Pete's Blog

(This post is a response to a post on Lydia's blog about women serving in the church. The response is too long, in my mind, to justifiably be placed as a comment on her blog. Though the entry seems like a long one for my blog, follow the headings if you only want to read the essentials.)

Suppose that you have an isolated group of Christians, one well trained woman and some men who are unready for ministry. What is she to do knowing that God has ordained a separate role for women within the church than the men?

Maybe all that needs to be said is to listen to this talk given by Randy Stinson. The whole of the talk is him explaining what a husband and father's leadership in the family looks like. It should be very similar for an elder in a church. The talk is helpful for this discussion because in listening to what the man should be doing (i.e., leading), you get an idea of where a woman can justifiably step in (i.e., leading does not equate with doing everything so she can help when the leaders ask for that help, as long as it's within the bounds of Scripture [e.g., the leaders can't ask for her help to rob the bank when the church treasury is in the red]).

(The following paragraph is an encouragement to prepare for the long haul that does not contribute to the main thought of answering the question.)

Before saying anything, I think that it would take a lot of time to build a healthy church out of this. Church planting is tough. A woman, by herself, raising up unskilled men to plant a church: tougher. Furthermore, she might not even be getting them to plant a church. She might be going against their old paradigms, such as, possibly, Someone else will do it. When MacArthur went to shepherd Grace Community they had female elders there. It took quite some time to bring a biblical vision of church administration and leadership to his church. Dever, who also went to shepherd a church in need of a private reformation (when I use "reformation" in the context of a single local church, I mean one, where if you walked in, it might seem like they're playing church, they don't have a biblical structure for church leadership, the church doesn't deal with public sin, the preaching is unsystematic and possibly only loosely based on a text of Scripture, where they need to change a lot of the ways that they do ministry, thus, it needs a reformation), now pleads with pastors shepherding churches in need of reformation not to do it quickly, nor with a totalitarian style to it. So, if she's dealing with some men with baggage, it might take a long time. Fortunately, a church has that amount of time, five to ten years. A campus ministry, where your leaders are around for at most four years (i.e., a degree for five years minus the frosh year), is not a likely place for this reformation to be able to happen.

(Back to answering the issue.)

I was about to use the word "unqualified" where I wrote "unready" in the first sentence of the question paragraph, but I chose to use "unready" because I don't think that in every case it takes too much to be qualified. For example D.A. Carson said in a talk on elders that the churchmen in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch of Pisidia couldn't have been believers very long before Paul and Barnabas "had appointed elders for them in every church" (Ac. 14:23). This suggests to me that they were simply relatively spiritually mature (i.e., they were spiritually mature in comparison to some of their brothers within the church).

With this in mind, I think that the woman should select two or three of the men who she sees are the (relatively) stronger believers. Then she should (gently) encourage that they be appointed the elders of that church. (This is where I think that the Stinson talk would prove helpful.) These men obviously want the church to exist (otherwise they wouldn't be in the picture). After she suggests that they should be part of it they'll leave, desiring to remain in complacency, or they'll stay, and, with fear and trembling, accept the task of building the church. These men can resource the woman and ask her help in setting church direction, as long as the responsibility and outcome rests on the shoulders of the men. The individual men can ask her help when doing Bible study preparation, or even in their quiet times in finding out what the Bible means.

Hopefully with much prayer and patience, the Lord would bless this entreprise.

(That's it for my suggestions. All of the following is my attempt to explain why I'm thinking in this way, from the Bible.)

The reason this is difficult is because we need to apply 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in a God-honouring, people-building way. The first observation that I would make is that the passage in question is referring to the local church and corporate worship within the body (read Grudem for the argument behind this claim). More specifically, I think that it's saying that elders (or pastors; same thing [cf. 1P. 5:1, 2]) may not be women (read Piper for his argument behind this claim). Otherwise, it's not very specific. I think that Paul deliberately left lots of room to work within. The woman, then, would be balancing giving as much help as possible to build the church, while neither giving the church the appearance of being led by a woman, nor of giving the members the feeling of reliance on female leadership that would become systemic and difficult to heal later on. For example, I think that the woman could legitimately do a lot, but she needs to be concerned about what the future outcome of her current actions will be: With what I am doing right now, will the church in the future be more feminine (and thus, less healthy) than if I take a step back now, slowing down the progress of the church, but investing in the long term health of the church? That might be the case.

For this reason, if there were other churches around in the area, or even in the next city over, I think that the wisest choice for the woman (for the sake of clarity, from, say, church A) would be to discern from among them a healthy church (say, church B) that would be able to help church A. She could then ask the elders of church B to offer the men of church A some guidance and help in building up their body (i.e., church A). This would show the importance of relying on male leadership, but would also give her church real and valuable help.

As a note, Mohler, for example, would say that 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits women from speaking at C4C functions. Since Paul was specifically referring to the local church, I don't entirely agree. Paul was not specific, so, in trusting that the Scriptures are sufficient in their restrictions, we must believe that God is not opposed to women speaking at C4C meetings. (If you disagree with this, then, essentially, you're saying that 1 Timothy has wider applications than just within the church. Are there to be deacons in every C4C group? Are there to be weddings? Lists of widows? All in all, I don't think Paul is referring to outside of the local church, and I don't think that C4C is a church.) So it comes down to a question of beneficial and unwise, as opposed to right and wrong. So, while I think that it's beneficial to have as many male speakers as possible at C4C, I don't think that it's wrong to fill in the gaps with female speakers. (That was my attempt as Weekly Meeting Coordinator at Carleton.)

--

I introduced three characters in this post. Randy Stinson is the president of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Dean of the School of Leadership and Church Growth at Southern. Sometimes he reminds me of Driscoll, making fun of guys who don't fit the Wild At Heart paradigm for men (i.e., guys who might cry, or wear pink – though Stinson is more apologetic in this case than Driscoll typically is, or who drink decaf coffee). Other than that, I find him helpful. He must be brilliant to serve under Mohler at Southern, though.

D.A. Carson is a professor at TEDS (i.e., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, but I call it by the rhyme of "peds" for short, while most of its students, I think, call it Trinity for short). He was born in Quebec, shepherded a Baptist church in B.C. and now lives in Chicago. (Well, not quite, Deerfield, Illinois.) The biography of him that I linked to above was written by Andreas Köstenberger and is thoroughly enjoyable. It's short, descriptive and enlightening. Piper once said that he recommends choosing one author and devoting yourself to reading everything he's written. (Piper's chosen Jonathan Edwards.) I might choose Carson. Carson is so well renowned that he became the subject of a satire blog on the subject of him. (Of which, I particularly enjoyed, this entry involving Paige Patterson.) I could go on about Dr. Carson, but I'll stop here.

Labels: Abbreviations, Bible, Blogs, Characters, Friends, Humour, Long, Manhood, Ministry, Resources

(Unnecessary introduction.)
Mark Dever is probably the popular figure I relate most to right now. I agree with almost all of his theology (he's pushing for his church not to baptize people until they turn 18, where I only see the command in Scripture to make disciples and baptize them [Mt. 28:19], not, "Go and convert 'em and then wait a decade to dunk 'em" as pragmatic as that may sound). He and I are Calvinists, complimentarians, continualists weary of charismatics, and baptists. As baptists, we agree that "the local church is the hope of the world." We agree that the local church should be elder-led and congregationally-ruled. We agree that the normative pattern of the local church should be having one Sunday morning worship service where all of your members are in attendance. We agree that the Gospel should be presented in every sermon.

The guy jokes with paedo-baptists about baptism. He loves politics. He loves history. He sees the importance of evangelism. He graciously disagrees with people and doesn't turn polemics into feuds. The sort of conversations that he pursues in his 9Marks Interviews make me think that he and I would have a ton to talk about (consider especially his interview with Mac). I admire and respect the man so much. Certainly enough to praise him, in depth, in two different posts. I thank God that He has blessed the Church with Dr. Dever.

(Transition to body.)
This makes me think about how much I would love to have his job (I think; it's really easy to covet something while you are unaware of the downsides of the object of desire). He gets to preach the Bible. He gets to train leaders. He gets to interview the smartest men in evangelicalism. He went to seminary at Southern (the number one recommended seminary by Piper), not even to mention, at the same time as Mohler! (Although, that's of the past and I wouldn't get to relive it if I just took Dever's job.) He has politicians who go to his church and ask him for time up front to talk about elections. Of course, he says, "no," to them. But he's in a hot spot of activity having a church in Washington, D.C. That's the best of both worlds, ministry and politics. Kind of like the Christian Embassy, but better, since it has a focus on training pastors as well.

(The meat of the post.)
On the subject of politics, I wanted to make an observation. In the U.S., there have been forty two presidents (lists often say forty three, but I am not counting the multiplicity of Grover Cleveland), among whom, fifteen were at one point senators and seventeen were at one point governors. That said, if I had the prime minister's office as my ambition, the first thing I would try to do is become premier of one of the provinces. That just doesn't really happen in Canada, though. I wonder why. The closest thing in my lifetime that resembled it was Mike Harris. He had just resigned from being premier of Ontario (to try to work on his marriage) and my father kept telling me to watch, that he would someday run for prime minister. In fact, in my first year, I used to write under my name in all my emails either "Bush '04" or "Harris '05". Obviously, that never happened. I still wonder why. Anyway, that would be my advice to an aspiring politician in the making. Go become the premier of a province. If you fail, oh well, you've only destroyed a province, not the country. But if you succeed, especially in Ontario, you'll be remembered come the day you run for federal office.

(Epilogue.)
When I was in second year I said that I wanted to STINT in South America. (I hadn't told many people this, probably two. I wonder whether they remember.) From my third year to mid-fifth year, I wanted to plant a church in Muslim Africa. Though that still appeals to me, Tanz-STINT not happening this year coupled with me committing to four years in Quebec have left my vision for Africa waning these days. I may see a shift in my future plans year again. Maybe I'll plant a church in Gatineau (or take on a pastorate at a church in need of its own reformation, like what Dever, MacArthur and Piper have done at the churches they're now at) and see whether the Lord grants me a ministry to politicians.

In Christ there are so many blessed opportunities. One of the few (maybe many, e.g., God's glory [Rm. 9:22, 23]) good things about the world being so fallen is that there are endless directions you can go in order to help fulfill the Great Commission. Pray that I would go in the direction that I can have the greatest impact for Christ, be challenged most in my faith, and be most faithful.

Labels: Ministry, Politics, Resources

Al Mohler has been asked (question begins at 21:30 in the audio) before how he would argue the inerrancy of the Scriptures to an atheist. He came out and said that it will become a circular argument. The Bible says that it's perfect. That's how we know. The Westminster Confessions say, "And the heavenliness of the matter [the Word of God], the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts." That's very circular to a non-Christian who doesn't believe in the Holy Spirit. But, Mohler says not to give up there. He says to remember that our existence is an unproven assumption.

The Bible is able to testify to itself. If someone asks why he should trust the Bible Al Mohler and Russell Moore, probably John MacArthur, would say to just read it and see for himself that it is perfect. I really believe this is true with all my heart. I believe that the Bible is amazingly harmonious (i.e., despite having more than forty authors written over more than a millenium and a half it has no contradictions and has one over-arching message). I think the way that the Bible reports on the fulfillment of prophecy are great for affirming its divineness. Especially as my testimony bears witness to, I believe that reading the Bible can bring faith (Rm. 10:17).

As an aside before moving on from this point, I am not saying that other outside evidence of the greatness of the Scriptures is to be avoided (e.g., the number of manuscripts, the perfect alignment with historical events and archaeology, etc.), I just don't think that they convert a person. God does through His Son's Gospel. We must, however, be ready to stand up for Truth (1P. 3:15).

Now, moving on, I was listening to a Mark Dever interview with Josh Harris (who Kissed Dating Goodbye) and Mohler on dating. Mohler was talking about how some men are called to celibacy, either short term while fulfilling a certain role such as military service in a foreign nation, or long term. As an example of someone called to long term celibacy he described how in 2002 he was called by a missionary organization and asked for the names of seven single men he would recommend from his seminary. I thought that was one of the most exciting things that I'd heard in a long time. He was talking about how these men would be sent off to one of the Stan countries (e.g., Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan) and that they might not come back, so it would be irresponsible to send a married man.

First, I'm single, so I thought about how great it would be if I could be used in that capacity. But, more alluring was the idea of going to a place where the Bible's never been read before - not to mention, never had its reputation smeared before. What do you think the average person would say if you (a Christian) asked him to read it and see what he thought of it? He'd probably say (though, perhaps not in this language) that there's no point since 1) it's ancient and doesn't apply today, 2) it's not even accurate, 3) it was written by people not God, so it's not even Truth, and 4) that it's too boring, all that, without even having read it. It would be so great to go to a place and let them read the Word and hear God speak.

Upon writing this, I've now decided that along with my daily petitions for God to save my parents and brother, I am going to pray that He would get them reading His Word, before or after He saves them. I would love for my brother to read the book of Romans and talk with me about a Christian worldview of war and peace. I would love for my mother to read 1 Peter and ask me what it means to cast all her anxieties upon Him. I would love for my father to read Philippians and the Gospel of John and ask me how the most power being in existence could bow down and help someone less worthy than Himself. The Bible is so applicable today! Let me cut myself off before I start criticizing the seeker sensitive movement for their abadonment of the Word, to say that alongside what I said my family could find for themselves to read in their, they could also read about God's love and salvation, and be saved. The message of the Bible is their hope, but not only theirs, but that of the whole world.

Thanks for reading/skimming my rant on how great the Word is and how evil/ignorant the world is.

--

I mentioned a Dever interview with Harris and Mohler. I highly, highly, highly recommend it for singles and couples; for all Christians. There's one thought in there, put forward by Mohler, that I've never thought of before, nor heard of it before. He actually says that adulthood should be equated with marriage except in the special cases. That boys should not only be raised to be men, but to be husbands and fathers. If for no other reason, listen to it to hear Mohler laugh at the question of Christian online dating and give an unequivocating, "No."

Labels: Bible, Long, Ministry, Resources

Labels: Abbreviations, Bible, Friends, Manhood, Ministry, Prayer

Labels: Bible, Friends, Manhood, Ministry, Miscellaneous

I was praising Adam to Monica this past school year, when I realized that I'd learned so much serving in C4C (i.e., Campus for Christ) with such great leaders. This entry and the following two are to acknowledge the three KSLs (Key Student Leader) under whom I've served.

Each leader's acknowledgement is fairly lengthy, so, even though I've already written up each of the three entries, I'll stagger them by two days each. Here's the first:

--

Jason Parker became the Carleton's KSL of Campus Crusade for Christ in his second year, the academic year of 2003-04, my first year at Carleton, and (I say lightly) reigned until he graduated in 2006, with an honours degree in Classics (i.e., the study of ancient civilizations, I think). Before I became comfortable talking about dating and complementarianism, I liked to brag that he was the one who kept dating out of C4C (though he always disliked being accredited for this). Not to rub salt in any wounds, but while he served as KSL, (again, jesting) at least three relationships ended, one relationship led to marriage and the couple left Ottawa, and any other people who entered relationships left the ministry. (While that final clause is a joke, I say it with some disappointment. It breaks my heart to see some relationships that are clearly unevenly yoked, get in the way of a relationship with the living God, Jesus Christ.) But, one couple did prevail in their relationship, at which point, Mr. Parker left Ottawa. That was when he graduated, but when you leave that detail out it makes him sound like a prude who thinks that dating and marriage are bad things, not to be tolerated.

All joking aside, the Bible character I most associate with him is Barnabas, the "son of encouragement" (Ac. 4:36). For some reason, Parker made consistent efforts to relate to me. The first time we ever really talked was in my second year, after our weekly meeting, the whole group went skating on the canal. He skated with me that night as we did the length of the course, and back. Then, sometimes he would be intending on hanging out with Adam and invite me to come along. I've never expressed to him how much that meant to me.

At the end of my third year, thinking that I had just faithfully finished a year of leading a DG and serving in the ministry, I was expecting to be added to the Servant Team (hereafter referred to as "ST"). I wasn't, much to the shattering of my haughty ego. Adam later went on to tell me that Parker had encouraged me to be reconsidered for the ST. I was surprised to hear that. That's not an exhaustive list of ways that Parker had shown trust in me.

Parker was also real. He wasn't about to let anyone walk all over him. There was one time at a weekly meeting we had an unexpected addition to our scheduled program, and later he told me that it made him angry. In no way saying this to shame him, in his vulnerability (which I usually equate with being real), he made it possible to learn from his faults, as much as from his good example.

No doubt though, Parker's greatest strength was his ability to make himself available to the men around him, and to encourage them in their strengths. He definitely wasn't perfect, but I think that he was a great encourager.

Labels: Abbreviations, Bible, Friends, Manhood, Ministry

The following was taken from a message given by John MacArthur at the Together for the Gospel Conference in 2006. I thought that it was funny so I figured that I would share it. If you're listening to the audio, it starts at 32:27.

One other note: Mac will say there are "three reasons…". Fear not if you missed the third (and even the second). He only says two, and the second was is only distinguished from the first by the words, "the other."

I hope that it edifies your souls, and makes you chuckle at the end.

"I think, I mean, this is arguable, I guess, but I think, maybe the most assaulted doctrine today is the headship of Christ over His Church. ... We say, 'Oh, what do you mean, "Christ is the Head of the Church"? We all know that; Colossians 1, Ephesians 1 - we all know that. Isn't that a little benign to us?' Do you know, that doctrine has sailed down to us on a sea of blood? You know how many people have been massacred over that issue? ... In the conflict between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics about who is the Head of the Church, Roman Catholicism still says the pope is the Head of the Church, and if you deny that, you're anathema. Take the covenanters, they fought the battle, lost their lives, over whether the king or queen, or the pope (when there was a Catholic monarchy) is the Head of the Church. Today, we've got a whole bunch of little heads of their churches popping up all over everywhere, who, in effect, have produced a mutiny against the true Head of the Church by taking the Word of the Head of the Church out of the Church, and silenced Him. You take the Bible out of the Church, you take the Word of the Head of the Church, away from the Church, and you have carried off a revolution. When you bring to the people the mind of Christ, contained in the Word of God, you exalt the headship of Christ over His Church. At [the] Ligonier Conference I talked about this, and went back to Jan Hus. He was July 6th, 1415 burned at the stake. And there were basically three reasons they burned him at the stake. It's really an incredible story. They burned him at the stake, one, because he said the true Church is made up of all predestined believers. That doesn't sound too revolutionary. Not unless you accept the Catholic view at the time. The true Church is the pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, period. And the only way that lay people communed with the Church is through the wafer. Well, Hus was in agreement with Wycliffe, that all predestined believers are the Church. This was unacceptable to them - absolutely unacceptable. And the other big issue was that he said that the pope was not the Head of the Church. And for that he was burned at the stake. R.C. Sproul told me an interesting story, a little bit of a history. When Hus was burned at the stake, you remember he was called 'the Goose,' he was from Husinec, but he shortened it to Hus 'the Goose,' that's where we get the phrase, 'The goose was cooked.' ... But when Hus was being martyred, he made the statement that, 'You could kill me,' (something like this) 'but there will come another after me, that you will not be able to silence.' Well, that was a hundred years later, exactly, that was Martin Luther. Luther was rummaging around in a library, and found a whole bunch of papers of Hus's sermons. And he found Hus to be a pre-Reformation Reformer, who was dealing with the same doctrinal issues and even Hus came out strongly against Indulgences. So Luther found a real partner. That's why some paintings of Luther, you'll find a goose in the background, because Hus was like a hero. Hus was sentenced to die by the Bishop of the Council of Constance and he died in the flames, singing psalms. A hundred years later Luther comes along, reads his sermons, picks up on it, he's a hero, even adapts the idea of being a goose. Luther is the fulfillment, in a sense, of that prophecy, 'One will come after me, that you will not be able to silence.' Curious note, R.C. Sproul told me, Luther was ordained at Erfurt, and when you were ordained in those days you had to lay, on the ground, flat on the floor, below the altar, with your arms spread ... in the sign of a cross. And Luther was lying there in that position when he was ordained, and he was lying on a crypt. And the crypt was the crypt of the Bishop of Constance who had condemned Hus to death. And R.C. Sproul imagines that when Hus said, 'You may silence me but there will come one after me you will not silence,' that maybe the Bishop of Constance said, 'Over my dead body.' Maybe, maybe."

Labels: Humour, Ministry, Miscellaneous, Resources

I was listening to a panel discussion with Dever, Ligon Duncan, John MacArthur, Mahaney and Mohler, when I heard an amazing quote by Dever that started at about the 1:16 point. It goes: "I'm encouraged in my evangelism because I know that when I'm preaching to corpses I don't have to figure out how to make them believe." I would reference this to Ephesians 2:1.

--

Ligon Duncan is probably the man I know the least about who will fall under the category of "Characters". The only way I know him is 1) through the ministry of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, and 2) through the ministry of the Together For the Gospel friendship (which runs the conference that had the panel discussion that I listed above). He's a paedobaptist, so I probably won't reference him too much. This is not to say that I think that misunderstandings of baptism are Gospel issues, but I do think that it makes evangelism more difficult, it makes the Roman Catholic Controversy more difficult to talk about than it needs to be, and it makes talking about ecclesiology, the study of all things related to the local church, more difficult. So, while I'm sure that I would respect him, as I do John Calvin or Tim Keller, I would simply prefer to refer you to a credobaptist than a paedobaptist.

I think that John MacArthur is the best contemporary Bible preacher - yes, better than Dever. He is so good at getting his congregation into the context that you feel confident that you know what the text means. Praise God that Mac (what I'll colloquially call Dr. MacArthur, typically) was blessed with such gifts of bringing clarity! Now, for full disclosure, MacArthur subscribes to, what I would call, some peculiar doctrines that I think are unnecessary and very weakly supported, and some that have larger significance, that he is very firm on, but that I still think that he's wrong on. I respect him, and thank God for him primarily for his ability to exposit the Scriptures.

Labels: Bible, Characters, Ministry, Resources

Labels: Characters, Ministry, Miscellaneous

I’m looking back on the four years that I’ve served at Carleton. I could have been bolder, taken more initiative, had more faith, read more books – and the list goes on. It was only just now that I realized that I could have prayed more.

This morning the Lord revealed that my ambitions are too small. I want to get married. I want to plant a church. I want to reach the lost with the Gospel. I want to see Africa healed of all of its aches. A common glance at those doesn’t immediately reveal a problem. However, there is a systematic problem. These are all finite goals. It’s not Jesus. Let me illustrate this by elaborating on the first ambition that I listed.

I’ve been listening lately to a Podcast from Focus on the Family called The Boundless Show, produced for Young Adults. It talks about money, culture and other issues surrounding Young Adulthood, but in each of the episodes that I’ve listened to, it talks about BGR (i.e., Boy Girl Relationships) to a certain extent. I’ve been getting pretty excited at the thought of being married someday. I started wondering whether it (alone) was spurring me on in my walk of sanctification (i.e., becoming more holy). I ask myself that a lot: Am I trying to lose weight to show the unbelieving world that I have self-control, or to attract a girl? Am I reading my Bible so that I can talk about it and have a leg up to catch a girl’s attention? This morning I was praying that God would lead me to my wife and I asked myself, no doubt, filled with the Spirit, What are you going to be praying for when it happens?

That hit me really hard. I prayed right away that God would give me a thirst for His glory. That I would desire to seek after Jesus more than anything else; more than marriage, more than Africa, more than perishing souls. I really don’t want to be an idolater. I want to find Jesus. (More on this later.)

And this brought me to prayer. I am convinced that there is so much that I can’t change: I can’t change the colour of the sky, I can’t make night day, I can’t force my father to see the evil of the world, confess his sins and receive Christ, I can’t raise up labourers for the harvest. The Sovereign Lord can!

The biggest thing that’s eating me right now is that I didn’t pray enough for where I was. This past year I’ve led the Young Adults group at my church, led the Engineering student MDA (i.e., a Movement Develop Area, or as Ottawa student, Mandy, rephrased it, an Area to Develop a Movement), led a DG (i.e., a Discipleship Group), which unfortunately was disjoint from leading the MDA, and coordinated Weekly Meeting. So many things to pray for, and yet so little prayer offered up. And when I did pray, it wasn’t specific, it was vague. I think that much of the time that I spent praying for Engineering students I was giving lip service, just wanting to get it over with.

So I think that I’ve learned a valuable lesson, that I really do have access to the supernatural resources of God through prayer. I need to pursue ways to make sure that I’m praying for those areas that I’m leading. If I’m not, then who is? I need to regularly cast the vision to myself of why I’m ministering where I’m ministering so that I care. I need to make sure that I’m not serving in so many areas that I get overwhelmed praying for all of them, all the time. I need to schedule prayer times and keep them. I need to gather people to pray with me. I need this to happen, for the sake of the salvation of my soul and the glory of God’s Name.

Labels: Abbreviations, Ministry, Miscellaneous, Prayer

Today I read Exodus 36 for my devotions. In it, Moses records that Bezalel is building and putting together the Tabernacle. Interestingly, all of the dimensions of the Tabernacle are recorded here as Bezalel builds and works, even though the exact same dimensions were recorded in chapter 26 where the Lord commands how His Tabernacle is to be made. So why did Moses record it again? You may say that Moses was emphasizing Bezalel and Israel’s obedience to God’s commands. They were zealous to “not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (Dt. 5:32). But this isn’t the only place where there is repetition in Moses’ writing.

In Genesis 24 Moses wrote the story of how Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, was found. In verses 12 to 27 Moses recorded how Abraham’s servant found Rebekah. Then, in verses 42 to 48 Abraham’s servant is telling Rebekah’s family how he found her, and Moses records this as well. Moses tells the same story twice within the span of forty verses. I don’t know why.

There is lots of repetition in Moses’ writing. (As another example, read Exodus and see how many times he repeats "blue and purple and scarlet yarns, and fine twined linen." If I was writing that, I may have said something like, "the fabrics for the Tabernacle" and defined them once.) I find it intimidating. Moses is clearly employing this literary device, and I strongly suspect that it is for a reason (2Ti. 3:16), but I don’t have a clue why. I’m not a student of language arts.
Aspiring to be a pastor someday I expect to be studying in depth the Lord’s Word on a near daily basis, and preaching it on a weekly basis. What will I do when I come to these difficult parts? Will I skip them and stick to what I find easier to understand? I don’t think that I will. I am eager to see how God will provide. I wonder whether commentaries will answer the linguistic questions that I am oblivious to. I’m sure that God will make provision for His servant.

Labels: Bible, Ministry, Miscellaneous