I am excited to see my colleagues’ publication of, Standing Firm: The Doctrinal Commitment of the Moody Bible Institute (Moody Publishers, 2019). I hope that readers will find that at Moody we still align ourselves with orthodox truth. Contrary to rumors published this past spring, we have not made any sort of doctrinal slide. All of our professors fully embrace the inerrancy of the Scriptures of the OT and NT and live out the truth of the gospel contained therein.
Standing Firm also is a good text for personal or group study of the truths Christians believe from Scripture. It is a good, easy-to-read work for firming or reaffirming your understanding of Christian doctrine.
I am grateful to my friends at The Gospel Coalition and Crossway for using my Ephesians study guide for their 12-week study through the book. Both ministries have a vision that is inclusive of all peoples, for which I am thankful.
Ephesians is an incredible book revealing much about the deep mystery of God’s plan for Redemptive History. I am glad many will be able to take advantage of the study guide through TGC.
The Coffee and Cream podcast invited me to discuss the significance of Where Are All the Brothers? Straight Answers to Men’s Questions About the Church (Crossway, 2008), ten years after its publication, to the current evangelical discussions on racial reconciliation in the church and society. You can find the podcast here. We talk about Marvel and DC movies too. Thank you, Coffee and Cream, for your kind invitation.
In the aftermath of Ford v. Kavanagh, as it relates to the messages a nomination and confirmation of the accused would send, separating connotations from denotations will be extremely difficult. To many, it will seem that the affirming senators will be saying that a woman’s credible testimony of allegations of sexual assault by a man of power have no chance of receiving justice. This appears to be true even in the face of the ABA calling for the Senate to seek an FBI investigation of Kavanagh.
Whether or not the affirming senators intend to send this message is another thing. But again, in this case, the connotations seem to stem from the denotation(s). The words and emotions both the accused and Sen. Graham displayed seem like the antics of creatures of hubris trapped in a corner rather than the leadership of men of humility demonstrating to the country their goodwill, innocence, judicial fairness, and integrity. They seem to be saying that there is no chance of even having a judiciary that will be fair and impartial to women’s cries for justice. It seems that they are telling the US citizenry that winning a seat on the court is more important than administering the fair and impartial justice we hope the accused would give if appointed to the court.
Why add another man to the court who has accusations of misconduct toward women flying over his head? We have enough justices in the country who have clean records and lives of integrity who are qualified to serve the high court such that we could nominate someone else.
Yes, people change. I am the first to scream for an infusion of grace and mercy mixed with justice when guilty people of changed lives come clean about their pasts. In fact, the guilty who do not come clean need advocates of grace and mercy, too, so that they might come clean about their pasts and presents. Jesus can change and clean anyone, and, for the sake of the victim and for law itself, we must serve justice, mingled with mercy, even to those who have changed.
Pam and I are looking forward to being with Crossroads University Ministry — the ministry to 18-25 year olds at The Moody Church, Chicago. Whether you are in college or not, or recently graduated, if you are college-aged (18-25) and living near Chicagoland, join us for the retreat! See the registration here.
(Duccio di Buoninsegna, Christ Accused by the Pharisees [scene 12], 1308-11)
 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house, and Peter was following at a distance.  And when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat down among them.  Then a servant girl, seeing him as he sat in the light and looking closely at him, said, “This man also was with him.”  But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”  And a little later someone else saw him and said, “You also are one of them.” But Peter said, “Man, I am not.”  And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean.”  But Peter said, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.” And immediately, while he was still speaking, the rooster crowed.  And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the saying of the Lord, how he had said to him, “Before the rooster crows today, you will deny me three times.”  And he went out and wept bitterly.
 Now the men who were holding Jesus in custody were mocking him as they beat him.  They also blindfolded him and kept asking him, “Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?”  And they said many other things against him, blaspheming him. (Luke 22:54–65, ESV)
In my undergraduate Hermeneutics course of the Spring 2018 semester, students diligently worked on the “art” of interpretation as much as the “science.” The art part involves discernment by the reader as much as it involves appreciation of the literary artistry of a writer. Artistically, Luke places the mocking and beating of Jesus immediately after the episode of Peter’s denial. One can discern that Luke intends for the reader to understand that Peter’s refusal to identify himself with Jesus as a follower allows the guards to beat and mock Jesus without hindrance.
What might have happened if Peter, instead, had followed Jesus closely, had anticipated a question about his identity with respect to Jesus, and had said, “I am a follower of Jesus, because he is the Christ. Now let me in the house with him, for I am ready to die for him!” Such a bold, unashamed response might have been so shocking to others that its story would have reverberated around the house. One of the guards might have asked, “Is there really someone who thinks this Jewish troublemaker is worth dying for? Does someone really believe he is the so-called ‘Messiah?’” Consider the responses to the unashamed Peter in Acts 4:17-31 and 5:17-42—that the Jewish leadership had to hear the Gospel and witness its power displayed through the Apostles because of their bold, unashamed testimony.
In addition to emphasizing the artistry of hermeneutics, the students spent much time thinking deeply about the right application of texts. I encouraged them to stay away from overemphasizing cognitive responses to passages – e.g., “remember,” “understand,” “know,” “stand in the truth of,” and the like – because, as believers, we are more than just our heads. If application is only for our heads (thinking) and not for our hearts (goals, motives, intentions, emotions, and affections), mouths (speech), hands and feet (actions and works), eyes and ears (as windows and receptors for our minds and souls), and our whole body (control of appetites, desires, and passions), then Christian practice will remain only a mental exercise, and not an exercise of our full embodiment for the glory of God in Christ. As I said to one student, “The world is not changed by thinking alone, even if ideas do have consequences. It is when ideas make practices that things are changed.”
In the Lukan passage before us, we concluded that one application of this passage might be for hearers of this passage to develop an anticipatory phrase (like my hypothetical phrase for Peter above)—one that is their own and that they can be prepared to say every time they are tempted to deny being a follower of Christ. Can you imagine what this will do for the Christian entering a spiritually-antagonistic university setting, or what it would do for the professional who is tempted to tone down his/her faith in the workplace for the sake of being accepted into or team or group of office friends, or for the sake of a promotion?
In contrast to the above application, I do not see an application of this passage related to forgiving those who have abandoned me (as Christ later forgave Peter). The subject of this passage is not, “The believer’s response to abandonment,” or “the imitation of Christ in the face of failure.” We are off the reservation if we see Christ looking at Peter and Peter subsequently weeping because of his shameful responses in the courtyard, and then tell our people, “Now go forgive those who abandoned you.” There is a disconnect between the subject of the passage and what we are drawing as an application of the passage. Yet application must derive from the subject, for we are applying the meaning of the passage—putting into practice what the passage talks about. At best, and without spite, Christ’s look is a reminder of his prophetic words about Peter’s failure; at worst the look is one of disappointment. Either way, the look invokes grief in Peter rather than a sense of relief from guilt. The idea of forgiveness does not enter this passage.
In order to make such an application (or rather, misapplication) of this passage, one must introduce into the story in Luke 22 Christ’s forgiveness of Peter in John 21 and the succeeding shameless preaching of Peter in the Acts narrative. However, our goal as preachers and teachers of the Scriptures is to tell our hearers what the passage in focus wants us to do in order to please the Lord, and our goal for ourselves as readers is the same (cf. Deut. 12:28; Pss. 119:105, 109-111; Acts 20:32; 2 Tim. 3:15-4:4; Heb. 5:14; Ja. 1:19-25). It is common practice for Christian preaching and teaching to punt the ball from one passage into another passage for application, especially when attempting to apply narrative literature. But we need to pretend we are going for it on 4 and 1 in every passage with right application from the verses in focus rather than immediately appealing elsewhere in Scripture for application.
Thus, sticking to the subject of Luke 22:54-65, I would suggest that you tell me to examine past episodes in which I have sought ease or comfort rather than accepting humiliation for naming the name of Christ. Tell me to look at those comfort points in order to see what sort of comforts are most attractive to me when people around me are hostile to Christ: Is it that I want acceptance among family members, inclusion in a group of popular students, no chance of having to be alone on my team as the “Jesus lover” or the object of scorn in my office, or no possibility of being the one who does not get the large-paying project on a contract because of my Christian ethical stance, etc…? Then tell me to confess my last failure to God, a spiritual mentor, a close Christian friend, and my small group, and to ask the latter three for prayer, wisdom, and loving inquiry into my faithfulness to stand for Christ going forward. Challenge me to pray for grace to be bold and courageous at the next temptation to deny Christ, and to visualize Jesus being beaten if I start moving toward the comfortable option(s) rather than the humiliating choice(s). Now you are telling me what to do in light of this passage. Or ask me how I felt the last time I acted as one ashamed of Jesus. Ask me if I want to wear those feelings again and again even as I watch people in need of Christ stand in jeopardy of his wrath (cf. John 3:36; Eph. 2:3). Ask me what feeling I would rather have (i.e., a sense of Jesus’ approval with my choice to follow him closely even if I will be beaten). Tell me that a way to ensure I have Jesus’ approval is to reply to a scoffer, “I gladly identify a myself as a Christian because I do believe Christ is the only Savior of the World.” Now remind me that all faithfulness is wholly of the grace of God.
Here is an outline of my very brief analysis of the structure and meaning of Luke 22:54-65:
Plot Goal, Conflict, and Resolution
For Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him,
in conflict with Peter’s three-times denial of Christ –
is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.
Full Plot Statement
The Plot of Luke 22:54-65 is for Peter to move closer to Jesus in his arrest so as to be identified with him in conflict with Peter’s three-time denial of being a follower of Christ is resolved as Peter weeps at the remembrance of the saying of Christ, and the guards are allowed to beat and blaspheme Jesus.
Meaning of 22:54 (Pre-Denial)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: begins by following Jesus at a distance (rather than going with him into the house [i.e. the place of suffering]) and sitting with others in the courtyard at the fire. (Note: There might be a Psalm 1 echo here.)
Meaning of 22:55-57 (Denial 1)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as a servant girl rightly and closely identifies him with Jesus and he chooses denounce Jesus (in order to avoid either a) leaving the warmth of the fire, b) causing others at the fire to attack him or reveal him to the authorities in the house, or c) having to go into the house). (Note: The servant girl gave Peter an open door to speak of Christ when she identified him, but he used the opportunity to deny Christ rather than proclaim him. The next two persons who identify Peter give him those same opportunities. This thought also could contribute to further applications of this passage.)
Meaning of 22:58-60a (Denial 2)
Subject: Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as a man near the fire identifies him with Jesus and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus.
Meaning of 22:60b-62 (Denial 3)
Subject: Peter’s forceful denial of being a disciple of Christ
Complement: continues as another identifies him with Jesus with certainty based on his Galilean background and Peter chooses to denounce Jesus, and results in personal sorrow when Peter is confronted with his sinfulness by the Lord.
Meaning of 22:63-65
Subject: The guards’ mocking and beating of Jesus
Complement: follows Peter’s denial of being a disciple of Christ and weeping departure.
Meaning of Luke 22:54-65
Subject: Peter’s increasing denial of being a disciple of Christ in the courtyard,
Complement: despite being identified as a disciple with certainty, suffers defeat for Peter at the words of Christ, and suffers beating for Jesus at the hands of the guards.
The Application of the Meaning of Luke 22:54-65 (with the steps from “Meaning” to “Application” being skipped here):
A disciple’s rejection of being associated with Jesus for need of personal comfort harms both the disciple and the Gospel.
This is the Thursday immediately before Good Friday (22:66; 23:26).
Last night I greatly enjoyed the Chicago Urban League’s Empowerperformance at the Lyric Opera. Empower, a collaborative between the two organizations, provided youth from Southside Chicago opportunities to utilize the performing arts to showcase a positive portrayal of life on the Southside. Accompanied by Lyric voices William Liverman and Angela Brown, Empoweractors and singers displayed musical, dance, and rhetorical artistry of original choreography and script reflective of the sounds and themesof African American urban life.
Scriptwriter Ike Holter, resident playwright for the Victory Gardens Theater, and Composer Damien Sneed, 2014 Sphinx Medal of Excellence recipient, have much of which to be proud. Creatively their team gave a significant message: Allowing the residents of the Southside to unite to give their own stories of the good life in their community will forcibly dispel the negative portrayals propagated by fair-weather reporters from the outside who only are telling fake news about the Southside, thereby showing that Southside lives matter too. Images of Southside nail and hair shops, a neighborhood store, and Harold’s Chicken Shack, added a setting of bright scenes to the encouraging dialog about memorable times of watching grandparents dance in the kitchen and enjoying neighborhood fish fries.
The theme song and rapping were lit – “lit,” itself, adding nice humor to multiple scenes – and there was a poignant shout out to The Black Panthermovie that brought great laughter to the audience. Yet the stage play remained honest about daily experiences, depicting struggles with bullying faced by a high school student who had acquired scholarships to college. Her resolve to stand up against her opponents rather than politely continue to say, “Excuse me,” or allow another to take up her cause was one of the most significant messages of the night.
With similar reality, the young people’s initial struggle to figure out how to make a beneficial difference in their community was important. As the performance moved toward a resolution, hearing the stories of “the old days” helped them to see that our histories might hold a key to uplifting the community in the present and future. In short, like the Lyric and the Chicago Urban League, the young and old collaborated to sing loudly that the Southside is what makes Chicago a great city. I hope the youth who gave this message will have many chances to repeat it all over Chitown.
In this world premiere, a group of South Side youth band together to change their neighborhood and fight against the negative media representation by a reporter obsessed with corruption. From redefining their own narrative to sharing what Chicago means to them, hear the stories and sounds of Chicago’s youth in this groundbreaking new work written by Ike Holter with music by Damien Sneed as it debuts on Chicago’s biggest stage.
This performance is the culmination of EmpowerYouth!: Igniting Creativity through the Arts, a groundbreaking partnership between Lyric and the Chicago Urban League that immerses high school students in the creation and performance of an original opera. Students will perform their opera alongside opera stars Angela Brown and Will Liverman and a 10-piece orchestra, bringing this dynamic new work to Lyric audiences in a fully-staged and costumed opera performance.
In my previous post, I noted a distinction between the “social gospel” and living out the Gospel in relation to social concerns within the culture around us. However, some would label any Christian social involvement, “liberal,” accept maybe where it comes to standing against legalized abortion. Consider the ideas expressed by the writer at Pulpit & Pen:
The social gospel advances ideas such as racial justice, open borders, and left-wing political ideology that has a facade of Christlikeness, but under the surface, merely replaces the gospel with social activism. The social gospel is different from the culture war, as the culture war tends to try to instill and enforce conservative and religious ideology through the use of boycotts and other “take-overs” of the culture. The social gospel, on the other hand, is an attempt to appease the world and the culture by encouraging Christians to adopt political social justice ideas through the guise of “gospel mandates.”
These so-called “gospel mandates” are becoming increasingly popular in the neo-Calvinist camp of evangelicalism. A “gospel mandate,” in the context of the social gospel, is when the gospel is invoked to prescribe a directive to accept one of these progressive ideologies. In other words, obeying the gospel means believing in and helping to advance this social justice idea.
Note that the writer, who is against the “social gospel” as he conceives of it, says the social gospel “merely replaces the gospel with social activism,” and “the social gospel is different from the cultural war.” Now consider the findings of Chris Ladd, writer of the Forbes Magazine article, “Pastors, Not Politicians, Turned Dixie Republican:”
Southern churches, warped by generations of theological evolution necessary to accommodate slavery and segregation, were all too willing to offer their political assistance to a white nationalist program. Southern religious institutions would lead a wave of political activism that helped keep white nationalism alive inside an increasingly unfriendly national climate. Forget about Goldwater, Nixon or Reagan. No one played as much of a role in turning the South red as the leaders of the Southern Baptist Church.
* * *
It was religious leaders in the South who solved the puzzle on Republicans’ behalf, converting white angst over lost cultural supremacy into a fresh language of piety and “religious liberty.” Southern conservatives discovered that they could preserve white nationalism through a proxy fight for Christian Nationalism. They came to recognize that a weak, largely empty Republican grassroots structure in the South was ripe for takeover and colonization.
Fired by the success of their efforts at the top of the ballot in 1980, newly activated congregations pressed further, launching organized efforts to move their members from pew to precinct, filling the largely empty Republican infrastructure in the South. By the late 80’s religious activists like Stephen Hotze in Houston were beginning to cut out the middleman, going around pastors to recruit political warriors in the pews. Hotze circulated a professionally rendered video in 1990, called “Restoring America,” that included step-by-step instructions for taking control of Republican precinct and county organizations. Religious nationalists began to purge traditional Republicans from the region’s few GOP institutions.
The Southern Strategy was not a successful Republican initiative. It was a delayed reaction by Republican operatives to events they neither precipitated nor fully understood. Republicans did not trigger the flight of the Dixiecrats, they were buried by it.
W. A. Criswell and his denominational offspring saw desegregation as “unjust” (and thus saw racism as just), and used their pulpits to justify their segregationist idea of American freedom as a Christian ideal—as a Gospel ideal. In an attempt to preserve white nationalism, it was an evangelical body that promoted one of the greatest examples in modern American history of using the Gospel for political social activism. Thus, for some evangelicals, it seems that when justice meant “segregation” and separating the races, then the Gospel could include social activism. However, for those same evangelicals, when justice means providing economic, educational, housing, and legal equity for African Americans and other ethnic minorities, then the Gospel cannot include social activism. You do the math. No, let me do it for you:
The Gospel + justice as separation of races = The Gospel
– The Gospel + justice as provide equity for races = The Gospel
= justice as separation of races vs. justice as provide equity for racesis the real issue