Tag: reflection

Isaiah 35: Questions for Reflection

~ Bob Hayton

stream in the desertOne of my favorite texts is Isaiah 35. It is pregnant with intertextual allusions – echoes of other Bible stories and passages. It is a classic “new exodus” passage, where Isaiah casts the future restoration of Israel in the terminology of the original Exodus from Egypt. There is a way through a wilderness, and a return to the land. What is especially important is how Christ’s ministry and many New Testament books indicate that this new Isaianic exodus finds a beginning fulfillment in Jesus Christ and the experience of the Church.

Recently, I had the opportunity to lead a men’s Bible study where we inductively worked our way through this passage. I prepared several questions aimed at encouraging the pursuit of textual links to this passage as a way to understand what Isaiah 35 is communicating poetically. May these questions spark your own fascination with this chapter and may your own wilderness experience find new life through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

If you want to interact further or suggest additional parallels, by all means join the converstaion in the comments section here.

Text:

Isaiah 35 (ESV)

1    The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad;
the desert shall rejoice and blossom like the crocus;
2    it shall blossom abundantly
and rejoice with joy and singing.
The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it,
the majesty of Carmel and Sharon.
They shall see the glory of the Lord,
the majesty of our God.

3    Strengthen the weak hands,
and make firm the feeble knees.
4    Say to those who have an anxious heart,
“Be strong; fear not!
Behold, your God
will come with vengeance,
with the recompense of God.
He will come and save you.”

5    Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened,
and the ears of the deaf unstopped;
6    then shall the lame man leap like a deer,
and the tongue of the mute sing for joy.
For waters break forth in the wilderness,
and streams in the desert;
7    the burning sand shall become a pool,
and the thirsty ground springs of water;
in the haunt of jackals, where they lie down,
the grass shall become reeds and rushes.

8    And a highway shall be there,
and it shall be called the Way of Holiness;
the unclean shall not pass over it.
It shall belong to those who walk on the way;
even if they are fools, they shall not go astray.
9    No lion shall be there,
nor shall any ravenous beast come up on it;
they shall not be found there,
but the redeemed shall walk there.
10  And the ransomed of the Lord shall return
and come to Zion with singing;
everlasting joy shall be upon their heads;
they shall obtain gladness and joy,
and sorrow and sighing shall flee away.

Questions/Observations:

  1. Why does it refer to “wilderness” and “dry land” (vs. 1-2)?
    • Look at 32:11-16, 40:3.
  2. What might the “glory of the LORD” be (vs. 2)?
    • Look at 40:4-5; Luke 3:3-6; Matt. 3:3; see also Is. 35:4.
  3. Isaiah 35:3 is quoted in Hebrews 12:12, why?
    • Context of vs. 4 indicates this is an encouragement (see 40:1).
  4. What can be drawn from Isaiah 35:5-6?
    • This may address the time or manner of fulfillment.
  5. Water and streams in the desert – what might this imagery suggest (v. 6)?
    • See also: 41:17-20, 43:16-21, 44:3-4, John 7:38-39 (also 32:11-16 above).
    • A personal angle on this too: Ps. 42:1-2, Ps. 63:1.
  6. Look at the parallels to 35:7 and see if an image or recollection from earlier in Israel’s history is coming to mind.
    • Look at 48:20-21, 49:9-13.
  7. The King’s Highway (v. 8)– not just a road for God (40:3) but one he travels with us (Mark 8-10 – his journey to Jerusalem – 10:32, 52).
    • Jesus opened a “new and living way” for us Heb. 10:20, John 14:6.
  8. Jesus leads us on the way like a shepherd leads the sheep (vs. 8-9).
    • Our shepherd leads us on the way 40:10-11, John 10:9, 27.
    • Our shepherd fights for us, too 35:8, John 10:10-12 (also Mark 1:13).
  9. The way to Zion is only for the “ransomed.”
    • See also Is. 51:10-11, Rev. 21:23-27 (with Is. 60:3-12).
  10. Ultimately there is “everlasting joy” – through Christ.
    • See Is. 65:17-19 with Isaiah chapter 12.

Book Briefs: “The First Thanksgiving” by Robert Tracy McKenzie

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

The First Thanksgiving by Robert Tracy McKenzieEvery year around Thanksgiving, I enjoy reflecting on the Pilgrims, their Mayflower voyage and that first Thanksgiving back in 1621. Being a descendant of no less a figure than John Alden (the one who stole Miles Standish’s girl, Priscilla Mullins) only encourages my Thanksgiving reverie. This year, I enjoyed finishing a first-rate historical survey of that special Pilgrim holiday. The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning from History by Robert Tracy McKenzie (IVP, 2013), is a book I thoroughly enjoyed but one that challenged me to reexamine the historical record and the reasons why I love to reflect on my Puritanical roots.

McKenzie takes the occasion of writing a book on the first thanksgiving, to remind his Christian audience about the role history should play in our faith. He covers the nuts and bolts of historical research while he’s at it. Now, he does tip some sacred cows. He points out how we have scant records of the actual first thanksgiving, and demurs that it wasn’t the first thanksgiving in any true sense — at least four other public occasions of thanksgiving in America (the French Huguenots on Florida’s shores in 1565 being the earliest) have greater claim to that honor. Intriguingly “Plymouth Rock” was born from second-hand recollections of an original Pilgrim some 100 years or more after their landing. And more importantly, American history didn’t instill the Pilgrims’ autumnal feast with national importance for several hundred years. It was left for Franklin D. Roosevelt to be the first American President to directly connect the national observance of Thanksgiving with the Pilgrims of Plymouth and their historic feast.

The book is not a direct assault on Christian values, by any stretch, however. McKenzie, a head of the history department at Wheaton College, wants us to remember the real first thanksgiving and do the hard work of looking at the actual past and judging what we can learn from our experience of it. He cautions us against twisting the Pilgrim’s “buckle shoes” any which way — supporting our every opinion. Their story should not be a touchstone that we use to win battles of public opinion. Rather, we should learn from their example of heart-felt faith, fierce courage, and providential blessing as we continue to live out our faith in the public sphere.

This book will dispel some myths: the first thanksgiving was likely not thought of as a “day of Thanksgiving” by the Pilgrims themselves. Their first official day for Thanksgiving came two years later after an incredible answer to prayer where God brought colony-saving rain on the exact day set aside as a “day of fasting.” But McKenzie doesn’t set the record straight just to be a good historian. His book aims to inculcate a fuller appreciation for the real Pilgrims. We will not agree with all of the Pilgrim’s idiosyncrasies (most of us enjoy celebrating Christmas, for instance). And some of what the Pilgrims have come to stand for has less to do with their real beliefs than it does those of their heirs. Still, there is much to learn and appreciate in the real Pilgrims. Listening to their true story will challenge our affirmation of a consumerism-driven society and call us to live godly lives in this present world.

I know that Thanksgiving has passed already this year. But if you find some extra time in and around Christmas, perhaps you should pick up this title and reacquaint yourself with the story of those brave Pilgrims who followed God’s call and found themselves on the other side of the world. You will enjoy the book and profit from it, I’m sure.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Amazon, ChristianBook.com, or direct from IVP.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by InterVarsity Press. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a positive review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

On the Eve of Roe v. Wade’s 40th Anniversary: Black Genocide

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

BlackGenocide.orgThis is one of the rare times that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day comes so close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (Jan. 22). The Desiring God Blog shares a post today entitled “MLK’s Dream and the Nightmare of Black Genocide.” In that post the following points are raised:

One in four African Americans conceived in the last forty years have been cut down by the “black genocide” of legal abortion.

A decade ago [Clenard] Childress founded a website by and for African Americans (blackgenocide.org) “to expose the disproportionate amount of Black babies destroyed by the abortion industry. For every two African American women that get pregnant, one will choose to abort.”

The site laments that “a Black baby is 5 times more likely to be killed in the womb than a White Baby.” Childress says, “The most dangerous place for an African American to be is in the womb of their African American mother.”

For Childress and a growing number, the point is clear: Abortion in America is a race issue….

Again, roughly one in four African Americans, who otherwise might be alive today, have been consumed in the holocaust of legal abortion. Because of the disproportionate number of Blacks who have been aborted, it’s difficult not to make the connection between King’s dream and the nightmare of abortion, and ask, Have not the last 40 years of Roe significantly undermined the cause that King so tirelessly gave himself to until 1968?

…As one Black man says in the 3801 Lancaster documentary, “Everything that was ever gained during the Civil Rights Movement is worth nothing to a dead Black child,” and as one Black woman proclaims, “Make no mistake, abortion is a civil rights issue.”

The article goes on to quote Dr. King’s niece on the severity of this problem, I encourage you to read the whole post by David Mathis on this MLK Day.

Let me be clear, I believe as Christians we should be concerned for both the rights of the black man and the unborn child. I am ashamed of how white America, and specifically white Christian America treated the blacks for so long. I uphold Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as a true hero – standing up for the rights of his people and advocating non-violent tactics. He is a gift to our country and we should be proud to celebrate today in his honor. But I also believe we cannot be silent when it comes to abortion. Innocent lives are lost every day and all of us grow calloused by the frequency of the slaughter and blinded by the sanitary-ness of it all. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

But when you see abortion as a civil rights issue, that the very structures which encourage and support abortion are heavily stacked in the favor of doing away with a 25% or more of unborn black children – then abortion should be come even more sinister. Add to this the fact that in other cultures around the world, girls are systematically aborted through fetal selection and the travesty becomes even more alarming.

May we pray today for our country to stop its schizophrenic attitude toward abortion. America is at the forefront of a revolution to protect life and extend it through a variety of avenues: social, scientific, medical, economic, political and militarily. America sacrifices and moves mountains just to save one trapped miner or rescue a displaced people group. Shouldn’t we be equally concerned with the rights of the unborn who are falling so quickly all around us?

Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

changeinbeliefAl Mohler sees the writing on the wall. A “new Moral McCarthyism” will soon be asking each Christian this question: “Do you now or have you ever believed that homosexuality is a sin?” Based on our answer, they stand ready to denounce us as backward, hateful bigots.

Mohler’s comments come in the wake of President Obama announcing that Pastor Louie Giglio would pray the invocation at his upcoming inauguration. A quick about face happened when a liberal watchdog group uncovered the fact that Giglio once preached an “anti-gay” message. It turns out that Giglio’s message was standard, orthodox Christian teaching on homosexuality, and hardly anti-gay as such things go. The Christian message has always been that all sinners need salvation, and to be a man or a woman, is to be a sinner. Sin comes in a variety of flavors, and homosexuality is just one of many. Sure some Christians have been more hateful and more vocal about that sin than others, but faithful Christian pastors, have always been careful to condemn the sin, and remind everyone that we are all equally guilty of offending a holy God.

Russell Moore commented on the outcry that the NY Times and others helped to circulate, as follows:

After a couple of days of firestorm from the Left, Giglio announced this morning that he would withdraw.

Here’s why this matters. The statement Giglio made that was so controversial is essentially a near-direct quotation from the Christian Scriptures. Unrepentant homosexuals, Giglio said (as with unrepentant sinners of all kinds) “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” That’s 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Giglio said, “it’s not easy to change, but it is possible to change.” The Bible says God “commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), the same gospel, Giglio says, “that I say to you and that you would say to me.”

The Christian faith in every expression has held for 2000 years that sexual immorality is sinful. This same Christian faith has maintained, again in every branch, that sexual expression outside of conjugal marriage is sin. And the Christian faith has maintained universally that all persons are sinners and that no sinner can enter the kingdom without repentance. This is hardly new.

The “shock” with which this so-called “anti-gay” stance is articulated by the Left is akin to the Pork Producers Association denouncing a Muslim Imam’s invitation because he is “anti-agriculture” due to Koranic dietary restrictions.

In fact, by the standards of this controversy, no Muslim imam or Orthodox Jewish rabbi alive can pray at a presidential inauguration.

Ed Stetzer wonders how America will respond to this latest example of the shunning of religious people from the townsquare:

This can be an important moment as America, the media, and President Obama’s administration to consider a simple question. Are people of faith no longer welcome as they continue to hold the beliefs they have held since their foundation? Must they jettison their sacred texts and adopt new views to be accepted as part of society? If they do not, will they be marginalized and demonized even as they serve the poor, care for the orphan, or speak against injustice?

Moore doesn’t wonder but declares, “When it is now impossible for one who holds to the catholic Christian view of marriage and the gospel to pray at a public event, we now have a de facto established state church.”

Moore goes on, and I encourage you to read his entire piece on this subject. But I think you get the picture. To even hint that you ever have believed or held that homosexuality is anything but commendable, upright behavior, is to break today’s moral code. If there is no forthright and frank repentance or clarification, then you are out of the “in club.” You are outside the bounds and not fit to speak in the public square. No, not even to merely pray at a public event.

Mohler’s piece explains this point further, and he also demonstrates that Giglio’s withdrawal was more of a dis-invitation than cordial back-out. Giglio was not so much saving face as standing by his principles, and ensuring that this furor dies down so as not to encourage a misunderstanding of the gospel. Maybe Giglio should have made a bigger to-do about his harsh treatment by the McCarthyites. Maybe he should have been firmer. There could be merit to these reflections, but we are not Giglio and don’t need to go there.

Instead, I think we should ponder why this takes us by surprise. Some aren’t surprised, but most are. We have been lulled to sleep by the compatibility of Protestant Christianity with America’s self-help capitalist gospel. We have been sold a bill of goods by well-intentioned practitioners of the American Christian cult. The cult that equates freedom and democracy, lady liberty and all she stands for, with the cross of Christ and the Bible’s gospel. No, the America which once taxed Baptists for not participating with the official state church in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the public which reveled in the printed tabloid’s lurid details of the public sex-lives of Alexander Hamilton and other leaders, and the humanistic upper class which once embraced Charles Finney and Billy Sunday’s religious appeal to reform the brutish man’s spirit by taking away his brandy — that is much like the America we find today who so readily condemns anyone who doesn’t embrace moral relativism and the libertarian virtue of the time.

Christianity in America today is far less persecuted and far more lightly treated than it has been in most other times and places around the world. We have enjoyed an exceptional period of freedom and ostensible public respect. But such a time is soon to end. Now fewer Americans believe homosexuality is a sin, than those who don’t. And this drastic change in the public’s perception has come about in just a few short years. Meanwhile, the church has hemmed and hawed and often evolved in its views along with the culture and our current president. But as Mohler reminds us, the time for thin-skins and hesitation is past. We risk having no gospel at all, if we do not address homosexuality as sin.

So even as the faithful determine to not give in to culture’s demands on this front, we should be mindful, as Joe Carter reminds us, that Jesus has promised us that the world will hate us. We shouldn’t be surprised. And in light of such a knee-jerk tendency to be alarmed over any expression against homosexuality, we Christians should be especially careful in how we phrase our answer to their incessant question. We will too readily be misunderstood. Christians need to stand against homosexuality, but not as a goal in itself. We need to stand for morality, but not bereft of the grace and mercy which make Christianity unique. We must be resolute but not compassionless.

Christians everywhere, in pulpit or pew, in the office cubicle or the backyard party, need to be ready for “the question.” We can’t be afraid to “come out of the closet” with our views on this vitally important matter. Being ready means being informed, and we should be well read on the condition of homosexuality, and armed with careful and Christian reflection as to its cure. We need most of all to know the gospel and how it speaks to people everywhere, straight and gay. And we need to be broken and humble rather than cocky, defensive or stand-offish. We need to be the very heart and mind of Jesus when it comes to answering this question. We need to speak His words, in His manner and with His winsomeness. May our careful speech woo the lost to Christ. And may the darker these days get help us to draw closer to the light of truth and be ever more effective as an outpost in this sin-darkened world (Phil. 2:15-16).

Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Powerless Preaching

~ Bob Hayton

This series of posts focuses on several pitfalls that especially plague Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches. These pitfalls are wide enough to catch people of a variety of stripes, but fundamentalist Christians tend to be especially prone to these errors. Having disentangled myself from some of these very errors, I aim to lovingly warn people of the dangers associated with this way of thinking.

In previous posts we looked at legalism and performance-based sanctification. Today we will look at powerless preaching.

This point may be the most ironic of all. If there is any group of churches which pride themselves on old-fashioned, hell-fire and brimstone preaching, it is independent fundamental Baptists. The patron saint of preaching, Billy Sunday, was unfortunately an ordained Presbyterian. But Baptists love him nonetheless. It is Billy Sunday’s dramatic style that so many fundamentalist preachers seek to emulate. Something about jumping up on top of the pulpit, swinging from the rafters and yelling at the top of one’s lungs appeals to a good many people, I guess.

But for all the bluster and all the bravado, the preaching in many fundamentalist pulpits is quite shallow and powerless. Now this kind of preaching can sure keep the church members in line. It can make people squirmish and even have them stocking up on antacid. But does it really facilitate a meaningful change in their life?

It should go without saying that pretty much anyone can get up there and scream at people. Jack Schaap was as big a preacher as they come. He thundered from the pulpit of the largest IFB church in the land, and boy did he sound good. But screaming about the liberals and the cowardly in the congregation does not amount to godliness, and neither does it facilitate growth.

Often this powerless preaching takes the form of a “toe-stomping” sermon—a hard-hitting, guilt-heaping sermon. One of my more colorfully titled posts, and a favorite from my early years of blogging was “Stomping Toes and Stomping Souls: The Moralistic Bent to Fundamentalist Preaching.” That post and the exchange in the comments section is worth reading as you think through the matter of powerless preaching. But in an effort to be crystal clear in my critique here, I want to excerpt most of another post on preaching, where I gave a case study which helps explain the problem in a more direct fashion.

Thesis

Here is my primary point: preaching that majors on heaping guilt on the hearers in an attempt to motivate them to do better is not “powerful.” It is possibly moralistic, and it is likely carnal. This preaching does more harm than good. Unfortunately it is quite common in fundamentalism, although it can be found in many other circles as well.

Case Study

Here is the passage for our case study: Mark 15:32-42. We will focus on Jesus’ admonition in vs. 38: “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” You know the story, Jesus’ disciples had fallen asleep when they should have been praying. Jesus admonishes them to watch and pray. And yet when he returns from another prayer session, he finds the disciples asleep again.

Now let me develop 2 approaches to this passage, which might easily be found in a Sunday morning message. In comparing and contrasting these approaches, I hope my point about moralistic sermons will come home.

A Moralistic Approach

This message would major on the commands “watch and pray”. It would highlight the results of either obeying or disobeying the commands. It would imply that most or all of the listeners have failed miserably in this respect. Based on “the flesh is weak”, the message would set up the listeners to expect to have to struggle in this area. The message would end by calling the listeners to do better and pray more. People might be encouraged to come forward and make decisions to rededicate themselves to fervent prayer, or to confess their failures to pray and vow to change.

This kind of message might be labelled “toe-stomping” or “hard hitting”, as the preacher might very well drive his point home forcefully through screaming, theatrical antics, or tear-jerking illustrations. The listeners would leave the message acutely aware of their guilt and mindful of the preacher’s challenge that they watch and pray much better than they have before.

A Christ-Centered Approach

This message would again stress the commands “watch and pray”. Yet it would also give the fuller context of the passage. The disciples did not watch and pray, whereas Jesus did. Jesus would be shown to be absolutely faithful, whereas even heroes of the Christian faith, the disciples, are seen to be very weak and unfaithful. The message would stress that it is important to watch and pray, as a failure to do so leads to temptation, even as illustrated by the desertion of Christ by these very disciples. Yet the message would stress Christ’s kindhearted response to this lack of faithfulness on the disciples’ part. Rather than harshly rebuking them the second time He found them sleeping, he acknowledged their weakness. He had said the “flesh is weak”.

The message would go on to stress that our very weakness, what makes it so difficult to watch and pray, is that for which Christ died. Jesus knows we are weak, and so Jesus prays for us, even when we don’t. The ultimate victory over temptation is won because Jesus overcame the world, not because we have the innate ability to. We can win, when we depend on Christ and the victory He purchased. The message would end with a call to depend on Christ more in the area of prayer. It would encourage people to trust Jesus and His faithfulness, even as it would call on the hearers to excercise more faith in watching and praying more faithfully.

The message might not be very “hard hitting”, but it would be encouraging and uplifting. The preacher may well get excited as he proclaims Christ’s faithfulness and work on our behalf, but he would be unlikely to scream at or belittle the hearers for their lack of faithfulness in prayer. The listeners would leave the message in a thankful and worshipful state of mind, as they ponder how wonderful is Christ’s faithfulness and work on their behalf, weak and sinful though they be. They would determine to love Christ more and desire to be more faithful in their prayer lives.

I hope this case study proves helpful. I hope that preachers will aim to proclaim the glories and faithfulness of Christ more consistently. We need to realize that in every step of our Christian life we need to trust Jesus more fully. He can help us obey, and it is because of Him that we can. Believers need to be reminded of these truths. They need to be pointed to Christ and encouraged to trust in Him more. They don’t need to have guilt heaped upon them without an offer of hope. There is no hope if I have to depend on my own determination to do better. There is plenty of hope, inexhaustible hope, if I am encouraged to lean on the work Jesus has done for me.