A Review of Richard Mouw’s Talking With Mormons

Richard Mouw, Talking With Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Eerdmans 2012).

This short book is difficult to review. In fewer than a 100 pages Mouw manages to say some incredibly helpful things, and, well, some other things too. In the former category, Mouw reminds evangelicals that loving our neighbor means we try to understand his beliefs and describe them accurately. His burden is “to invite us to nurture friendlier relations with the Mormon community” (43). To that end, he rightly notes that evangelicals have not always dealt patiently or charitably with Mormons. Throughout his ministry, Mouw has called evangelicals to greater civility and understanding with “outsiders.” Those who are eager to defend the faith and rebuke doctrinal error should not quickly dismiss Mouw’s concerns. He provides a needed warning for a certain type of evangelical.

On the other hand, Mouw’s approach to Mormonism is not without problems. For starters, his eagerness to build bridges leads him to attempt bridging the sometimes unbridgeable. Mouw does not personally reject any evangelical doctrines. In fact, he explicitly affirms them in numerous places. He understands where the differences between evangelicalism and Mormonism lie. But at every major difference he looks hard (and creatively) for a way to bring the two sides closer together. This basic impulse, while commendable to a degree, encourages methodological confusion. For example, Mouw routinely softens official Mormon teaching by quoting from progressive authors or citing new (potential) trends in Mormon theology (e.g., p. 59). I admit to being suspicious of these “trends,” just like an outside observer might be suspicious to think evangelicals were leaving their conservative politics behind just because of a few quotes from Brian MacLaren or N.T. Wright.

There are other problems with Mouw’s approach. Perhaps it’s the nature of the book, but I found he would only hint at some major differences with Mormonism, while proceeding for most of a chapter to find common ground. At other times, Mouw makes assumptions without any corroborating evidence, like they claim that in the future “Mormon leadership will add nothing new without being sure that what is accepted as new is continuous with the doctrine of faith, as set forth in Scripture” (71). No reasons were given for this optimism except Mouw’s sense that Mormonism seems to be changing.

At the most basic level, Mouw wants evangelicals to approach Mormons in a whole new way. While I think he rightly critiques one approach; his new approach is not the answer.

Mouw criticizes the sort of approach that starts with an assumption that Mormons are some combination of stupid, evil, imposters, and charlatans and then offers the usual anti-Mormon talking points (God doesn’t have a body, Jesus and Lucifer were not brothers, Joseph Smith was nuts, early Mormons were polygamists, etc.). He is right to call evangelicals to a better way.

But Mouw’s way is not it. He works from the experiential conclusion that Mormons have the presence of Jesus in their lives, even if they fall short of theological orthodoxy (99). From that starting point, Mouw tries to bridge the vast doctrinal divide by a combination of the following arguments: Mormonism is changing, Mormonism was trying to correct legitimate Christian abuses, we can find God-given truth in Mormonism, Mormons have been out of touch with the rest of Christianity so we should cut them some slack, Mormons have proved to be personally warm and trustworthy so we should not doubt their commitment to Jesus. The end result is that no doctrinal differences are actually resolved, but we’ve been encouraged to ask questions, look for shared “space,” and keep the conversation going.

If that were the only end result, Mouw’s project would be more benign. But I fear the other end result is that evangelicals will see orthodox theology as officially important but practically negligible. I know Mouw doesn’t think that, but that is the taste left in my mouth after finishing the book. On issue after issue, my take away was: no matter how serious the theological error, there will always be a way to make heterodoxy more sanguine. It’s hard to see a connection between right belief and regeneration in Mouw’s “invitation.” He certainly believes in the importance of truth, but it is largely something we work on to make our relationship with Jesus stronger, not something indispensable for the relationship in the first place. Mouw describes his faith as the experience of Jesus “as a loving Savior who offers me his warm embrace.” With that definition it’s easy to see how one can assume that Mormons are already in the fold, but it’s a far cry from the Heidelberg Catechism’s understanding of faith (Q/A 21-23).

I haven’t met Rich Mouw before, but he strikes me as an eminently likeable guy whose impulse is to find common ground. There are worse things that can be said about a person. Many Christians would do well to have more of that impulse. But the impulse to clarify and correct significant–sometimes eternally significant–disagreements is also admirable. Mouw does correction well when it comes to evangelicals, but seems less probing when it comes of Mormons. This book would be more helpful if the careful rebuke of our mistakes were matched by an equally trenchant correction of their views. I’d like to see a straight forward, deeply evangelical follow-up book entitled, “Talking to Mormons: An Invitation to Historic Christianity.”

View the original article here

Book Briefs

Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan (IVP 2011). Under the editorial hand of D.A. Carson, this series continues to produce informative monographs on important topics of biblical theology. This new work on Acts is no exception. The strengths of Thompson’s work are many: he takes Acts on its own terms, his theological themes are well articulated, and he effectively shows the connections between Luke and Acts. I made a point to read this book before venturing on a long sermon series on Acts this fall. I’m sure I’ll refer to it often in the months ahead.

Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business (Random House 2011). Want advice on how to change apart from the gospel or belief in God? Then this is the book for you. Duhigg, a reporter for the New York Times, is a good writer with a knack for telling a story. Each chapter is a creative look at forming habits through the lens of advertising, scientific research, social movements, or the business world. Most Christians will enjoy reading this intriguing, entertaining tome, and many will find a few nuggets of good advice. But considering Duhigg goes out of his way to minimize the role of God in changing habits, evangelicals won’t find a lot of help here. Even when Duhigg can’t deny the power of religious belief in changing people, he concludes that the important piece is just believing in something, especially in ourselves. You’ll find the chapters on Pepsodent, Starbucks, and Target fascinating, but the power to transform your life lies elsewhere.

Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, The President’s Club: Inside the World’s Most Exclusive Fraternity (Simon and Schuster 2012). Having read their book on Billy Graham and the presidents, I was eager to read another Gibbs/Duffy book on the highest office in the land. They avoid covering the same ground as many other presidential books by looking at the post-WWII presidents as they have related to each other. This unique angle makes for unique history. You’ll find out who was better than you thought (Hoover), which president went rogue (Carter), and which two are surprisingly good friends (Bush 41 and Clinton). This is popular history at its best—accessible, interesting, and with a knack for the untold story.

View the original article here

Monday Morning Humor

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Ten Things About Church You Should Know (But No One Had the Guts to Tell You)

There is no sin in making little mistakes of spelling or grammar. We all make them. But in case you wanted to know (you probably don’t), or in case you wanted to mention it gently to someone else (more likely), here are ten tiny things to keep in mind as you lead in worship, prepare the bulletin, or just converse about the church service.

1. There are 150 psalms in the Bible. This collection is called the Psalter or simply The Psalms. Each chapter in the book is an individual psalm. So even though we call the book “The Psalms” you’ll want to say “Psalm 23? instead of “Psalms 23.” As much as we love that chapter, it still only counts for one psalm.

2. Speaking of extra S’s, the last book of the Bible is “Revelation”-in the singular. It may produce many revelations in us, but apparently it was all of a piece for John (Rev. 1:1).

3. A word to the selfless souls who input song lyrics for Sunday morning: “Oh” is not the same as “O.” The former is an exclamation, an emotional cry of anger, excitement, despair, or surprise. The latter is a vocative form of address usually followed by a name or title. If you lose your wallet and say “O God” you are probably praying to find it. If you say “Oh God” you are doing something else.

4. When the worship leader and the congregation go back and forth with a passage of Scripture or a prayer, that’s reading responsively. You may also call the congregation to read responsibly, but they’ll likely try to do that anyway.

5. Martin Luther made his famous stand at the Diet of Worms, with the i pronounced like ee and the w like a v. Or at least that will get you pretty close, and no one will snicker.

6. The shiny book with all the church pictures is a pictorial directory, but the man listed toward the front of the book does not engage in pastorial ministry. There’s no “I” in pastoral work.

7. While the i’s have our attentions, please note the difference between Arminians and Armenians. John Wesley was an Arminian. Alice Panikian, a former Miss Universe from Canada, is Armenian. Don’t confuse the ethnicity with the theology. I can’t comment on Panikian’s views on the doctrines of grace, but I’m fairly certain I can guess Wesley’s opinion of the Miss Universe pageant.

8. Keeping with the Wesleys, you remember that Hark! The Herald Angels Sing is one of Charles Wesley’s most famous hymns. The punctuation is critical. The herald angels sang “Hark!”–as in “behold” or “listen up”–when they approached the shepherds keeping watch o’er their flocks by night. They were not singing, “Hark the Herald!” The Christmas story would be less glorious with the angels singing about themselves.

9. And later in that song, when you get to “Hail the Sun of Righteousness,” that’s not a typo. Don’t change it to “Son.” Malachi would be disappointed (Mal. 4:2).

10. And finally, one more warning about our egregious little consonant friend. Stuart Townsend has starred in uplifting films like Queen of the Damned and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. He’s also done voice-over work for the animated television show Robot Chicken. The guy who works with the Gettys and writes all those sweet modern hymns-that’s Stuart Townend. Don’t be so quick to say yes to the S.

View the original article here

Monday Morning Humor

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Five Features of Preaching in the Book of Acts

In his book on Acts, Alan Thompson notes five characteristics of apostolic evangelistic preaching (90-99). These five features serve as good models for all types of preaching, both then and now.

1. God-centered. The sermons in Acts begin with God. They announce the good news of what God has promised, what God has done, and what God will do. The preaching is not centered around the felt-needs of the audience, but around the mighty acts of God in history. The emphasis is on God’s initiative and how we are accountable to him.

2. Audience-conscious. While the preaching begins with God, it is not ignorant of those to whom the sermon is delivered. We see throughout Acts evidence of audience adaptation and sensitivity to what the audience already knows or doesn’t know. The sermons do not unfold as canned messages with a series of doctrinal propositions. The preaching is deeply theological, but not at the expense of be careful to communicate that theology in a way that is understandable. The core content stays the same, but the starting point and type of final appeal may change.

3. Christ-focused. Though God is often portrayed at the main actor in history, the preaching in Acts is relentlessly focused on Christ. The sermons highlight the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. They also explain the theological significance of these events. Christ is proclaimed as the climax of redemptive history and the good news for today’s sinners.

4. Response-oriented. The preaching in Acts is not response-driven. That is, we never see messages crafted or delivered in such a way as to manipulate a desired response. But the preaching always called for a response. This is often the difference between faithful teaching and anointed preaching. The apostles not only taught about God and Christ, they peppered their preaching with promises and warnings. Specifically, they called people to faith in Christ and repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

5. Boldness. The noun form of “boldness” is used five times in Acts and the verb form is used seven times (out of a total of nine in the NT). If there was one distinctive homiletical trademark of apostolic preaching it was boldness. In the context of much hostility, the apostles were often granted a unique freedom to preach Christ with exceptional clarity. In an age like ours with increasing opposition to Christianity and Christian claims, it is imperative that preachers reclaim this mantle of boldness. Preachers should not be obnoxious or obtuse, but we must question our approach to preaching if we are not willing “to be clear in the face of fear” (97).

View the original article here

A Paedobaptist Reasons from Paul

Romans 4:11 – “He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.”

If circumcision was for Abraham a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith, then we cannot say the cutting away of the flesh was simply an ethnic identity marker or a sign of mere physical import. Circumcision was a seal of the deepest spiritual realities, a visible sign of the forgiveness of sins and justification by faith. Just like baptism would be centuries later.

And if this spiritual sign—a seal of the righteousness that comes by faith—was administered to Abraham and his infant sons, then we cannot say that the thing signified must always be present before the sign is administered. Isaac was circumcised, and so was Ishmael—both being given the seal of justification by faith before the exercise of faith. Just like infant baptism.

So whether infant baptism makes sense to you or not—and I deeply respect my non-paedo friends in my church and in the broader church—shouldn’t we at least agree that the basic spiritual import of circumcision and baptism is the same and that there is biblical precedence for administering a spiritual sign without the immediate presence of the thing signified?

Makes sense to me.

View the original article here

Casual Worship

Guest Blogger: Jason Helopoulos

There are words that just don’t go together. We would never think of describing sandpaper by the adjective “smooth”–it doesn’t work. You will never hear someone call a surgical operation “fun”–it doesn’t exist. No one has ever slept on a “hard” pillow, maybe “firm” (which is the one my wife seems to give me every night), but never “hard.” There are adjectives that should never be used as descriptors for certain nouns.

Maybe I am an old fuddy duddy, but it seems to me that we should never use the word “casual” as an adjective for worship. I know what is meant by it, or at least I think I do. It seems that churches put this descriptor on their lighted marquee sign to announce to the world, “how you are dressed doesn’t matter here.” Or they are trying to convey to a culture that is obsessed with the comfortable that their service isn’t traditional or firm or stiff or joyless. If this is the case, then I say, “Let the sign say that.” I would have no problem with a church announcing on its sign, “Our 10:30 service at Crossroads Presbyterian is a “non-stiff” service.”  Just don’t call it casual.

Why? Because worship may be a lot of things, but it is never casual. Worship is an encounter with the living, true, holy, sovereign God of the universe.  And just think about encounters with God in Scripture that elicit worship: Moses takes off his shoes (Exodus 3), Israel is fearful (Exodus 20), Isaiah quakes (Isaiah 6), Job silences his lips (Job 40), John falls down as though dead (Revelation 1). Even the elders and angels, who are worshipping day in and day out before the throne, aren’t casual in their worship (Isaiah 6; Revelation 4). Casual worship of the living, true, holy, sovereign God of the universe just doesn’t exist!

You may think, “Jason, you’re nitpicking. It is just a descriptive word. It is what we do and the motive of our heart that matters.” But I want to cry from the rooftops, “Words have meaning.” We of all people must continually emphasize this reality. We are a people of the Word. Words matter. And so calling something casual that should never be considered such has no place in our world and surely not on our marquee signs.

And it is not only what it means, but the influence it has. Eugene Peterson has written multiple times about “subversive spirituality.” There are things we do or say that seem minor and yet have a gradual penetrating affect upon the ministry around us. Peterson uses the example of calling the Pastor’s room in the church a “study” instead of an “office.” It is subtle, but each word conveys something. And that something ingrains itself in the minds of the people and even the pastor himself. If you think or even want your pastor’s primary duties to be prayer and study of the Scriptures, then you call his room a study. If you envision him answering emails, putting together budgets, and organizing agendas with most of his time then you call it an office.

Words matter. They have an altering affect over time. McDonalds understands this–that’s why it is called an Extra Value Meal and not the “Extra 1000 Calorie Option.” Retailers understand this–that’s why it is “refurbished” instead of “previously broken and now we want to sell it to you.” Homosexual activists understand this–that is why they are laboring so hard to do away with the language of “domestic union” in favor of “marriage.”  Words matter and have a gradual influencing affect upon those that use them.

Because of that, let’s abandon the word “casual” as a descriptor of our worship services. Church dinners can be casual. Sunday School classes are casual. Let’s even call the church dress code casual (As many point out to me, I am a work of progress in this regard!). But let’s never call worship casual. Because worshipping God is anything but casual!

View the original article here

A Review of Richard Mouw’s Talking With Mormons

Richard Mouw, Talking With Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals (Eerdmans 2012).

This short book is difficult to review. In fewer than a 100 pages Mouw manages to say some incredibly helpful things, and, well, some other things too. In the former category, Mouw reminds evangelicals that loving our neighbor means we try to understand his beliefs and describe them accurately. His burden is “to invite us to nurture friendlier relations with the Mormon community” (43). To that end, he rightly notes that evangelicals have not always dealt patiently or charitably with Mormons. Throughout his ministry, Mouw has called evangelicals to greater civility and understanding with “outsiders.” Those who are eager to defend the faith and rebuke doctrinal error should not quickly dismiss Mouw’s concerns. He provides a needed warning for a certain type of evangelical.

On the other hand, Mouw’s approach to Mormonism is not without problems. For starters, his eagerness to build bridges leads him to attempt bridging the sometimes unbridgeable. Mouw does not personally reject any evangelical doctrines. In fact, he explicitly affirms them in numerous places. He understands where the differences between evangelicalism and Mormonism lie. But at every major difference he looks hard (and creatively) for a way to bring the two sides closer together. This basic impulse, while commendable to a degree, encourages methodological confusion. For example, Mouw routinely softens official Mormon teaching by quoting from progressive authors or citing new (potential) trends in Mormon theology (e.g., p. 59). I admit to being suspicious of these “trends,” just like an outside observer might be suspicious to think evangelicals were leaving their conservative politics behind just because of a few quotes from Brian MacLaren or N.T. Wright.

There are other problems with Mouw’s approach. Perhaps it’s the nature of the book, but I found he would only hint at some major differences with Mormonism, while proceeding for most of a chapter to find common ground. At other times, Mouw makes assumptions without any corroborating evidence, like they claim that in the future “Mormon leadership will add nothing new without being sure that what is accepted as new is continuous with the doctrine of faith, as set forth in Scripture” (71). No reasons were given for this optimism except Mouw’s sense that Mormonism seems to be changing.

At the most basic level, Mouw wants evangelicals to approach Mormons in a whole new way. While I think he rightly critiques one approach; his new approach is not the answer.

Mouw criticizes the sort of approach that starts with an assumption that Mormons are some combination of stupid, evil, imposters, and charlatans and then offers the usual anti-Mormon talking points (God doesn’t have a body, Jesus and Lucifer were not brothers, Joseph Smith was nuts, early Mormons were polygamists, etc.). He is right to call evangelicals to a better way.

But Mouw’s way is not it. He works from the experiential conclusion that Mormons have the presence of Jesus in their lives, even if they fall short of theological orthodoxy (99). From that starting point, Mouw tries to bridge the vast doctrinal divide by a combination of the following arguments: Mormonism is changing, Mormonism was trying to correct legitimate Christian abuses, we can find God-given truth in Mormonism, Mormons have been out of touch with the rest of Christianity so we should cut them some slack, Mormons have proved to be personally warm and trustworthy so we should not doubt their commitment to Jesus. The end result is that no doctrinal differences are actually resolved, but we’ve been encouraged to ask questions, look for shared “space,” and keep the conversation going.

If that were the only end result, Mouw’s project would be more benign. But I fear the other end result is that evangelicals will see orthodox theology as officially important but practically negligible. I know Mouw doesn’t think that, but that is the taste left in my mouth after finishing the book. On issue after issue, my take away was: no matter how serious the theological error, there will always be a way to make heterodoxy more sanguine. It’s hard to see a connection between right belief and regeneration in Mouw’s “invitation.” He certainly believes in the importance of truth, but it is largely something we work on to make our relationship with Jesus stronger, not something indispensable for the relationship in the first place. Mouw describes his faith as the experience of Jesus “as a loving Savior who offers me his warm embrace.” With that definition it’s easy to see how one can assume that Mormons are already in the fold, but it’s a far cry from the Heidelberg Catechism’s understanding of faith (Q/A 21-23).

I haven’t met Rich Mouw before, but he strikes me as an eminently likeable guy whose impulse is to find common ground. There are worse things that can be said about a person. Many Christians would do well to have more of that impulse. But the impulse to clarify and correct significant–sometimes eternally significant–disagreements is also admirable. Mouw does correction well when it comes to evangelicals, but seems less probing when it comes of Mormons. This book would be more helpful if the careful rebuke of our mistakes were matched by an equally trenchant correction of their views. I’d like to see a straight forward, deeply evangelical follow-up book entitled, “Talking to Mormons: An Invitation to Historic Christianity.”

View the original article here

An Ear for the Classics

Guest Blogger: Ben Falconer (Associate Pastor, URC)

As a worship leader at University Reformed Church and a vocal performance and opera major in college, one of my loves in life is music. I enjoy many different styles of music, but my taste for the classics developed through years of choral singing and was honed in college while studying music history, theory, and performance. There is a reason the classics have lasted, and I am blessed to take the time to listen to and learn from some of the great composers throughout the past four centuries. It is no wonder why Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart are still household names today.

Being a singer, I have a particular interest in vocal music, in part because of my training, but also because words convey concrete meaning. And there is much in the classical repertoire that brings great honor to the Lord through the Biblical and Christ-centered lyrics that are set to soaring melodies.

The amount of classical music now available to us is wonderfully staggering. So where would I encourage a believer to begin listening? I would start with a genre called oratorio. Oratorio is like an opera without costumes or staging. The music and words contain characters and drama, but the entire piece is delivered like a concert, with the soloists and choir in formal attire, standing in place on the stage as they sing their parts. The reason I am drawn to oratorio is that we have so many to choose from that are explicitly Christian in their lyrics. As I review some of my favorite music, I am again amazed how composers took straight Bible passages and set them to incredible music. Composers like Bach, who made his living as a young man employed by various churches, truly were the worship leaders of their day.

My top 5 favorite oratorios

5.  Joseph Haydn’s The Creation – Of the top 5, this is the only one that is not primarily a biblical text set to music. Instead, Haydn’s libretto is almost entirely an interpretive extrapolation of the brief Scriptural account in Genesis 1. This work can be fun and lighthearted as God calls into existence all of his wondrous creation.

4.  Johannes Brahm’s German Requiem – Brahms departed from the typical Latin requiem text and chose instead passages from Luther’s German Bible as the basis for his glorious funeral work. Brahms is at the top of my list of romantic composers and I love listening to any of his music (my favorite piano piece is his Intermezzo in A Major). His lush harmonies and hauntingly beautiful melodies will stir your soul, especially “Denn alles Fleisch” (“For all flesh”).

3.  Felix Mendelssohn’s Elijah – After preaching through the life of Elijah last summer, I came to love Mendelssohn’s oratorio on the great prophet. The music is not as intricate or interesting as either earlier baroque or later romantic works, but what Elijah lacks in musical depth, it more than makes up for it in terms of conveying the drama of the events in Elijah’s life. The show down between Elijah and the prophets of Baal is worth listening to over and over. It helps that this work is in English, so it is easy to follow.

2.  George Frideric Handel’s Messiah – This is my favorite Christmas album and it becomes sweeter every time I listen to it. The arias are becoming as familiar to me as “Jingle Bells” and “Deck the Halls”, and yet they are infinitely richer and more profound. From the opening tenor recitative “Comfort ye my people” all the way through to the closing chorus “Worthy is the Lamb”, I am taken up in the prophecy, life, death, and resurrection of my Lord. Messiah includes such memorable songs as “And the glory of the Lord”, “For unto us a child is born”, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion”, “The trumpet shall sound”, and of course “The Halleluiah chorus”.

1.  Johann Sebastian Bach’s St. Matthew Passion – Bach is a musical genius, my favorite composer, and wrote his music for the glory of the Lord. His musical setting of Matthew’s passion account is his masterwork. The recitative text comes straight from the Gospel account and involves mainly the evangelist (narrator) and Jesus. This music is accompanied with minimum instrumentation and moves the drama of Jesus’ last hours along. Bach then inserts solo arias and chorus numbers to comment on the unfolding drama (you will recognize “O sacred head now wounded”). Bach’s music may take a little bit of time to get used to, but the focus on the passion narrative, the weeping arias, and ever-inventive musical lines make this my favorite.

Instilling a love of music for our kids

As a parent of 5 young children, I’ve tried to begin early to instill a love for classical music in our kids. One of our practices we began a number of years ago is to give each child a different classical music CD for Christmas. Our aim is twofold: 1) to expose them to and encourage a love for a variety of different music from a young age, and 2) to give them an assortment of some of the great works of musical art so that by the time they leave our home, their musical collection is stocked with the classics. Thus far, our kids’ favorites have been:

Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf, a playful introduction to a number of key instruments in the orchestra with memorable melodies and a plot the kids all love.Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons, the popular baroque violin concertos are thoroughly entertaining for children and adults alike. It’s no surprise this is a classic!The Classical Child at the Opera, which has selections from Mozart’s The Magic Flute, Rossini’s The Barber of Seville, Gilbert and Sullivan’s The Mikado, and one of my all-time favorite songs (of any genre): Lakme’s “Flower Duet”. This is a staple in our car for any length of trip.

View the original article here

Jesus will post here SOON!