Explanation in more detail is given in two epilogues. I finished this book wiping tears. It was truly inspirational and challenging.

To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee)

I typically do not like to read books about racial tensions and prejudices (not for any aversion to that history, but for desire to avoid the sadness the subject foists upon me). I was pleasantly surprised when I found this book to be a lot of fun! Harper Lee was an excellent story teller. This novel is as much a “coming of age” story as it is a civil rights narrative. The moral of the story was excellent, and I was absolutely surprised when I discovered who the “Mockingbird” was at the end!

As a Christian, I found two parts of this story to be deleterious. First, like many secular books, there is some foul language. Secondly, there is a scene that mocks Christian missionaries and missionary societies. Harper Lee displays astonishing ignorance of Christianity and she promotes an anti-Christian (pro-pagan) message in that scene. Other than that, the book was worth the read. Like so many books, one must eat the meat and spit out the bones.

The Return of the Native (Thomas Hardy)

Thomas Hardy is an excellent writer and can truly captivate with the turn of a phrase. This was another book that I enjoyed without liking most of the characters. It was interesting, but I’m not quite sure what the point of the story was. Hardy employed numerous biblical allusions in spite of his painting a sub-Christian view of marriage. If anything, this book was a masterpiece of dramatic irony. Characters make several weighty decisions without knowing what the reader knows -- to disastrous effect. I appreciated the tension built by this device.

The Apostles’ Creed (Albert Mohler)

Mohler makes an excellent exposition of the gospel from cover to cover! I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Strong in its conclusion, this work culminated with a call for readers to yearn for heaven and “the life everlasting” with convincing effect.

The Last of the Mohicans (James Fenemore Cooper)

This is, perhaps, the most famous of Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales . I would rank this book as my second favorite of this year. Its a great story!

Hollywood made a movie under this title with Daniel Day-Lewis playing Hawkeye. I cannot state this strongly enough: the movie is nothing like the book. The book is much better, and the characters are far deeper. The movie, though, does have a better soundtrack.

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer (Mark Twain)

This was a lot of fun to read. The bottom line is “Boys will be boys.” I found a humorous irony in that Tom and Huck fear the evil robber, Injun Joe, but at the same time they aspire to be robbers themselves. Nobody captures the inner-workings of squirrelly little boys than Mark Twain!

They Had Names (Nathaniel Jeanson)

This was my favorite read of the year. The book traces the history of pre-Columbian native populations in the Americas. A Harvard PhD in cell and developmental biology, Jeanson uses genetic and linguistic data matched with archeological clues to make his case. The supreme feature of this book is that Jeanson is a Christian (works for Answers in Genesis), and he presents his work from that worldview and with obvious, godly love for the indigenous peoples.

Dispensationalism Revisited (Kevin Bauder, Editor)

This book features a series of academic-level essays on the subject of Dispensationalism. Produced by Central Seminary, this is a pro-dispensationalism work dedicated to Dr. Charles Hauser. It is not an easy read, but it is a good read for pastors.

A Young Scholars’ Guide to Poetry (Maggie Hagan & Melissa Craig with Dr. Hannah Eagleson)

I’ve loved poetry for most of my adult life (didn’t care for it as a child). With a desire to write poetry myself, I found this middle-school level poetry textbook and gave it a shot. I loved it because it clearly teaches the fundamental mechanics and structures of poetry. The book uses examples from famous poets and introduces them with concise biographical sketches. I learned much! I will probably re-read it at some point.

The Old Man & the Sea (Ernest Hemmingway)

I found this book on the shelf of the english classroom at Central A&M high school while substitute teaching in 2024. That day, I read about half of the book before the final bell sounded. In October of this year, I found myself subbing for the same teacher, recognized the classroom, and immediately knew what I had to do. I found the book, located the place I had left off, and finished the story!

This was an interesting read, but I’m not sure what the point of the story was. It simply describes an old man going fishing, hooking the biggest fish of his life, and losing it piece by piece to sharks before he makes it back home.

Fault Lines (Voddie Baucham)

This is a good, biblical explanation of the problems with Critical Theory — especially Critical Race Theory. Baucham discusses its origin and infiltration into evangelicalism. Sadly, I heard the news that Voddie Baucham died while I was reading this book. I met him at the Ark Encounter during the Answers for Pastors Conference in 2019. We stayed in the same hotel.

Of Mice & Men (John Steinbeck)

I found this book in the school library while subbing for the librarian. I picked it out because I had heard of it and of Steinbeck. I finished the book out of sheer determination (it was only 119 pages). This is a horrible book — riddled with foul-mouthed profanity and blasphemy, and predictable in its storytelling. Other than an excellent use of foreshadowing (the dog’s execution = Lennie’s execution), this story wasn’t good.

When I finished the book, in disgust, I jotted the following note in my journal: “I’m bored with these ‘lost-generation’ cynics like Hemingway, Fitzgerald, and Steinbeck. They write nihilistic, empty, hopeless, pointless stories with unlikable characters.”

Crime & Punishment (Fyodor Dostoevsky)

Recommended by a friend, I found this book at first disturbing, but thoroughly well written. A young college student, Raskolnikov theorized that certain men of genius should be and were justified in shedding blood in order to do great things (citing Napoleon as an example). Raskolnikiv puts his theory to the test by murdering an old pawn-broker woman and her sister. He soon finds out that he must not be a man of genius because he is unable to cope with what he did. Raskolnikov ends up going to prison while never admitting that what he did was wrong.

Dostoevsky aptly describes the miserable and disappointed protagonist near the end of the book. “Perhaps it was just because of the strength of his desires that he had thought himself a man to whom more was permissible than to others.” That description captures the likeness of most criminals throughout history.

Legacy Interrupted (Shlomo Ben Asher)

When my wife and I went to Israel in 2023, Shlomo was our Israeli guide. He was excellent! He wrote this book to chronicle his family’s suffering during the Nazi Holocaust. I have no words to describe it — Just tears . . . and rage! There are people today who try to minimize the Holocaust. Don’t listen to them. They are antisemites and idiots.

Five English Reformers (J.C. Ryle)

J.C. Ryle presented five succinct biographical sketches of martyrs burned for their faith by Bloody Mary’s Roman Catholic regime. Ryle chose John Hooper, Rowland Taylor, Hugh Latimer, John Bradford, and Nicholas Ridley as his subjects. Ryle’s purpose was to demonstrate that the Church of England should not drift back toward Rome (a tendency which seemed to vex him in his generation).

The Great Evangelical Disaster (Francis Shaeffer)

Shaeffer posited that the Church (evangelical) sought to accommodate itself to the spirit of the age. This is the great disaster. Written in the early 1980s, this book is quite prophetic!

A Christmas Carol (Charles Dickens)

This was my second reading of this classic. As with all Dickens stories, you can watch the movie, but then you miss the beauty of the written word.

The Screwtape Letters (C.S. Lewis)

Interesting. Insightful. Fun. As always, I read Lewis with caution. He writes some wonderful and thoughtful material, but he also holds to some unorthodox theology.

Gospel Reset (Ken Ham)

Answers in Genesis sent this book to pastors all over the country in 2017 for free. In it, Ken Ham asserts that Western Civilization has been transformed from an “Acts 2” society to an “Acts 17” one. By this he means that the Acts 2 audience at Peter’s Pentecost sermon had a basic knowledge of the biblical worldview while the Acts 17 audience at Paul’s “Mars Hill” sermon did not. Accordingly, we should present the gospel more like Paul did to the Greeks than Peter did to the Jews.

Faithful Leaders (Rico Tice)

This was an excellent and edifying little book for leaders.

Evangelism & The Sovereignty of God (J.I. Packer)

Packer asserts that believing in divine sovereignty does not hinder evangelism, but strengthens it. He anchors this assertion on the “antimony” of divine sovereignty and human responsibility (pp. 18-19). It is an excellent and convincing read. It is well balanced, convincing, and edifying. I found myself challenged and well as encouraged.

Well, there you have it! I read thirty books in 2025, and I hope to read as many in the new year. I am hoping to start out with The Gales of November by John U. Bacon. It is a newly released chronicle of the Edmond Fitzgerald.

Highlights: Little Dorrit, the BBC, and Jesus on TV

Thu, 12 Jun 2025 18:56:35 GMT

Character Updates Can be Dangerous

Note : Highlights is a series of “paragraph reviews.” I explained these reviews in my initial post in this series.

Charles Dickens is my favorite author and the author of my favorite book, Little Dorrit . I love Dickens’ style for his vivid characters, his virtuous plots, his poetic descriptive power, and his social critiques. If I had to chose one above the rest of these reasons, I would pick the characters. I can illustrate Dickens’ power of character creation by typing one name: Ebenezer Scrooge.

My wife and I recently saw his characters on screen when we watched the 2008 BBC miniseries adaptation of Little Dorrit . On the whole, it is a good series, but it reminded me that books cannot fully translate to screen. It would not be practical. The mediums are just too different for perfect translation, so I don’t fault the producers for making necessary changes. I did, however, spot a major and unnecessary change that affected my favorite aspect of Dickens’ writing — his characters.

The paragraph I highlight today is not, in and of itself, a memorable one. I highlight it not for its own merits or demerits, but I chose it for the subtle truth it exposes. I am going to print the paragraph below, and then compare it to the film adaptation, and then draw a biblical & cultural lesson from the exercise.

The Paragraph

“Now, I am all right,” said Mr Meagles, after a minute or so. “Now, it’s over. Arthur, my dear fellow, confess at once that you expected me before.”

“I did,” said Arthur; “but Amy told me—”

“ Little Dorrit. Never by any other name.” (It was she who whispered it).

“—But my Little Dorrit told me that, whithout asking for any further explanation, I was not to expect you until I saw you.”

(Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit , First published 1857. This edition published in Penguin Classics 1998, Revised edition, Penguin Books, 2003, Page 854, emphasis mine)

This paragraph reveals that Amy Dorrit insists on being called by her nickname, “Little Dorrit.” Her attitude is consistent throughout the book, expressing the same wish on page 790. This is the fundamental nature of the character Dickens created in his story. Amy Dorrit, diminutive in stature, was nicknamed “Little Dorrit,” and she liked being called that — especially by Arthur Clennam.

The BBC miniseries, for the most part, captured the essence of that character. Yet they could not prevent themselves from attempting to update Amy’s character. In the seventh ¹ episode, the BBC filmmakers inserted a scene not found in the book. In that scene, Amy takes exception when Arthur calls her “Little Dorrit,” and scolds him for it, expressing contempt for it. The entire scene lasts just two or three minutes, but it accomplishes a purpose. The scene subtly changes her character at the fundamental level. The Amy Dorrit that came from Charles Dickens’ pen would never say what the BBC Amy Dorrit said in front of the camera. For two minutes out of an entire miniseries, we were presented with a completely different person. If I had not read the book, I would’t have noticed it. I simply would have accepted the screen version as authentic.

The Lesson

What does this have to do with most (non-nerdy) people? For decades there has been an admirable desire to portray biblical stories and characters on screen. Three recent adaptations come to mind: “The Chosen,” “The King of Kings,” and “The House of David.” Two of these productions portray Jesus Christ, while the third relates the story of His great ancestor. The BBC’s subtle update to “ Little Dorrit ” alerted me to the relative ease with which a screen portrayal of the Son of God could update that Character to fit modern tastes.

The change in Amy Dorrit’s character update was both drastic and subtle. In two minutes, she contradicted everything Dickens has written her to be. Indeed, she even contradicted everything she had been on screen! Yet, the switch was so subtly flipped that most viewers would never notice. If that is the case, how much subtle change could be made while portraying Christ on screen?

Some films obviously and brazenly change the character of Christ. Though blasphemous, I do not consider them dangerous for seekers. I have not watched “The King of Kings,” but I Did watch the first two episodes of “House of David.” It was so far different from the biblical story that it was unrecognizable (although the guy who played Saul was awesome). The “House of David” reminds me of the screen adaptation of James Fenemore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans . Like that movie, “House of David” so obviously departs from the Book that everyone recognizes it. ² Such portrayals bother me, but do not trouble me.

Updating the character of Jesus is most dangerous when it is most subtle . For that reason, one scene from “The Chosen” truly bothers me. It is the “Nicodemus” scene . The scene is well produced and acted. It does an excellent job, for the most part, of conveying the mood of the conversation from John chapter 3. But then, within just a few seconds, a subtle gesture undermines the deity of Christ. Nicodemus, realizing Jesus is the Christ, bends down on his knees before Jesus. Even as Nicodemus begins assuming this posture, Jesus protests against it, saying “What are you doing?”. Jesus lifts Nicodemus back up, absolutely refusing to accept worship from him. The scene happens quickly—just a few seconds. It is subtle. But it is utterly and totally blasphemous.

I have read the Book, and the Lord Jesus Christ never, ever refuses to be worshiped. Apostles and angels refused to be worshipped ³ , but Jesus always accepted and encouraged it. ⁴ I have not watched most episodes of “The Chosen,” so I do not know if this type of change happens often, but this one was enough for me. God in flesh refuses to accept worship from one of His creatures. The Jesus revealed in the Bible would never do what the Jesus of the screen did.

If you choose to watch screen portrayals of biblical stories and characters, be on alert. Watch out for character updates. They are often subtle. That’s why they’re dangerous.

Notes

¹ There were eight episodes of the miniseries on Amazon Prime. I think the original release of the series broke the content into fourteen episodes. I am referencing the Amazon Prime numbering.

² Cooper’s book is far better than the movie that unjustly steals its name. The movie is nothing at all like the book.

³ Acts 14:15; 10:24-26; Revelation 19:10; 22:8

⁴ Mark 7:24-30; Luke 8:26-35; Luke 8:40-42; Luke 8:43-48; John 20:26-29

Highlights: C.S. Lewis & The Weight of Glory

Tue, 21 Jan 2025 00:40:25 GMT

My Desires Were Too Weak!

HIGHLIGHTS is a series of "Paragraph Reviews." You can view my explanation in the first post here .

C.S. Lewis, over the last ten years, has become one of my favorite authors. He can take a subject and mull it over in his mind and put it on paper with discipline and focus. He sets the subject in the center, walks around it, and describes it from every angle. If you like guided tours into the world of contemplation, Lewis is your man.

I also find in Lewis a man with whom I have serious theological disagreements. I do not like reading what I disagree with for the most part, but that is not the case with Lewis. Even where I find his views abhorrent, I find them stated thoughtfully and interestingly. On the whole, though, I have greatly benefited from his writings.

I want to highlight one of those benefits in Lewis’ book, The Weight of Glory. One paragraph within those pages revolutionized my view of the role of desire in the Christian life. From early life, I believed godliness to consist of having evil desires and working hard to curb them. I therefore believed that I should live a life of unfulfilled desires in exchange for a good life in eternity. Among other graces, this paragraph was most instrumental in correcting me.

THE PARAGRAPH

“The New Testament has lots to say about self-denial, but not about self-denial as an end in itself. We are told to deny ourselves and to take up our crosses in order that we may follow Christ; and nearly every description of what we shall ultimately find if we do so contains an appeal to desire. . . . Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”

C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory & Other Addresses, New York: Harper One, 2001, 25-26. (Originally published in 1949)

IMPORTANCE

John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism” was heavily influenced by this and several other of Lewis’ writings. I have also heard reference to this paragraph on the “Breakpoint” podcast with John Stonestreet — though I cannot recall which episode. Needless to say, “The Weight of Glory” is certainly not new or unknown in the Evangelical world, and it has enjoyed much influence there.

I, however, did not grow up “there.” I grew up in the Independent Fundamental Baptist world (and am thankful for it). I knew very little of Lewis’ writings outside of the Chronicles of Narnia, and, consequently did not come across “The Weight of Glory” until a few years ago. I wish I had found it sooner!

This paragraph has been one of the main lenses that has corrected my view of desire in the Christian life. For many, many years, I believed the Christian life was one of unfulfilled desires. I thought of godliness in a negative sense. Christianity seemed to me like a system set up to help us make sure we do not desire too much. I was wrong — and my wrong conception bore consequences. I found my Christian joy to be limited. Reading that God “does not find our desires too strong, but too weak” hit me like a bolt of lightning. It was a shock, a thrill, a revelation, and an injection of joy all at once. I now understand the Christian life to be one of “Joy unspeakable and full of glory.” The Christian life is not one of suppressing great desires in order to win brownie points with God. It is a life of choosing great pleasure (Psalm 16:11) — exceedingly, lasting pleasure and rejecting so many cheap, broken imitations!

STRENGTHS

This paragraph helps me understand the essence of Christian sacrifice. Denying ourselves in every case is actually not a sacrifice. It is, in reality, a choice to forgo lesser pleasures for even greater ones.

The analogy of the ignorant child who cannot imagine a holiday at the sea perfectly illustrates people who choose sin over Christ. They think they are choosing the greatest pleasure and rejecting dullness and oppression when, in fact, they are doing the opposite. I have read several “deconstruction of faith” testimonials over the past few years, and I find that they all resemble the child in the mud. They usually begin deconstruction for one purpose — preferring sin over Christ. Before any intellectual reasoning can be considered, there is a matter of desire at root. Christ forbids drink, sex, or ambition, and they think those are greater pleasures than Him. We do not post “construction” testimonials — explanations for why we remain in the Christian faith — but if I were to do so, Lewis’s mudpie vs. holiday at the sea analogy would be in it.

WEAKNESS

This paragraph addresses the degree of desire without going into much detail about the kind of desires or disorder of desires. Now that may only be because of Lewis’ discipline — limiting himself to a narrower discussion of the subject — so it is understandable. Even so, the kind of desires should be considered as well as degree. He does touch on it a little bit throughout the essay, but not in much depth.

RECOMMENDATION

CS Lewis is good reading for both those who like to meditate thoroughly on relevant subjects and those who like to read ideas expressed through engaging language. Lewis’s writing is aesthetically pleasing. If you appreciate beauty, you will appreciate his writing style.

Caveat: Read Lewis with caution. You will benefit greatly, but you will find his thoughts inconsistent with biblical teachings, even major ones.

HIGHLIGHTS: Rosaria Butterfield's Conversion-Impact

Fri, 10 Jan 2025 21:53:31 GMT

PARAGRAPH HIGHLIGHT REVIEW: Conversion Should Make an Impact

Several books have been foundational to my Christian maturity, and Rosiaria Butterfield’s The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert stands tall among them. In this autobiography, Rosaria recounts her conversion from a lesbian lifestyle to faith in Christ. I love this book for two reasons: It encourages me concerning the power of the gospel, and Rosaria Butterfield is an talented writer in her own right.

I chose to review a paragraph from the introduction to her book, so you will see that Butterfield is setting the reader’s expectations for the following pages. Her conversion story relates a total revolution in her life, and this paragraph perfectly prepares us to follow her on that journey.

THE PARAGRAPH

“In the pages that follow, I share what happened in my private world through what Christianas politely call conversion. This word—conversion—is simply too tame and too refined to capture the train wreck that I experienced in coming face-to-face with the Living God. I know of only one word to describe this time-released encounter: impact. Impact is, I believe, the space between the multiple car crash and the body count. I try, in the pages that follow, to relive the impact of God on my life.”

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert [Second Ed.]. By Rosaria Butterfield.

Pittsburg, PA: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2017, xi.

STRENGTHS

CLARITY — This paragraph clearly defines the key theme of the book.

Butterfield restates “ conversion ” with the word, “ impact ,” and this restatement meaningfully shapes the reader’s understanding of what “conversion” means to her. By “impact,” Butterfield means that Jesus Christ is not just a positive addition to her life, but rather a total revolution of it. She uses “conversion” throughout the book, but the reader’s subconscious has been programmed from the beginning to think of conversion as “impact.”

VISUALIZATION — This paragraph utilizes metaphors to make readers visualize the theme.

I like books more than television because a good author can paint pictures inside my head. Television can only put pictures in front of my eyes. In one paragraph, Butterfield (via metaphor) paints two major pictures in my head. First, a train-wreck, then a pile-up of crashed cars on the freeway. Both images vividly relate the type of impact conversion had on her life. It wasn’t a side-swipe or a fender-bender. Her conversion was a total loss — a devastating impact that completely disabled what was functioning before. Butterfield proves her story-telling talent as she paints vivid scenes on the canvas of my mind.

WEAKNESSES

Nope — None that I can see!

IMPORTANCE

Conversion should make an impact , and this highlight emphasizes that truth. The paragraph simultaneously refutes two problems in Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism today: easy believe-ism and grace exclusion.

“ Easy believe-ism ” is the idea that faith for salvation need not involve any recognition of or repentance from sin. In the easy believe-ism scheme, a person can pray the “sinner’s prayer” and then go on living as if nothing had ever happened. No change of life need occur to demonstrate the reality of that faith. In other words, conversion of a lesbian to Christ need not have such “impact.” She could pray the sinner’s prayer, go on living her former lifestyle, and still be saved.

“ Grace exclusion ” is a term of my own invention. It describes a minority opinion among some ultra-fundamentalists. The opinion basically declares that certain sinners are excluded from the very possibility of receiving God’s grace in salvation. The general idea is that homosexuals can never be saved (contra 1Corinthians 6:11). This view is mainly popularized by Steven Anderson and the “New IFB.”

Rosaria’s testimony is the stone that kills both of these birds. If homosexuals are beyond the grace of God, then how can she be so dramatically saved? If salvation necessarily requires no repentance, then why is “conversion” so “tame” a word to describe the total revolution of her life? Birds, meet stone!

RECOMMENDATION

The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert is an easy, enjoyable, and encouraging read, written for the popular level. It is only 148 pages in length, and 179 pages if you stick around for the encore of appendices. This is a great book for everyone, especially those who like to read biography and those who like to admire trophies of God’s grace.

To view the book on Amazon, click here .

HIGHLIGHTS

Fri, 10 Jan 2025 21:08:49 GMT

INTRODUCING "HIGHLIGHTS" - A SERIES OF PARAGRAPH REVIEWS

I’m in Flossenbürg. It’s April, 1945, and the Allies are marching in the streets, having liberated the town from Nazi control. The war is almost over. How could it be that, just two weeks ago, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was executed by the Nazis right here? Couldn’t he have been spared this late in the war?

“Please stop clicking your highlighter!” Flossenbürg disappears, the calendar spins forward, and I’m thrown back into my armchair in the living room. Looking up from my copy of Eric Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer, I see the glimpse of my interruption. The exasperated look on my wife's face tells me that I have been doing it again. I have been unconsciously clicking the cap on my yellow highlighter as I read, and it annoys everyone except for me.

I read with highlighter in hand because many sentences or paragraphs catch my fancy. I may like the way the author states something — admiring his style, or I may be struck by the truth of what is stated and find it worth remembering later. In that spirit, I hope to highlight some paragraphs on this blog. Putting a bit of a twist on book reviews, I want to conduct “paragraph reviews,” in a series entitled “Highlights.”

So, without further ado . . . Ok — some more ado . . . But it’s not about nothing!

PARAGRAPH REVIEWS

This format allows me freedom to select from various forms and genres, keep the workload on the hobby level (rather than the labor level), and highlight elements of the written word I find interesting, helpful, encouraging, and/or entertaining. I want a hobby instead of a chore, so — paragraph reviews it is!

CRITERIA

Selected Paragraphs should be well-written, communicate something valuable, and/or generally be among my favorite paragraphs. By communicating “something valuable,” I mean that I will select paragraphs that communicate truth, artistic/literary beauty, or thought provoking themes.

CATEGORIES

I will select paragraphs from several categories, including but not limited to Christian non-fiction, general non-fiction, literature, and the Bible. Christian non-fiction includes theology, Christian topics, Christian living, etc. General non-fiction will include biographies, history, other topics. Literature will focus on what I most love to read — the classics (Get ready for some Charles Dickens!). Classics may include books, short stories, or poetry. I will include some reviews of Biblical paragraphs but will keep that to a minimum because it’s not fair — the Bible simply rises above all other written words in truth, beauty, and literary form!

DELIMITATIONS

Mostly, I plan to review paragraphs that I like, but I reserve the right to review some I find disagreeable or even odious.

I do not plan to critique the form of the paragraph (grammatically), but rather the content. I chose paragraphs for my unit of focus because I desire a narrow focus, not a grammatically correct paragraph.

I may, from time to time, review a section that actually spans more or less than one paragraph. That will not change the name of this series. I make the blog & the rules, so I can flaunt them if I want to!

LAUNCH!

I have written my first Highlight, and you can find it here . I hope you enjoy it! I hope my reviews make you think about the subjects highlighted and encourage you to love reading as I love it.

Mom & Dad, Give Your Kids What They Want for Christmas: Truth

Wed, 20 Dec 2023 18:11:10 GMT

Imagine, But Don't Believe.

“Mom, Dad, Billy said there’s no such thing as Santa. He said I was a dummy for believing it that stupid stuff. Is Santa real?”

Jeff, a second grade boy is having a crisis of faith. For as long as he can remember, his parents have told him that Santa brings his presents on Christmas Eve every year. There is an elf on the shelf keeping watch to see if he is being good enough. He has thoroughly enjoyed this tradition until recess time at school that day. Several of the other boys told him Santa was fake, and they made him feel like a fool.

Well, Mom & Dad? What do you say to Jeff at this point?

I have read & heard several strategies for parents to let their kids down gently at this point. The problem here is that it never should have gotten this far. As a father, a pastor, and most importantly, as a Christian, I believe parents should never tell their children that Santa is real — or even imply the idea. Let me explain.

WHY YOU SHOULD NOT TELL YOUR CHILDREN SANTA IS REAL:

It is a lie.

Santa is not real. To say otherwise is to lie directly and intentionally to your children. We all know that Christmas is about Jesus (and I’m sure Christian parents who disagree with me about Santa are not trying to denigrate the real meaning of the season). That being said, even a well-intentioned lie is still a lie.

It seems a strange twist of irony to celebrate the birth of Truth Incarnate with lies.

(John 14:6) Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth , and the life. No one

comes to the Father except through Me.

God directly commands us to put lying out of our lives and speak truth — especially to those closest to us.

(Ephesians 4:25) Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak

truth with his neighbor,” for we are members of one another.

(Ephesians 4:15a) but, speaking the truth in love . . .

(Colossians 3:9) Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old

man with his deeds,

It makes you a hypocrite.

Do you tell your children it is wrong for them to lie to you? What kind of punishment do you impose on them for lying to you? Are you disappointed in them when they lie to you?

Is it not hypocritical to tell your children it is wrong for them to lie to you, but you have free license to lie to them? Christian parents must lead, not just in word, but in deed.

If you tell your children it is wrong for them to lie, then don’t lie to them.

It damages their trust.

(Proverbs 26:18-19) Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and

death, Is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, “I was only joking!”

Have you ever known someone who would fool you and do little tricks, and then tell you it was “only a little joke”? In other words, he is saying, “Don’t worry. I wasn’t trying to hurt you. I planned to tell you the truth all along.” That person is like a madman to you.

You cannot trust a madman because his actions and words are unpredictable. He might tell you the truth. He might not. You don’t know. So you don’t trust him.

Parents, you should be predictable in the eyes of your children. They should be able to see your consistency, especially in matters of truth vs. make-believe. The trust-factor is directly tied to my next point . . .

It confuses their concept of faith.

You told them Santa was real for years only for them to find out (possibly in an embarrassing way from friends) it was a lie. You also tell them that Jesus Christ is real, that He is God in human flesh who died for our sins, rose from the dead, and is coming again. Will they remember how you lied to them about Santa when a friend tells them that Jesus is not real?

It is true that many children who believed in Santa grow up in the faith and become strong Christians. That’s the power of the gospel! But your children should not have to overcome an unnecessary hurdle that you cast in their path. They should believe in Jesus because of your Christmas traditions, not in spite of them.

Truth does not damage imagination, it clarifies it.

Parents of young children love to see the wonder and the imagination of childhood (these are beautiful blessings indeed!). We don’t want to damage that. They will have to face the cruel world soon enough!

This is perhaps the most compelling argument in favor of promoting Santa to children. The emotional appeal makes is powerful. But is it a good argument? The argument implicitly states that we have only two options: (1) tell the truth and destroy the kids’ imagination, or (2) tell them Santa is real and allow their imaginations to flourish. This is a bifurcation fallacy (because it assumes there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities when, in fact, there is a third option).

When it comes to Santa, there is a third option. You can tell them the truth AND their imaginations can flourish. Children need to know the boundaries between imagination and belief. C.S. Lewis did. His imagination produced Narnia — an amazing land of fantastic creatures and harrowing adventures. But C.S. Lewis did not believe Narnia actually existed. Adults and children alike need not believe in what they imagine in order to enjoy what they imagine.

Truth does not damage imagination, it clarifies imagination.

I grew up on a property that had access to a lake. In the summer, I would don my snorkel and dive mask and float along the surface, looking down at the sandy lake bottom 20 inches below. I would imagine I was flying a bomber high over enemy territory, using my fingers to make little clouds of dust on the “ground far below.” In my mind, I saw the explosions of bombs hitting the surface. I would even make “pew-pew” sounds through the snorkel! I would be lost in my own little world until my fingers looked like prunes!

Though totally immersed in that imaginary world, at no point did I ever believe that I was really flying a bomber over Berlin in 1944! I knew the truth. I still enjoyed the fantasy. If, however, I DID believe the fantasy, I wouldn’t have enjoyed it so much. Instead, I would have to wonder about its ramifications in my real life.

Children need to know the difference between belief and imagination. It takes a load off their minds, and it does not destroy imagination. Rather, it sets imagination free.

Your children want you to tell them the truth.

That’s why they asked you! They asked you because they are unsure of the truth, and you are the one source of information that they implicitly trust. If your child asks you the question Jeff asked, he/she does not want to be deceived. Your child trusts you and wants to know. Give your child what he wants: Truth!

HOW SHOULD PARENTS HANDLE THE SANTA QUESTION WITH THEIR KIDS?

Tell them from their earliest memory that Santa is make-believe, but teach them about the real St. Nicholas. Santa can still be fun. Imagine, but don’t believe. Read the “Night Before Christmas” poem together. Watch the Rudolf movie, etc. But let them know that this is make-believe and just for fun. Make sure to teach them the boundaries between imagination (Santa) and belief (Jesus).

The Santa fantasy actually comes from a real source. Learn about St. Nicholas and share that story with your kids. It will strengthen their faith!

Teach them that all their gifts come from God (James 1:17).

Tell them to be sensitive toward their friends who have been told that Santa is real.

Teach them to focus on Christ, family, and giving to/serving others at Christmas time.

Practical Church: Why Do Church with the Lights On?

Mon, 26 Jun 2023 21:54:40 GMT

"Light is precious in a world so dark." (Kate DiCamillo, The Tale of Despereaux )*

I am sitting alone at the opening session of the Biblical counseling conference in Lafayette, IN. I’m a little out of my element, a little nervous, a little tired, and a little early. Then a stranger arrives. He is wearing a buffalo print flannel shirt and an immaculate, well-groomed beard.

“Is this seat taken?”

“No — go right ahead.”

A fellow-traveller in this world of biblical counseling, the young man strikes up a conversation with me. After just a few minutes, he has morphed from stranger to friend. We would go on to sit in the same seats for the entire conference.

As we sit there talking, the lights go out. They don’t go completely out. It’s not like the demonstration of complete darkness my family’s group guide gave us deep in the heart of Carlsbad Caverns. It is just very dim. And the conversation is over. The fellowship is done. I am cut off from my new friend by the darkness.

We sing some songs — good songs, worshipping Christ together. But I’m annoyed. It’s 9:00 in the morning. I don’t want to stand in the dark, and if made to sit in the dark I’m going to go straight to sleep!

Now that I have related my entirely subjective anecdote, let me get to the point. Our church does its corporate worship services with the lights on. We don’t dim them at all. It is brilliantly lit in there, and we don’t want to turn the lights down any time soon.

Is that biblical? What does the Bible say about our New Testament worship gatherings?

New Testament Elements of Corporate Worship

Corporate worship should include prayer .

(Colossians 4:2) Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving;

Corporate worship must include preaching of the Word.

(2Timothy 4:2) Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.

Corporate worship should include singing biblical truth and praise.

(Ephesians 5:19-20) (19)speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, (20)giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Corporate worship should include the public reading of God’s Word & teaching of biblical doctrine with exhortation to live the Christian life.

(1Timothy 4:13) Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.

Corporate worship should include the ordinances of Baptism & the Lord’s Supper.

(Matthew 28:19) Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the

Holy Spirit,

— (cf. 1Corinthians 11:23-26)

But what about the lights?

The Bible does not specifically mention certain elements of church life. For example, the New Testament does not explicitly answer these questions.

What should the building look like?
How to set the thermostat
Should we use screens?
What kind of instruments should we play with our music? Or, what style of music?
What is the dress code? Formal, casual, etc.?

Neither does New Testament tell us how bright or how dim the lights in the sanctuary should be.

So I must acknowledge that this subject sits within the boundaries of adiaphora, existing outside of concrete biblical categories. It can neither be proven nor disproven as biblical or sinful. So my little meditation about sanctuary lighting is not a biblical condemnation of the way other people do it, and cannot honestly be that.

But the Bible does give us a little hint about lighting in an implicit passage.

(Acts 20:7-8) (7)Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came

together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and

continued his message until midnight. (8)There were many lamps in the upper

room where they were gathered together.

This passage describes an evening service with so many lamps that it got stuffy in there, and a young man named Eutychus fell asleep and dropped out of the window. Paul, thankfully, resurrected the man (vv. 9-12).

So this earliest description of the lighting in a NT worship service shows us a well-lit room. The lighting is not the point of the passage, though, and it is descriptive rather than prescriptive in nature. It’s only a hint, but this snapshot shows a well-lit room.

A Caveat and a Limitation

Caveat

I do not believe that all churches who dim the lights are necessarily sinning or doing wrong.This is an area where brothers and sisters in Christ can disagree without condemning one another (Romans 14:1-7). That being said, I am fully convinced in my mind (Romans 14:5).

Limitation

I am considering only the lighting in this meditation. I am not considering music, preaching, orders of service, or church fellowship outside of the sanctuary and worship service.

We do church with the lights on. I like it better than church in the dark.

Why?

Let me give you six brief reasons for this preference.

Six Reasons for Church with the Lights On

1. A well-lit sanctuary emphasizes the one-another aspect of

corporate worship.

Corporate worship is intended for us to see one-another. We should see and be seen during the worship service. Darkness cuts that off. Lighting emphasizes this one-anotherness of corporate worship.

A little while ago, I took my family to see the Mario Brothers movie. The room was dark, all attention was focused on the screen, and enjoyed the dark. I didn’t care what everyone else in the room was doing. The darkness put them out of my consciousness. I wasn’t there for them. I was there for me & my family. And that was fine because a movie theater is not a church. Concerts look good in a darkened room (though I prefer more lighting even then), but concerts are not church.

(Hebrews 10:24-25) (24)And let us consider one another in order to stir

up love and good works, (25)not forsaking the assembling of ourselves

together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so

much the more as you see the Day approaching.

The gathering of the church body should be well-lit because we are not just there for ourselves and our immediate families. We are there for one-another. A well-lit sanctuary enables three one-another ministries in the church body.

2. A well-lit sanctuary emphasizes the corporate nature of the

worshippers.

Why do you go to church? Some Christians reason selfishly when answering this question. They consider the personal benefits they will receive from being at the church service. Christianity, however, is not designed for personal autonomy. You are part of a family, a body, a bride, a building of Christ. A darkened room that blocks other worshippers out of your vision while a well-lit room creates an atmosphere in which you can see everyone else and see you are one of/with them.

(1Corinthians 12:20-27) (20)But now indeed there are many members, yet

one body. (21)And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”;

nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” (22)No, much rather,

those members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary.

This passage describes the mindset of personal autonomy. Many Christians regularly forsake the assembly altogether. When you forsake the assembly — when you skip church, you are saying, “I don’t need it and I don’t need the ministry of the other members of this body for my spiritual health and growth.” It seems to me that a darkened sanctuary sends a similar message. It sends the implied message that you should not want to see others. You should not seek to minister to them by personal presence and to have them minister to you in personal presence.

Darkened sanctuaries implicitly tell you to say, “I don’t need these other Christians during worship. Corporate worship is only me and God.”

3. A well-lit sanctuary allows you to see your Bible and

take notes.

You can’t read your Bible in the dark unless you have it on a device. If you’re like me, you like to have your paper, tangible Bible in your lap and open during the preaching.

I don’t take detailed notes while listening to someone preach, but I do like to jot down good thoughts or quotes from the preacher. I cannot effectively do this in the dark.

4. A well-lit sanctuary emphasizes personal accountability.

One of the many reasons for joining a church is to place yourself under the authority of that church. We are all sinners saved by grace — but still sinners. We need to be held spiritually accountable. A well-lit sanctuary helps facilitate that ideal.

(Hebrews 10:25) not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is

the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as

you see the Day approaching.

When we are assembled together, we are told to “exhort” one another. This is closely akin to encouraging and appealing to each other. If the darkness cuts us off, we cannot fulfill this function inside the assembly. In a well-lit sanctuary, Christian brothers can hold each other accountable and “rub-off” on each other in a positive spiritual way.

It is undoubtedly true that many activities outside the worship assembly can serve this goal of accountability. Small groups, youth group, pot-lucks, and a host of other gatherings can do this. But the worship assembly should not be devoid of the accountability factor in itself.

Darkness creates anonymity. That’s sometimes (not always) why people prefer to attend a church with a darkened sanctuary. When you skip church, nobody knows. When you are at church, few people know. You can sit like a bump on a log and not sing or participate — and nobody sees you. Light creates accountability. People see. People know.

5. A well-lit sanctuary allows the preacher to see the

congregation.

I like to see faces while I am preaching. I can see if people are tracking with me. I can “feel the room,” so to speak.

It helps me tremendously while preaching.

6. A well-lit sanctuary emphasizes truth-based worship.

Genuine worship is a heart-response to truth, not a ginned-up emotion. A congregation should be able to worship the Lord heartily without the aid of emotional manipulation. The well-lit sanctuary eschews the use of gimmicks like mood-lighting, and depends solely upon truth for worship.

When discussing worship with the Samaritan woman at the well, Jesus made this statement.

(John 4:24) God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

She had talked about where to worship — What mountain to worship on, etc. Jesus, however, brushed that away. It was peripheral, and was getting in the way. In fact, the physical location of worship had become a stumbling block. What really matters is truth.

Darkness encourages imagination. That can be a good thing, but ultimately, we should not be worshipping our imaginations.

Our worship must be truth-based. Darkness can make you feel like the corporate worship is heightened (mood). That does not necessarily mean that what you feel is worship.

A Spirit-filled worship service should not be controlled by lighting.

Conclusion: a strongly held opinion with reasonable, but not ironclad support

I believe my case for church with the lights on is a good one, but it is not explicitly prescribed by the New Testament. Therefore, I would not separate from other gospel preaching churches over this issue. I also try to scold myself if I find my ego inflating to the point where I look down on brothers and sisters in darkened sanctuaries as somehow less sanctified than me (They’re not, and Pride is evil).

Even in my annoyance at the conference in Lafayette, I sang the great truths of the gospel and heard amazing, biblical teaching. It was a good experience. But when considering a church home where I will spend most Sundays of the year, I would rather attend church with the lights on.

Let each be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5b).

*I'm pretty sure this is not really a reference to church lighting.

Practical Church: Why a Church Calendar?

Wed, 14 Jun 2023 21:56:55 GMT

Practical Church: Why do we do what we do?

Over the past 12 years, our church has undergone many changes. Many of the changes have been intentional. These intentional changes are not designed to be a rebuke against the way things were done in the past. Change does not mean that what used to be was necessarily wrong. These changes, however, have been designed to better serve and equip our church to follow and worship Christ.

I am dedicating a series Wednesday evening services to preaching a topical series

called “Practical Church.” You will find those sermons on our YouTube channel here .

In this series, I mean to explain why we do what we do. I want to consider the practical actions of our church.

This series will address subjects like . . .

— Why do we do church with the lights on?

— Why traditional rather than contemporary congregational singing?

— Why do I emphasize consecutive, expository preaching?

— Why 3 services per week?

— Why pass the offering plate during the services?

— Why use slides during the service — especially during the preaching?

We may come up with more “why” questions as we move through the topics.

Over the past two years, our church has begun to emphasize a “church” or “liturgical” calendar. Earlier this year we observed “Trinity” Sunday, and the week before that was “Pentecost” Sunday, and the week before that was “Ascension” Sunday.

Being a lifelong Independent Baptist, I have never been in a church that emphasized such days. I grew up with emphasis given to Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving. Sprinkled in between these, my churches observed several secular holidays in their worship services. We had worship services dedicated to Independence Day, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Memorial Day, Etc.

All of those are good holidays (It’s MOTHER’S day, not “Birthing Persons” Day!). These special days are truly helpful for our society, and I do think it is appropriate to mention them in the church service.

So why move emphasis away from these to a more traditional church calendar?

Jesus Deserves the Preeminence in our Worship Services.

My decision to lead our church into using a liturgical calendar is grounded on this principle: When we gather to worship Christ, Christ deserves to have the place of preeminence in our services.

(Colossians 1:17-18, NKJV) (17) And He is before all things, and in Him all things

consist. (18) And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning,

the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence .

Preeminence means first place — the highest rank of all. Jesus deserves to be worshipped as the highest honor and glory in every one of our worship services. Nothing — not even good things — Nothing should usurp His place as the Object and Author of our Worship. Jesus Christ Deserves the Preeminence in our church for three reasons.

His sacrifice for our salvation

(Colossians 1:13-14) (13) He has delivered us from the power of darkness and

conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, (14) in whom we have

redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins .

God delivered us from the power of darkness and brought us into the Kingdom of Christ. Now that deliverance was not cheap! It was purchased by the blood of Christ. It was not easy! But He endured the cross for the joy set before Him! So we should be grateful and express that gratitude in the emphasis of our worship.

Imagine that a benevolent man finds a child living on the streets in poverty and starvation. That benefactor takes the starving child into his home, formally adopts him, and raises him as his own son. The man provides good food, clothing, and education along with nurture, support, and undying love. On top of that, the man writes into his will that his adopted son will one day inherit his large fortune and estate.

The boy grows up to be a young man. He gets married and has several children of his own. But he never speaks to his family about his adopted father. They focus on anything and everything other than that benevolent man whose love provided everything they enjoy.

There is one exception. Every year, the family throws an extravagant birthday party in his honor. But even during that birthday celebration, they sing songs to honor fictional fathers as much as they honor him. And they get excited about the birthday gifts because it is a gift exchange. The presents go, not to the man whose birthday it is, but to the other members of the party. And when the birthday party is over, the adopted son and his family spend the rest of the year focusing their attentions on anything and everything other than the loving father.

Judge for yourself: Is that gratitude?

Jesus Deserves Preeminence in the Church because of His Sacrifice for our Salvation. Gratitude demands it.

He also deserves preeminence in our church worship because of . . .

His sovereignty over creation and the church

(Colossians 1:15-18a) (15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over

all creation . (16) For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are

on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or

powers. All things were created through Him and for Him . (17) And He is before

all things, and in Him all things consist . (18) And He is the head of the body,

the church . . .

Paul describes Jesus as the “firstborn” over all creation. In other words, Paul says that Jesus is supreme Ruler over all creation. The idea of being firstborn does not relate to literal birth but to His highest rank over creation. This is just like verse 18, where Jesus is the firstborn from the dead. Jesus wasn’t actually the first person to rise from the dead, but He is the most important one to rise. Jesus is not part of creation, but is supreme ruler over it.

Verses 16-17 describe Jesus as the active Creator & Sustainer of the universe. He is Head of Creation!

Paul goes on to declare that Christ is not only Head of Creation, but He is also Head of the Church (v. 18a).

Mothers and fathers and freedom and soldiers are all honorable. We do right to mention them on certain days the secular calendar designates for them. But Jesus is more honorable. Sunday is, after all, the Lord’s Day — all of it. So we follow a liturgical calendar that always emphasizes Christ and the faith once delivered to the saints.

Jesus deserves the preeminence in our church because He is Head of all Creation and Head of the Church.

Also because of . . .

His supremacy over death

(Colossians 1:18) And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the

beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have

the preeminence .

I am working from this principle: When we gather to worship Christ, Christ deserves to have the place of preeminence in our services.

Now I will apply this principle to the Grace Baptist Church calendar.

Because Jesus Deserves the Preeminence in our Church We Emphasize the Church Calendar Arranged Around Jesus & His Word.

A typical Protestant liturgical calendar looks like the picture I included at the bottom of this article.

We do not observe “Ash Wednesday” or Lent because we believe it violates Jesus’ instructions about fasting (Matthew 6:16-18), but other than that, the emphasis of the year is thoroughly biblical. The entire year revolves around events and doctrines from the life of our Lord and from Scripture.

In my lifetime experience, the churches I have attended have, to varying degrees, organized their calendars around secular events and holidays. For example — Halloween, patriotic holidays, sports (Super Bowl Sunday!), Mothers’ and Fathers’ Days sometimes received the entire emphasis of worship services.

Now those things are typically good things, but we should not worship them.

Jesus Deserves the Preeminence, so it seems a good idea to arrange the church calendar around Christ & His Word.

Possible Objections

Because I am a Baptist and I have made a change, I anticipate some disagreement. I say that with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek, but I do want to address four possible objections to using the liturgical calendar.

Objection #1: This is too much like the Roman Catholic Church.

While it is true that the Romans Catholic Church utilizes the lectionary calendar, it does not follow that using a lectionary/church calendar will lead us into Roman Catholicism.

For instance, the Catholic Church believes strongly in the doctrine of the Trinity. Should we reject the Trinity because it is too “Catholic”? The Roman Catholic Church observes “Trinity Sunday.”But that doesn’t bother me. I am more bothered by the fact that a lot of people in Baptist Churches don’t think about the Trinity enough.

I also will not give up “Silent Night” at Christmas time just because it was written by a Roman Catholic Priest.

Objection #2: A church calendar will breed “stale” religion.

Stale religion comes from hearts that are disinterested in Christ, not from worship services that emphasize Christ.

Objection #3: We’ve never done it that way before!

Now THAT’S some stale religion!

Objection #4: People will be offended.

That is, we fear mothers will be offended if they come to church on Mothers’ Day and the service is not dedicated in their honor. Fathers will be offended on Fathers’ Day. Those of us who love our country will be offended if we come to church on patriotic holidays and find the service not patriotic enough.

I get that, and I believe we should mention those people and institutions honorably during certain worship services. My church says the Pledge of Allegiance on the Sunday before Independence Day, for instance. I think we can do that without dedicating the entire worship service to our country.

Now how does this tension play out in our practice?

Memorial Day weekend fell on May 28th — the same day as “Pentecost” on the church calendar this year. So I spoke a little about Memorial Day, but May 28th was officially “Pentecost Sunday” in our order of service & our Emphasis. Does that mean we do not appreciate our service men & women who have died to defend our freedoms? No. It just means we worship Christ instead of heroic human beings.

When we gather to worship Christ, Christ deserves to have the place of preeminence in our services . Our church calendar now helps to serve that purpose.

See for yourself.

Three Reasons to Refuse Revenge

Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:39:16 GMT

"...he who pours out vengeance runs the risk of tasting a bitter draught.”

(Alexandre Dumas, The Count of Monte Cristo )

Yesterday, I preached a message from Romans 12:17-21 entitled, "Trusting God's Justice." Because of time limitations, much material must be cut out of the message. This blog dwells on some of that material. You can view the sermon here .

Last night I watched an episode of "Alfred Hitchcock Presents” with my family. In the story, a man comes home from work to find that his wife was assaulted by a traveling salesman. His wife was so traumatized that she could speak only a few words at a time. She did, however, tell her husband that she could positively identify her assailant. The next day, they got in the car to move to a motel. While driving though town, her eyes lit up and she pointed out a man to her husband. “That’s him!” she exclaimed. Her husband parked the car and followed the man into a hotel and then to his room where he took his revenge, killing the man. After returning to his car and starting out again, the man’s wife lit up again, pointed to someone else, and exclaimed, “That’s Him!”

Alfred Hitchcock seems to have understood this basic principle about revenge: mankind cannot be trusted with it. In fact, God is the only Being ultimately capable of handling revenge. That is why He says . . .

Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written,

“Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord . (Romans 12:19, NKJV)

Taking revenge for yourself is wrong. It is wrong because God says so. Though that ought to be enough for us, He goes on to give us some good reasoning to back up His command. Considering this text, I would like to tell you three reasons why you should refuse to take revenge.

1. Revenge is Theft.

Vengeance is property — God’s Property.

Now God actually owns everything, and He allows us to use what is His. But with vengeance, God says “Vengeance is Mine” in a rather territorial statement. He says, “It’s mine” as if to say, “It’s not yours.” God puts a fence around revenge and posts a “No Trespassing” sign at the gate.

If I take vengeance for myself, I am stealing from God. In Romans 12:17, Paul wrote, “Repay no one evil for evil.” We feel the need for revenge because we perceive the scales of justice are unbalanced. Revenge is our attempt to rebalance them. We do this by “repayment” in kind — Evil for evil. But God says revenge is His property. He owns it and does not give us permission to borrow it. Revenge is theft.

2. Revenge is Weak.

Romans 12:19 instructs us to “give place to wrath.” What does that mean? Whose wrath? I believe it is telling us to give place to God’s wrath. To “give place to” means to get out of the way. Jesus used this language in a parable in which a man took the best place at a feast, and the host came and told him to “give place to” a better man. So the man had to leave his seat and find a lower place (Luke 14:7-9). We are told to get our wrath out of the way because it is in the way. It is God’s job to execute justice in the form of wrath.

Who is able to execute better revenge: you or God? God’s power makes Him supremely able. His wisdom makes His revenge impeccably just. His holiness prevents Him from going too far — from overstepping into injustice. Any revenge that we devise for ourselves is, by comparison, weak.

This is closely related to the third reason to refuse revenge.

3. Revenge is Arrogant.

Imagine an impossible scenario comes true. The Kansas City Chiefs are in the Super Bowl and they ask you to play quarterback for them in the big game. They also give you the option to decline and allow Patrick Mahomes to play. What kind of hubris would you have to possess to make yourself believe you would do a better job than Patrick Mahomes?

In real life, though, you are sometimes tempted to tell God to stay on the bench while you play quarterback for team justice. Do you think you can do a better job than God? Whenever we take justice into our own hands we unwittingly and arrogantly say just that. “You sit this one out, Lord. I got this!”

Refusing Revenge in Real Life

We seek revenge though various means. These means could be small or large, subtle or obvious. We can seek payback through gossip, slander, or insult. It could go so far as physical violence or murder. The possibilities for enacting revenge fill the volume of human imagination.

Whenever you find yourself longing for justice, and when you feel like the scales of injury have extra weight added on your side, you are tempted to enact revenge. Paul writes, “Refuse it.” God says, “No.” Trust Him.