How Can I Pray for My Spouse?

How Can I Pray for My Spouse?

Praying for our spouse combines the two most important relationships in our lives: our covenant with God and our covenant with our spouse. These two covenants are the bedrock of creation before the fall, and the marriage covenant in particular is the primary illustration for understanding much of redemptive history (Eph. 5:22–33). It is only fitting that our marriages would be marked by that same activity—prayer—that marks Christ’s marriage to the church.

But just as pride was the sin that undermined both Edenic covenants, it skews our prayers for our spouse. So often our prayers for our spouse start with what we want changed about them. But Scripture teaches that we are going to be the biggest influence for sanctification in our spouse’s life. A husband who prays for his wife that she would be loved by a husband who grows in holiness all his days prays a good prayer and is its own answer. The biggest answer God may provide as we pray for our spouse may be to change us, not him or her.

But there is a place to consider what specifically we can pray for our spouse. Second Peter 3:18 is a great place to start: “Grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Pray for your spouse’s growth in the grace of Jesus, that repentance and deep joy in the gospel would mark his or her life. Pray for your spouse’s increasing knowledge of Jesus, that his or her study of the Bible, at home and under Lord’s Day preaching, would reveal more truth to him or her about our great Savior.

The Irrelevance of Hell

In our postmodern culture that plays by the "tolerance rules" of modern times, we have been taught to be “nice” and to pursue happiness at all costs. After all, if we can’t say anything nice, we shouldn’t say anything at all. For the majority of people within our urbane culture, hell is the sort of topic that is not discussed in the local coffee shop nor is it the center of attention in Sunday sermons. Let’s face it—hell is not relevant to a sophisticated culture. But, why has hell become irrelevant?  Consider the following three reasons why next to no one is talking or thinking about hell anymore:

Our Culture Loves Itself To Death

It is not excuse that our culture is filled with self-love. We enjoy making much of our amusements and entertainment is almost viewed as a basic human right in our culture. We have trivia shows, all sorts of game shows, and even shows that spotlight other people’s funny videos designed to keep us laughing. Neil Postman, in his classic work, Amusing Ourselves To Death, observes the following:

Everything in our background has prepared us to know and resist a prison when the gates begin to close around us . . . But what if there are no cries of anguish to be heard? Who is prepared to take arms against a sea of amusements? To whom do we complain, and when, and in what tone of voice, when serious discourse dissolves into giggles? What is the antidote to a culture’s being drained by laughter? [1]

Just fifty years ago, funeral directors anticipated lengthy mourning periods for family gatherings at the funeral home. Today, the typical funeral is over from start to finish within a couple of hours. Historically speaking, after the death of a loved one, families would mourn for days or weeks, but today’s culture is quick to acknowledge the death—but families are quick to jump right back into the typical fast-paced ruts of life immediately afterwards. Nothing can stop entertainment—not even death!

Within a culture of entertainment, not very much is going to be said about hell. In fact, even when people die who weren’t religious and didn’t have a life committed to Christ—it’s common to hear their close friends and family reassuring everyone that their loved one is in a better place now. Heaven is real, but hell has been relegated to a mythological land fit for the story books. The culture that loves entertainment hates hell and such a culture supports the idea of universalism—where everyone dies and goes to the great Disney World in the sky. For that reason, hell has become irrelevant within our entertainment saturated culture.

Preachers Today Fear Man

Reformation: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

When I read Carl Trueman’s Reformation: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow I found it to be quite insightful. This short book offers some great insights into various topics including preaching. Here are a few excerpts from Professor Trueman’s book (republished by Christian Focus Publications).

The sermon: God’s Method

For those, however, standing in the line of the Reformers, humanity, even in its highest natural spiritual exercises, is in a state of utter rebellion against God, and no elaborate string of words, no compelling argument, no passionate speech will ever bring a single individual to Christ. It is only as those words bring with them the Holy Spirit of God bearing witness to Christ that the sermon becomes adequate to its task. Thus, we preach, we speak the words of God not because this is the marketing method most likely to appeal to the unbeliever but simply because this is God’s appointed means of coming to individuals and bringing them to faith. Indeed, precisely because it is so weak and hopeless by the world’s standards, it brings that much more glory to God when souls are saved and lives turned round through this medium.

Of course we must use language with which the congregation is familiar; of course we must be aware that we are talking to people in the twenty-first century and not the sixteenth; and of course we must be culturally sensitive in what we say; but preach we must because this is God’s chosen means of spreading the news of the kingdom. Preaching is not just a communication technique, and must never be considered as such; it is bringing the very words of God to bear upon the life and needs of sinners and of the congregations of God’s people. For this reason, if for no other, the sermon must remain central in our worship…..

When preaching fails

Christian Fellowship in the Local Church is NOT Optional

One of the foundational truths of the church is the understanding that the church isn’t the campus, brick and mortar, stained glass and steeple. The church is the body of people who meet together on a specific campus/location, united together through Jesus Christ, and meet together for the right worship of the true God.  God gives spiritual gifts to each believer to use within the context of the local church (1 Cor. 12-14; 1 Peter 4:10-11).  One of the necessities of an authentic church is true fellowship. Genuine fellowship is not an optional thing for the church. There are many reasons why true Christian fellowship is necessary in the life of the local church, but I want to focus on the following three reasons.

The Priority of Fellowship in the Early Church

In Acts 2:42, we see the early church described as a devoted church. In one verse, four key elements are mentioned regarding the church’s worship. They were devoted to the apostles’ teaching, fellowship – κοινωνία, the Lord’s Supper, and prayer. It’s vitally important that we see the level of priority placed upon fellowship by the early church.

The first time we see the Greek term κοινωνία (translated fellowship in Acts 2:42) used in the New Testament is in Acts 2 as Luke describes the early church immediately after the 3,000 people were born again and baptized as followers of Christ. This word means, “close association involving mutual interests and sharing, association, communion, fellowship, close relationship, marked by intimacy.” True Christian fellowship transcends “hello” in the hallway or a slap on the back on Sunday.

The early church spent time together in worship, in the temple meeting people, over meals in their homes, and out in the community through evangelistic efforts. They prioritized Christian fellowship highly. They were living in hostile times where threats were common and death was promised for the sake of the gospel. They valued the close fellowship of their Christian community in ways that we often don’t see in the church today. They didn’t avoid one another. They didn’t minimize true fellowship. They exemplified Christian care and their intimate community was possible through their bond in Jesus Christ.

The Need for Vibrant Relationships

If you read John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, you see that Christian is constantly in need of a true friend to journey with him. When he was in the dungeon of Doubting Castle, Hopeful was there by his side. If you read Tolkien, you will see him reference the Fellowship all through his writings. C.S. Lewis also put a spotlight on the importance of fellowship all throughout The Chronicles of Narnia. Most importantly, if you read the Bible, you will see from beginning to end, the people of God are pictured as a togetherpeople.

God has designed us with the need for intimate relationships. It’s a very common thing to see people referencing their “work family” or their “ball team family” on social media. The point they’re driving home is that they’ve worked diligently to build an intimate group of people who are committed to one another and have a common bond that unites them. Sadly, it’s becoming a normal thing to see many Christians speak that way about their circle of friends outside of the church while their understanding of church has been reduced to a building and a seat to occupy on Sunday. Why are so many people willing to forsake the fellowship of the church?

Dual Authorship in Matthew 1:22 and 2:15

"Although God is ultimately the source of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), He chose to use human authors as the instruments through which He set forth His written revelation. In using these men to record His Word, God did not suppress the individual personalities or writing styles of the human writers, but rather He used them to communicate precisely what He was pleased to reveal through them. The Bible, then, has a divine author and a human author.

Commonly known as the dual authorship of Scripture, this doctrine is most clearly taught in Peter’s second epistle, where the apostle describes the writing of Scripture as the process in which “men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:21b). According to Peter, human prophets spoke or wrote the Scriptures, but as they did so, they were superintended by the Holy Spirit in such a way that their very words were from God Himself.

This same understanding of dual authorship is also seen in the Gospel of Matthew, specifically where the apostle introduces quotations from the OT in Matthew 1:22 and 2:15, describing them as “what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet.” In this description, Matthew uses two prepositional phrases to modify the verb “was spoken.” According to Matthew 1:22 and 2:15, these OT prophecies were spoken “by [hupo] the Lord,” and they were spoken “through [dia] the prophet.” Both prepositions in these verses (hupo and dia) are used to indicate the personal means by which the action of the verb is accomplished, often referred to as agency. There is, however, a subtle but significant distinction between the use of these two prepositions, and this distinction makes a helpful contribution to our understanding of the dual authorship of Scripture.

Honoring the Dignity and Value of Women: A Biblical Perspective

It’s no secret, nor is it unclear. The Bible teaches things about women that clash with our fallen contemporary culture. Women may not function in the role of a pastor/elder (1 Tim. 2:12). Wives are to submit to their husbands as the church does to Christ (Eph. 5:22-24). Seasoned women are to shepherd younger women to, among other things, be “workers at home…[and] subject to their own husbands” (Titus 2:5).

Consequently, culture often reviles God’s word on the grounds that the Bible holds women as inferior to men. And the irony is, that contemporary western culture values women lower than just about any time and people in history. Yet, that same culture accuses the Bible of a low, insulting view of women. But, nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is, God’s inerrant word of the 66 books of the Bible regards women higher than any other ideology, religion, philosophy, or system in history. Nothing teaches a higher view of women than biblical Christianity. Here are ten reasons why:

1. Women are created in God’s image, making them infinitely valuable.

The value and equality of women is a frequently discussed topic in recent days. Various reasons are put forth for the value of women. For many in our day, a women’s value is grounded in her ability and opportunity to do everything a man does. For others, her value is in possessing equal, or greater, income as/than a man. Those reasons are, ironically, oppressive to women: if she doesn’t achieve some subjective cultural standard, then her worth is inferior. That’s a yoke they should not have to bear.

The Bible takes a different route altogether. A woman is infinitely valuable, not because of what she does or makes, but because of who she is:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (Gen. 1:26-27).

Women are God’s image-bearers. That gives them inherent infinite worth, regardless of their abilities and achievements. The Bible does not hold up a socio-moral-economic bar and say to women, “If you can reach this, then you are valuable.” Women are valuable because they bear the image of God.

2. The Bible forbids the killing of women.

In most cultures around the world, women beyond birth are not allowed to be killed. However, in the United States, for example, it is perfectly legal to kill women at any point between conception and birth. The United States has permitted roughly 60 million of such people to be killed since Roe v. Wade. About half of all births are female. So, the United States has allowed for the killing of roughly 30 million women since 1973. To say that this is unspeakably shameful treatment of women is an understatement. The Bible forbids such treatment of women (Exod. 20:13).

3. The Bible forbids the sexual exploitation of women.

Should Christians Not be Known for What They are Against?

You’ve heard it said. “I don’t want to be known for what I am against, but what I am for.” “Christians should be known for what they are for, not against.”

It sounds good and noble. After all, a ministry or person that only speaks of what they are against is missing out on much of the content and emphasis of the Bible. Often these are self-proclaimed discernment ministries who do little more than step on others as they stand higher. In so doing, they have veered from Scripture. Pastors are to preach the inspired, inerrant text of Scripture. We will have to twist, avoid, and misinterpret much Scripture if we only speak in terms of opposition.

But more to the point. Should Christians avoid being known for what they are against? Here are a few thoughts for consideration.

1) That’s not the way to wisely approach life in general.

Imagine a mom who takes this ideology. “Yeah, kids, I don’t want to be known in my mothering for what I’m against. So, you know that Twinkie-Koolaid-Cheetos diet you keep mentioning? I don’t want to be known as against that anymore. Go for it. Oh, and I don’t want to be known for being against you running out into the street, having to come home before dark, and taking indiscretionary time on the internet, so, go ahead.”

Consider a salesman who did not want to be known for what he was against in his job. “Hi Mr. Client. I don’t want to be known for what I’m against, so, honestly, all of the inferior products out there are excellent too. Just invest in whatever one. I am for all of them.”

Imagine an oncologist who did not want to be known for what they were against. “Well, I don’t want to be known for what I am against, Mr. Patient. So, I’m not going to take a firm stance against tumors, metastasis, and cancerous growths. I want to be among the oncologists who, instead, are known for what they are for.”

A post Genesis 2 society requires that we be known for what we are against. Faithfulness, generally in life, requires being against things. To be faithful, a mom will need to be against things. To be a faithful salesman requires being against things. Faithfulness as an oncologist necessitates being known for being against things. In every sphere of life, the goal is faithfulness. That is generally how we seek to operate. That will mean sometimes being forthings, sometimes being against things, and always faithfulness to God and love for people in the task.

2. To construct and conduct a good, stable society, we must be known for being against things.

To promote and propagate a loving, flourishing society, we must be against things. And it should be known that we are against things, as a society.

50 Passages: Why Biblical Counseling?

“What are the foundational Scriptures upon which you founded and based your church's biblical counseling ministry?”

Collated below are the fifty passages listed most often.

Psalm 1:1-2
Proverbs 15:23
Proverbs 18:13, 21
Proverbs 25:11
Proverbs 27:6
Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 11:1-4
Isaiah 55:11
Matthew 22:34-40
Matthew 28:16-20
Mark 12:30-31
John 1:1-18
John 6:32-33
John 8:38
John 10:10
John 14:15-31
John 17:1-26
Acts 2:40-47
Acts 20:17-38
Romans 6:1-14

Leverage Your Short-Term Mission Trips for Long-Term Goals

I’ve often wondered how the Apostle Paul would utilize modern technology in missions. Would he eagerly promote the short-term missions (STM) surge to the nations? While I’m confident he’d leverage global travel and communication technology for the gospel’s sake, just as he did in his day, I wonder if he’d encourage the majority of STM work among evangelicals in the West.

According to both data and my own observation, the vast majority of STM is designed toward social ministry and poverty relief, with teams comprised primarily of teenagers and youth. If we believe that Acts provides us a template for Great Commission ministry—that Paul and the apostles teach us how to obey Jesus regarding missions—perhaps it’s time to reevaluate our STM strategies in light of the New Testament

STM AND THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH

Jesus said, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19–20). How did Paul and the apostles carry out that mission? In short, they preached the gospel and established churches.[1] They evangelized, and as people came to faith, they gathered a church where the Word was rightly preached and the ordinances rightly administered. The local church became the context where God’s people were taught to obey all that he has commanded.

Paul and the apostles planted flags for King Jesus in unreached places by establishing churches to glorify God in what they believed and how they lived. These churches, in turn, continued to advance the gospel around the world.

But let’s not forget: Paul remained committed to the spiritual health and doctrinal fidelity of the churches he established (and even those that he didn’t, e.g. the church at Rome). Each of Paul’s three major missionary journeys included return visits. He worked to strengthen both the churches and the brothers who pastored them (Acts 14:22; 15:41; 16:5; 18:23).

The Hidden Riches of God's Life-Giving Word

One of the great blessings of sequential, expository preaching is that you come across so many unexpected diamonds- like Revelation 22:4- "And His name shall be on their foreheads." 

This eternal privilege is so encouraging and comforting that I cannot wait to share it's riches with you this Sunday. 

Our worship service begins at 10:15 AM and our Sunday School hour begins at 9 AM. See you soon! www.lakecountrybible.org 

"Every verse inspired, every verse preached!"

True and False Humility When Handling the Scriptures

"Hermeneutics is a big word. You may be unfamiliar with it, but it’s a necessary part of all Bible study.  Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting what an author has written. For Christians, it means following the appropriate rules for interpreting Scripture. And although the word “hermeneutics” doesn’t appear in the Bible, its practice is clearly described: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).

In that verse, the apostle Paul provides the what and why of hermeneutics—accurate handling of God’s sacred Word. Right interpretation of what God has spoken to us means that we can rightly apply it to our lives, and rightly proclaim it to others. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33, KJV) and He doesn’t present us with a smorgasbord of doctrinal options. If God wrote it, then all that matters is what Hemeans by what He says, not what I think or want it to mean.

But today, in a culture dominated by subjectivity, an objective, authoritative truth has no place. That’s true even in the church, where, in the early days of the twenty-first century, postmodern theologians gained a significant voice. They called themselves the Emerging church, and argued, in effect, that certainty is overrated. Instead, they invented their own approach to hermeneutics.

Tony Jones, an early leader in the Emerging church, called it the “hermeneutic of humility.” The idea was to interpret God’s Word but stop short of coming to any definitive conclusions that would exclude alternative interpretations. It identified as “humble” what other eras of church history knew as confusion or unbelief.

10 Concerns Francis Schaeffer Took to the Grave (pt. 2)

"Penned just before his death in 1984, Francis’ Schaeffer’s forgotten tome ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’ drew attention to various concerns that lay heavily upon the Protestant thinker’s mind before he passed into glory. Today, rereading this book some three decades later seems to almost verge on the prophetic (small case "p"). The Switzerland-based American teacher was able to pinpoint several major themes that have come to plague the evangelical scene in our days. In this article, we are going to highlight ten major fears that Schaeffer took to the grave which should be of concern to all of us who identify ourselves with the Gospel-centred, Reformation-rooted Protestant faith.

Yesterday we considered the first five fears namely:
1.- Growing Relativism

2.- Lack of Discipline 

3.- Compromise of the Truth

4.- Social Work (Misplaced Priorities)

5.- The Temptation of Ecumenism 

Today we will consider the remaining five concerns that Mr. Schaeffer wrote about shortly before his death.  As you think about the past 35 years, how many of these concerns were valid?  What can we do to address these ten concerns as individual believers and as local churches?  

6. Abortion 

Far from assenting to rife abortion-justifying euphemisms such as the ‘quality of life’ or ‘the happiness and well-being of the mother’ or ‘the need for every child to be wanted’, Schaeffer believed that mass abortion was simply the outworking of a revived hedonistic attitude which put a person’s happiness above a sacred respect for human life.  He was unable to understand how anyone confessing the name of Christ could remain within a pro-abortion denomination. In the final analysis, abortion was an all-out attack on the precious image of God which is made known through humankind. “The unborn child is a human being created in the image of God, and to deny this is to deny the authority of the Bible. It is impossible to read Psalm 139 and truly believe what it says without realizing that life in the womb is human life. It is impossible to truly believe in the Incarnation and not realize that the child conceived in Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit was indeed the Son of God from the time of conception”.

7.- Liberalism 

The fruit of theological liberalism had left many formerly-sound churches completely destitute of any spiritual power. Modernism, influenced by German Higher Criticism, had all but baptized the cardinal doctrines of the Enlightenment in the name of Christ. What did such an approach entail? Schaeffer answers: “The denial of the supernatural; belief in the all-sufficiency of human reason; the rejection of the Fall; denial of the deity of Christ and his resurrection; belief in the perfectibility of man; and the destruction of the Bible”.  Liberal preachers like the acclaimed Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969) had no authoritative Bible left to preach from. Secular humanism took centre stage therefore any doctrine that did not put the spotlight upon man was ultimately done away with. Rather than the church influencing the world; the world took the reins of the church into her Gospel-denying grasp. Today this is seen in the emergent church and in the seeker sensitive/church growth movements.

10 Concerns Francis Schaeffer Took to the Grave

Penned just before his death in 1984, Francis’ Schaeffer’s forgotten tome ‘The Great Evangelical Disaster’ drew attention to various concerns that lay heavily upon the Protestant thinker’s mind before he passed into glory. Today, rereading this book some three decades later seems to almost verge on the prophetic (small case "p"). The Switzerland-based American teacher was able to pinpoint several major themes that have come to plague the evangelical scene in our days. In this article, we are going to highlight ten major fears that Schaeffer took to the grave which should be of concern to all of us who identify ourselves with the Gospel-centered, Reformation-rooted Protestant faith.

1.- Growing Relativism 

Relativism came about due to the Enlightenment’s focus upon the autonomy of man. No longer was God to set the rules and call the shots; but rather humankind was to determine what was good and evil, true and false (as in the wicked day of the Judges in ancient Israel). Ethics and epistemology became absorbed by an inordinate passion for egoism and self-interest. Once the infallible, inerrant Word of God was openly decried; there was nothing left to take its place but human fancies. Schaeffer realized that a church built upon the sandy-foundation of relativism could not withstand the onslaught of fallen reason. Only the non-negotiable absolutes of Scripture could enable the church to keep waging a good warfare. It was those “absolutes which enabled the early church to withstand the pressure of the Roman Empire” A relativistic church would have nothing left to say to a sinful culture. 

2.- Lack of Discipline (Polemics)

Given the resurgence of pagan relativism throughout post-modern society, many churches had fallen into the trap of downplaying Christian doctrine (absolutes) by refusing to take action against false teachers. Schaeffer identified a lack of church discipline (2-3 John, Jude) as the real breeding ground for heretics. It was this deficiency which explained the victory of the liberal party within early twentieth-century American Presbyterianism. The Great Evangelical Disaster, by Schaeffer. As Schaeffer makes clear, “Discipline had not been consistently applied by the faithful men of the church”.  Without ecclesiastical and denominational discipline for doctrinal reasons, the church would be left vulnerable before the avalanche of false teaching. Hence Schaeffer’s proposal: “The practice of the purity of the visible church first means discipline of those who do not take a proper position in regard to the teaching of Scripture”.  And again: “Where there is a departure from the historic view of Scripture and from obedience to God’s Word, then those who take this weakened view need to be brought under discipline”. Only a high view of Scripture could justify the reestablishment of biblical discipline. If unorthodox ministers/teachers/bible study leaders were not dealt with, how could their churches stay true to sound doctrine? (Note this theme in 1-2 Timothy, Titus)

 3.- Compromise of the Truth

Presenting God as He Defines Himself in His Word

One of the common features of a postmodern world is the rejection of any exclusive truth claims. Postmodernism views all truth as relative and any exclusive truth claims as arrogant, offensive, and impossible. As we live and minister in that kind of a world, how should we teach God’s Word and present God’s character to those to whom we minister?

What our world needs to hear is a biblically-based presentation of God in all His glory, majesty, and power

On the one hand, we must navigate the fine line between those beliefs and practices that are non-negotiable and those that are negotiable. In light of the Bible’s teaching on “liberty” and the issues of a weaker and stronger conscience, there are times when we must not be adamant about the need for everyone to accept our understanding or arrange their lives according to that understanding. Here are some examples: what music should we listen to, can a believer drink a glass of wine, etc. There is room to disagree without rancor in these cases. Of course, there are biblical principles that offer guidance concerning these issues, but broadly speaking, if the Bible does not explicitly or clearly address a given issue, we need to allow room for disagreement rather than holding to our preference as an exclusive truth claim.  Scripture does exhort to try and "not go beyond what is written."

On the other hand, generally, the above reality is not what threatens the church. Even though this arrogance of a “just my way” attitude can be destructive, it is not as dangerous as the other extreme, reticence. This is a “whatever way works for you” attitude about all beliefs—especially those that are explicitly, clearly, and repeatedly taught in Scripture.

We do not want to crash on either rock of extremity, but desire to allow the Bible to determine those exclusive truth claims that guide our lives and provide content to our preaching and teaching.

Different Standards or a Genuine Stumbling Block?

In the Christian life, it’s not uncommon to hear someone referenced as a stumbling block. However, what exactly is a stumbling block and what is the difference between a genuine stumbling block and a violation of a person’s standards on a particular issue? In order to see the difference between the two, we must examine how the Bible uses both of these situations and compare them to one another.

Offending Someone

There is much in the New Testament about how a person should maintain healthy relationships within the church. For instance, in Ephesians 4:3, we find Paul urging people to be “eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” We should strive to walk together in peace within the church and to value our relationships in Christ Jesus. This is so important, notice what Paul wrote at the end of Ephesians 4:  Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another. Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil. Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need. Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you (Ephesians 4:25–32).

Some of these verses in this paragraph in Ephesians 4 are often used regarding how we treat one another in our home, especially between husband and a wife in Ephesians 4:26 regarding not allowing the sun to set on your anger.  The four rules of communication are certainly implications that one can take from this passage. However, this entire paragraph is contextually referring to the relationships within the church (although we can make application to how we treat one another in other contexts as well). The idea is that we should maintain love and healthy relationships and seek to walk in peace together for the glory of God—not giving the devil an opportunity to divide us and cause us to sin.

Stumbling Block

In the Bible, we see a few different types of stumbling blocks mentioned. First, we find the stumbling block used in the Old Testament in Leviticus 19:14. That language is picked up and used in the New Testament to describe a person who causes someone to stumble in obedience to God. We see this as Peter questioned the crucifixion of Jesus and was subsequently rebuked for his words. While he was certainly not going to prevent Jesus from going to the cross, he could become a stumbling block, or a hurdle by getting in the way of God’s eternal plan.

Overcoming a Critical Spirit and Chronic Complaining

Do you find yourself with a negative disposition, always finding fault with something or criticizing someone? Is it difficult for you to see the positive in a person or a situation because the negative is always so glaring in your eye? Are you compelled to give your critical point of view for the good of all mankind?

If you have a critical spirit (which is distinct from having a Spirit-filled, discerning spirit; 1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11) you are in danger. Not getting hit-by-a-truck-kind-of-danger, but a serious kind none the less—and that is spiritual danger. A critical spirit is from the dark side. It is meant to hurt and destroy its object.  It works against the purposes of God as set forth in Ephesians 4.

A critical spirit is a negative attitude of the heart that condemns, tears down, and destroys with words, actions, and attitudes. In stark contrast, constructive criticism involves choice words/actions that are meant to genuinely build up; (the Bible sometimes calls this "edification"). Pastors for example are commanded to "reprove, rebuke, and exhort" when feeding God's flock through biblical exposition (2 Tim. 4:1-5).  A critical spirit creates blind spots in a person’s own heart and mind causing them to believe they are being constructive. Chronic murmuring and a critical spirit are characteristics of the ungodly

Different Types of Critical Spirits 

1. SLANDERER

A slanderer is a person who makes false statements (often in the form of half truths) in order to damage a person’s reputation. He/she does not care about the truth or correcting an error. A slanderer creates error in order to inflict harm.

The Bible’s Perspective

Proverbs 10:18—“He who conceals hatred has lying lips, and he who spreads slander is a fool.”

Proverbs 16:28—“A perverse man spreads strife, and a slanderer separates intimate friends.”

1 Peter 2:1—“Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander.”

2. SINFUL JUDGMENTALISM

A judgmental person has an excessively critical point of view, characterized by a tendency to judge harshly. Judgmental people have the reputation of being negative/critical.  He/she lacks empathy for others’ viewpoint/circumstances because he/she believes her point of view is the right one (whether it is biblically and factually substantiated or not). He/she believes she has the ability to know others’ motives. He/she has the amazing skill to point out others’ mistakes/weaknesses, while minimizing his/her own.  He/she rarely ever encourages those they work, minister, or serve with.  Sinfully judgmental souls believe they have a special gift for pointing out the (perceived) flaws and weaknesses of others and are more concerned about someone else's sanctification then they are their own pursuit of Christ-likeness.

The Bible’s Perspective

Matthew 7:1-5—“Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.  Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?  Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

James 2:13—“For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.”

3. The CHRONIC COMPLAINER

A complainer is a person who is habitually negative about others and circumstances of life. They are characterized by discontentment and ingratitude.  God severely judged the Israelites for habitual ingratitude (see Exodus/Numbers).  Moses became so depressed over the complaining spirit of the people he led in the wilderness that he asked God to end his life.

Corporate Worship in the Youtube Era: A Brief Evaluation

"As a minister of music at a local church it's been interesting (and largely edifying) to watch the rise of the YouTube hymn/worship song culture. There’s so much to be thankful for, as we live in a time of many new songs that are theologically solid and beautifully written. It’s easy to fill an afternoon-long playlist with solid, Christ-exalting new songs. Full stop.

But I suspect that through these music videos of congregational singing, we are perpetuating the idea that physical expression while singing is necessary. I think younger believers who watch these videos, edifying as the songs may be, are establishing "visual emotionalism" as normative, and something they must work up in themselves in order for their worship to be "authentic."

Physical expression norms have changed over the past twenty years, too. It used to be both hands in the air, but this demonstrative posture seems to be slowly replaced with a more introspective one: eyes closed, head tilted slightly back or to one side, maybe a little swaying back and forth.

To be clear, there’s nothing wrong with such a posture, if it is coming from a heart filled with God’s Word and overflowing with gospel thankfulness. I just fear that we are trading one set of cultural norms for another, and in the process, unwittingly implying that this is what believers "ought" to do.

A Man Set On Fire For Christ's Sake- The Grace of God in the Life and Ministry of Martyn Lloyd-Jones

In July 1959, Martyn Lloyd-Jones and his wife, Bethan, were on vacation in Wales. They attended a little chapel for a Sunday-morning prayer meeting, and Lloyd-Jones asked those present, “Would you like me to give a word this morning?” The people hesitated because it was his vacation, and they didn’t want to presume on his energy. But his wife said, “Let him. Preaching is his life” (Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 373). It was a true statement. In the preface to his powerful book Preaching and Preachers, he said, “Preaching has been my life’s work . . . to me the work of preaching is the highest and the greatest and the most glorious calling to which anyone can ever be called” (17).  For thirty years he preached from the pulpit at Westminster Chapel in London. Usually that meant three different sermons each weekend: Friday evening and Sunday morning and evening.

At the end of his career, he remarked, “I can say quite honestly that I would not cross the road to listen to myself preaching” (Preaching and Preachers, 14). But that was not the way others felt. When J.I. Packer was a 22-year-old student, he heard Lloyd-Jones preach each Sunday evening during the school year of 1948–1949, and he said that he had “never heard such preaching.” It came to him “with the force of electric shock, bringing to at least one of his listeners more of a sense of God than any other man” (Five Evangelical Leaders, 170).

Physician of Souls

Lloyd-Jones’s path to Westminster was unique. He was born in Cardiff, Wales, on December 20, 1899. He moved to London with his family when he was 14 and went to medical school at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, where he received his MD in 1921 and became Sir Thomas Horder’s chief clinical assistant. The well-known Horder described Lloyd-Jones as “the most acute thinker that I ever knew” (Five Evangelical Leaders, 56).

Between 1921 and 1923, Lloyd-Jones underwent a profound conversion. It was so life-changing that it brought with it a passion to preach that completely outweighed his call as a physician. He felt a deep yearning to return to his native Wales and preach. His first sermon there was in April of 1925, and the note he sounded was the recurrent theme of his life: Wales did not need more talk about social action; it needed “a great spiritual awakening.” This theme of revival and power and real vitality remained his lifelong passion (Five Evangelical Leaders, 66).