Godly Grief Produces True Repentance

Kevin DeYoung has some good thoughts on godly grief over sin from 2 Corinthains 7:

Godly grief sees the vertical dimension of our sin. I have a growing concern that some Christians are describing sin in categories that mask its true nature. Sin is not simply a sad thing because it can wreck our lives. It is not just the ruining of shalom. Sin does more than make God sad that his world is not the way it’s supposed to be. Sin makes God angry. It is offensive to God. His wrath is aroused not simply because we’re missing out on his best, but because we have violated his law, rejected his Lordship, and made ourselves gods in his place.

(...)

There is an eternal difference between regret and repentance. Regret feels bad about past sins. Repentance turns away from past sins. Most of us are content with regret. We just want to feel bad for awhile, have a good cry, enjoy the cathartic experience, bewail our sin and how selfish/stupid/sorry we are. But we don’t really want to change. We don’t really want to live different than we have been.

Godly grief produces true repentance, which leads to salvation (v. 10). Instead of obsessing over regrets and feeling bad due to the opinions of others, godly grief mourns for sin, turns from sin, and finds forgiveness for sin in Christ.

Read the whole thing

Science Cannot Account For Everything

William Lane Craig explains how science cannot account for everything:

1. Logic and Mathematical Truths (Science presupposes logic and math)
2. Metaphysical truths
3. Ethical beliefs about statement of value
4. Aesthetic judgments
5. Science itself

(HT:JT)

Being Truly Reformed

Ray Ortlund has a great post about what it means to be Reformed. He does this by comparing much of what (wrongly) goes on in the Reformed church today to the error held by the many in the Galatian church. Like circumcision back then, Reformed theology today can become for many a form of divisiveness in the church, functioning as an addition to Jesus.

I am a proponent of Reformed theology because I believe this is what the Bible teaches. As I've come to understand Reformed theology I have been less than gracious with others who hold other views. However, I have been challenged the last couple of years (mainly through my Ecclesiology and the Sacraments course at RTS this past spring) to be more ecumenical. And this article by Ortlund is another encouragement towards this kind of unity.

Here is his conclusion:

...Let Jesus alone stand forth in my theology, in my emotional well-being and in my relationships with other Christians!” This settledness in Paul’s heart made him a life-giving man for other people. He was a free man, setting others free (Galatians 5:1). This is the acid test of a truly Reformed ministry – that other believers need not be Reformed in order to be respected and included in our hearts.

Whatever divides us emotionally from other Bible-believing, Christ-honoring Christians is a “plus” we’re adding to the gospel. It is the Galatian impulse of self-exaltation. It can even become a club with which we bash other Christians, at least in our thoughts, to punish, to exclude and to force into line with us.

What unifies the church is the gospel. What defines the gospel is the Bible. What interprets the Bible correctly is a hermeneutic centered on Jesus Christ crucified, the all-sufficient Savior of sinners, who gives himself away on terms of radical grace to all alike. What proves that that gospel hermeneutic has captured our hearts is that we are not looking down on other believers but lifting them up, not seeing ourselves as better but grateful for their contribution to the cause, not standing aloof but embracing them freely, not wishing they would become like us but serving them in love (Galatians 5:13).

My Reformed friend, can you move among other Christian groups and really enjoy them? Do you admire them? Even if you disagree with them in some ways, do you learn from them? What is the emotional tilt of your heart – toward them or away from them? If your Reformed theology has morphed functionally into Galatian sociology, the remedy is not to abandon your Reformed theology. The remedy is to take your Reformed theology to a deeper level. Let it reduce you to Jesus only. Let it humble you. Let this gracious doctrine make you a fun person to be around. The proof that we are Reformed will be all the wonderful Christians we discover around us who are not Reformed. Amazing people. Heroic people. Blood-bought people. People with whom we are eternally one – in Christ alone.

Read the whole thing

Guinness Is Good For You

I recently read the book The Search for God and Guinness by Stephen Mansfield. My roommate Roy read it several months ago and I was intrigued by the things he learned from the book. It's the story of how the Guinness beer company was founded and what set the Guinness family and company apart.

Mansfield begins by explaining a little bit about the history of beer. One of the things that I found most interesting about this chapter is that one of the first things built when the Pilgrims landed in America was a brewery, mainly because beer was much safer than water to drink at the time. Mansfield goes on to show how integrated beer was with the church. It was seen as a gift from God and many drank it as a way to honor Him.

The rest of the book tells the story of how Arthur Guinness founded the company in 1759 and how this company impacted the world. The culture created at Guinness was unlike any other. Workers received far better pay than other companies and received benefits that were unheard of. One of the maxims around the company at one point was "You cannot make money from people unless you are willing for people to make money from you."

The other thing that made Guinness stand out from other companies was its investment into the community. It was a large help in turning the city of Dublin around during many years of poverty, famine, and sickness. The faith of many in the Guinness family caused them to put millions of dollars back into the community in the form of education, housing, and medical help.

Company leaders have also had a very large impact in the missionary movement. Hudson Taylor, founder of the China Inland Mission, was good friends with the Guinness family and his ministry was helped by missionary training facilities funded by the company.

I love this book because it looks at a extraordinary company behind an excellent beer and shows the impact that Guinness has had around the world. I also love the way it points us to appreciate beer instead of getting drunk off of it or putting pressure on others to abstain from it completely. Somehow, the latter of these two extremes has been embraced by many churches (in error), causing a very unhealthy view of what alcohol is.

In the 19th century, liquor was often associated with drunkenness and the dilapidation of society while beer on the other hand was associated with a flourishing community. Partly due to this observation, the slogan "Guinness is good for you" was created. I would have to agree...mainly because it is delicious! If you drink (and you're over 21), I'd encourage you to go enjoy one with a friend and appreciate its history.

You can also click here for a video introduction of the book from the author.

Lost Summary

This will probably be my last Lost post. I've been back and forth on what I thought of the series finale. I read something yesterday that really helped summarize and make sense of a lot of things. If you're on Twitter, Facebook, or on the internet in general much, you've probably seen it. But just in case, here's the post that was helpful.

What Kind of Brain is the Web Giving Us?

A recent Wired Magazine article, written by Nicholas Carr, looks at the effect of the internet on the human mind. In it he asks an interesting question:

"What kind of brain is the web giving us? That question will no doubt be the subject of a great deal of research in the years ahead. Already, though, there is much we know or can surmise—and the news is quite disturbing. Dozens of studies by psychologists, neurobiologists, and educators point to the same conclusion: When we go online, we enter an environment that promotes cursory reading, hurried and distracted thinking, and superficial learning. Even as the Internet grants us easy access to vast amounts of information, it is turning us into shallower thinkers, literally changing the structure of our brain."

He goes on to note a few studies done and statistics measured over the last 30 years. The research shows that are brains are actually changing. Here's his conclusion:

There’s nothing wrong with absorbing information quickly and in bits and pieces. We’ve always skimmed newspapers more than we’ve read them, and we routinely run our eyes over books and magazines to get the gist of a piece of writing and decide whether it warrants more thorough reading. The ability to scan and browse is as important as the ability to read deeply and think attentively. The problem is that skimming is becoming our dominant mode of thought. Once a means to an end, a way to identify information for further study, it’s becoming an end in itself—our preferred method of both learning and analysis. Dazzled by the Net’s treasures, we are blind to the damage we may be doing to our intellectual lives and even our culture.

What we’re experiencing is, in a metaphorical sense, a reversal of the early trajectory of civilization: We are evolving from cultivators of personal knowledge into hunters and gatherers in the electronic data forest. In the process, we seem fated to sacrifice much of what makes our minds so interesting.

I post this because I already can see how my reading comprehension and ability to focus over has drastically waned over the last 10 years. It even took me several tries to finish the article because of my mind kept wandering elsewhere. I don't know if this is just inevitable and we'll adapt accordingly, or if this is something we can control. In any case, it's worth thinking about.

(HT:Challies)

The gospel produces sustained obedience

Tullian Tchividjian:

When John (or Jesus) talks about keeping God’s commands as a way to know whether you love Jesus or not, he’s not using the law as a way to motivate. He’s simply stating a fact. Those who love God will keep on keeping his commands. The question is how do we keep God’s commands? What sustains a long obedience in the same direction? Where does the power come from to do what God commands? As every parent and teacher knows, behavioral compliance to rules without heart change will be shallow and short-lived. But shallow and short-lived is not what God wants (that’s not what it means to “keep God’s commands.”). God wants a sustained obedience from the heart. How is that possible? Long-term, sustained, gospel-motivated obedience can only come from faith in what Jesus has already done, not fear of what we must do. To paraphrase Ray Ortlund, any obedience not grounded in or motivated by the gospel is unsustainable.

(from an interview with JT)

The Ballard's are moving to Nashville

A good friend of mine, Matt Ballard, is leaving with his family in a couple of months to be the pastor of a church plant in an area just south of Nashville, Tennessee. The church is affiliated with the PCA and is called Southpointe Community Church. Matt is going to be leaving Perimeter Church in Duluth, GA where he has served for the last 5 years as the Pastor to Young Adults as well as being on the teaching team.

I've known Matt a little over four years now and he has made a profound impact on my life. Always willing and able to speak truth to those around him, he is one of the most gifted communicators that I know. He has helped me see the beauty of Christ and the love of God for me in a way that is unrivaled. He will be greatly missed, but I'm excited because I know his heart is big for what God might do through him in this next venture.

If you're in the Nashville area, be sure to stop by. If not, consider praying for him and giving to him financially. He needs to raise a good bit of money over the next few months. Why not be a part of how God provides for him?

You can make a one-time donation to the Ballard's account at Mission to North America here. Or you can set up recurring donations by contacting Annette Keller (with MNA) at 678-825-1200.

Lost - Answers?

In line with my post yesterday, this is a pretty good video expressing the need for answers in Lost:

The End of Lost

Well, it's finally coming to an end. This Sunday, from 9pm to 11:30pm, will be the last episode in this very intriguing series. I didn't watch Lost for the first three seasons. My rationale was that I didn't need another TV show to get hooked on. I already had 24 and the Office. That was enough for me.

Well, all that changed when I decided to watch the season finale to season 3 (spoiler alert), the one where Charlie dies, back in 2007. I instantly became hooked. It took me about 3 weeks to watch seasons 1 & 2 (this long because I had a job and had to sleep some too). Then I waited very impatiently for Season 4 to start 8 months later.

I've loved the show for a lot of reasons. I've loved the character development. I've loved the way philosophy is weaved into various elements of the show. I've loved the intrigue of always being surprised about what's going to happen next. And it's just fun. Who hasn't thought about what it would be like to survive on an island?

Well, the last season or two, my excitement has waned a bit. I no longer care when the music gets all dramatic and some big mystery is revealed. I think my capacity was reached for how many confusing and mysterious things could take place, and I'm just ready for everything to start getting tied up.

Paste Magazine reviews the show each week and I thought the conclusion to the latest episode review was humorous. It sums up both my doubt and hope that I've been feeling for quite a while that the show will have a satisifying conclusion:

"What seems most important now is that Smoky must die. Before everyone else does—which may very well happen if the current death rate on the island continues. Let’s hope somebody survives the upcoming two-and-a-half-hour finale, because if the past six years of Lost have all been about protecting a mysterious light, then somebody better protect the damned light."

A Spirit of Wonder

From Tim Keller's sermon, Beholding the Love of God (4-2-95):

A real Christian is the person who says, "It is an absolute miracle that God loves me. It's just a miracle that I'm a Christian." This is actually an acid test...

There's two kinds of people that go to church. There's religious people, then there are real Christians...A real Christian is somebody who sees everything that comes as a gift. In other words, a real Christian sees that you're totally in debt to God. But a religious person is someone who is working hard, making an effort, trying to be good, going to Bible studies, just saying "No" everywhere, denying themselves a lot of pleasures, and so forth. A religious person is someone who is trying to put God in their debt. That's the difference...And a Christian is somebody who sees themselves in God's debt.

Here's the acid test. If you're a real Christian there is a spirit of wonder that permeates your life. You're always saying, "How miraculous. How inter-planetary. How unreal." You're always looking at yourself saying, "Me, a Christian? Incredible! Miraculous! Unbelievable! A joke!" But a person who's trying to put God in their debt, there isn't any spirit of wonder at all...

If you ask a religious person, a person who doesn't understand the grace of God. You say, "Are you a Christian?" They say, "Of course I am. I've always been a Christian. Sure I'm a Christian." My friends, if you are a Christian there's no "sure" about it, and there's no "of course" about it. Not a bit.

The acid test is your spirit of wonder stays there even when things go bad. You see when things go bad, when problems happen, here you can tell the difference between a moralist and a Christian. A moralist says "What good is all my religion? What good is going to God? I tried hard to be a Christian. I'm trying hard to be obedient to God. What good is it? God owes me." You get mad....

Christians, to the degree you behold the grace of God. To the degree you meditate on it and let it become a holy fire in your heart. To the degree you experience in a sense and behold the love of God. To that degree you're going to find that in difficulties, you'll be able to say "My Father must have a purpose for me, because He loves me. Besides that, He doesn't owe me a good life. He owes me a far worse life than I've got." You can handle anything. And when good things come you say, "Behold, what a miracle!"

Because I am Afraid

Over this last week, I've been reading Chesterton's book The Man Who Was Thursday. It was recommended to me by Michael and so far I'm enjoying the story.

A conversation took place in the book that grabbed my attention. I can't stop thinking about it. It takes place between two men, the Professor and Syme. These men are both detectives who are spies in a small group of anarchists. They are somewhat relieved because they just found out that the other is a detective as well. They begin to talk about the leader of the anarchist group and the following conversation occurs:

"Yes," he said in a voice indescribably, "you are right. I am afraid of him. Therefore I swear by God that I will seek out this man who I fear until I find him, and strike him on the mouth. If heaven were his throne and the earth his footstool, I swear that I would pull him down."

"How?" asked the Professor. "Why?"

"Because I am afraid of him," said Syme; "and no man should leave in the universe anything of which he is afraid."

De Worms blinked at him with a sort of blind wonder. He made an effort to speak, but Syme went on in a low voice, but with an undercurrent of inhuman exaltation--

"Who would condescend to strike down the mere things that he does not fear? Who would debase himself to be merely brave, like any common prizefighter? Who would stoop to be fearless--like a tree? Fight the thing that you fear. You remember the old tale of the English clergy man who gave the last rites to the brigand of Sicily, and how on his death-bed the great robber said, 'I can give you no money, but I can give you advice for a lifetime: your thumb on the blade, and strike upwards.' So I say to you, strike upwards, if you strike at the stars." (p.49)

That is remarkable logic to be able to say that because I am afraid of him I will seek him out. I am afraid of many things. I probably fear rejection most of all, so I avoid conflict and orient my life in order to have everyone like me. My fear often leads me to avoid a situation or avoid confronting someone when engaging would be the most loving thing to do. I'm also afraid of speaking in front of other people, fearing that I wouldn't be able to live up to what I perceive their expectations are of me.

There is a deep desire in me to leave this world without something of which I am afraid. Or rather, I long to get done with my life knowing that I at least exhibited courage in the face of my fears instead of letting them control and crush me. I know this can only happen as I understand the degree to which I am loved by God in Christ. As I rest in his pronouncement of "Well done" over my life I can have fear removed and be able to say with another David:

When I afraid, I put my trust in You. In God, whose word I praise, in God I trust; I will not be afraid. What can flesh do to me? - Psalm 56:3-4

The Swagger Wagon

If I had kids, I think this would be the minivan for me:(HT:22 Words)

Moving Toward People

From the latest CCEF article by Ed Welch:

God moves toward us. By the time we get to the New Testament, we are no longer guided by the sometime inscrutable laws of the Old Testament. Human life changes after Jesus died for sins, rose from the dead and sent the Spirit. Now, the law of love simplifies and captures the intention of the Torah. And when we want to understand what love looks like, we look to the character of God in Jesus.

For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. (Ezekiel 34:11)

For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. (Luke 19:10)

The triune God pursued people when they were suffering in bondage in Egypt. He pursued people when they were hardened in their own sin. God’s people reject him and hold him in contempt, he responds by moving toward them and guiding them through the wilderness...

God always moves toward us.

And as his servants, we do the same. We move toward others too. Because we are relentlessly pursued, especially when we not are worthy of such pursuit, we also become pursuers. We turn toward others and move in their direction. That is how the kingdom of heaven works. Sin scatters people, grace draws us toward each other. The possibilities in that grace are endless.

Read the whole thing

What Facebook is For

A video commentary on Facebook:(HT:Roy Keely)

How to Cultivate Delight in God

Speaking to those of us who sometimes feel discouraged in our devotional times, Jon Bloom at Desiring God provides five purposes for having a devotion:

1. Soul Exercise
2. Soul Shaping
3. Bible Copiousness
4. Fight Training
5. Delight Cultivation
   

I thought the fifth one was particularly helpful:

When a couple falls in love there are hormonal fireworks. But in marriage they must cultivate delight in one another. It is the consistent, persistent, faithful, intentional, affectionate pursuit of one another during better and worse, richer and poorer, sickness and healthy times that cultivates a capacity for delight in each other far deeper and richer than the fireworks phase. Similarly, devotions are one of the ways we cultivate delight in God. Many days it may seem mundane. But we will be surprised at the cumulative power they have to deepen our love for and awareness of Him.

Read the whole thing

An Image to Hide Behind

The latest Adbusters article addresses the question: "What is the happiness that has alluded our generation?" Here's part of the response:

Unlike people of my generation who are increasingly defined by their possessions, my grandfather never owned much. But he never complained about not having because he was too busy being. Perhaps I’m unhappy because my concerns are reversed – I’m too worried about having to focus on being. Human fulfillment is no longer equated with what I am, but with what I possess. [Guy] Debord says this is the second stage of modernization, “in which social life becomes so completely dominated by accumulated products that it causes a shift from having to appearing, wherein all ‘having’ must now derive its immediate prestige from appearances.” So all I need to do to fit modern society is to appear to be a possessor of a lot of stuff, but in reality I will be and have nothing. I need a personal image. Perhaps this is the visible sign of happiness Baudrillard was talking about. I have to create an image to hide behind, and this image seems to be the only thing I’m able to produce. Have I really been reduced to an image whose sole purpose is to mix and mingle with other seemingly compatible images? Is modern life really so complex?

Part of the author's answer to this question (found later in the article) is to be unique. In a sense, I completely agree with this. As a friend always reminds me, God has made us human beings not human doings. God desires us to first just be who we are. We were uniquely created to be a part of the larger story going on around us. We should stop trying to be like everyone else, desiring possessions to impress everyone else, and seek to live out of the unique expression of Christ in us.

Instead of hiding behind a self-made, propped up image of ourselves, we should remember this truth:

"And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another." - 2 Cor. 3:18

Chesterton on Authority

G.K. Chesterton:

"The modern world will accept no dogmas upon any authority; but it will accept any dogmas on no authority. Say that a thing is so, according to the Pope or the Bible, and it will be dismissed as a superstition without examination. But preface your remark merely with “they say” or “don’t you know that?” or try (and fail) to remember the name of some professor mentioned in some newspaper; and the keen rationalism of the modern mind will accept every word you say."

(HT:Looking Closer)

Jennifer Knapp & Homosexuality

You've probably heard by now that the one time Christian artist Jennifer Knapp has come out as being a homosexual. I imagine there aren't too many people feeling neutral about this news, whether you're upset that she has come out and seems to be okay with it, or you're angry at those condemning her for it.

She recently did an interview with Larry King to talk more openly about her decision. You can find a summary of the videos or the entire interview broken up into four parts here. I confess I have only watched the summary so far, but am anxious to see the whole thing.

After watching the interview, Trevin Wax makes some good observations here. I particularly liked what he had to say about framing the conversation when talking about the sin of homosexuality and knowing at the same time that everyone is a sinner. He points out that the key is repentance:

"Whenever the discussion centers on “homosexuality is a sin… but we’re all sinners,” the traditionalist inevitably comes across looking like he is singling out homosexuality as a worse sin than all the rest. His protests to the contrary always ring hollow.

But this is the wrong way to frame this debate. We are not saying that some of us are worse sinners than others or that homosexuality is a worse sin than pride, stealing, etc. We are not categorized before God as ” better sinners” or “worse sinners.” Instead, we are either unrepentant or repentant. True Christianity hinges on repentance. The pastor on Larry King Live eventually made this point later on in the broadcast, but the rhetorical damage had already been done.

If we are to reframe this discussion along biblical lines, then we must emphasize the necessity of repentance for the Christian faith. The point is not that the pastor and the Knapp are both sinners. It’s that the pastor agrees with God about his sin, while Knapp remains in her sin without repentance. That is why he is questioning her Christianity, for Christian teaching makes clear the necessity of repentance as the entryway into the Christian family."

He also makes an important distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior:

There is a difference between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior. Whenever this discussion takes place in public, the homosexual advocate inevitably merges these two concepts together and then fashions an identity based upon this attraction. The traditionalist is then considered judgmental for telling the homosexual that she should not be true to herself.

But the assumption that we are defined by our sexual attractions is a modern one and should be questioned. If I lust after a woman other than my wife, and yet choose not to act on that sexual urge, am I not being true to myself? Is it not better to be true to someone else rather than true to one’s desires on certain occasions? Could it be that the suppression of an illicit sexual attraction can also be considered true to oneself?

This is where the whole idea of Christian virtue needs to be revisited. Our goal is not authenticity. It is to be true to the self that is redeemed, transformed by the gospel and the power of the Spirit, under the authority of God’s Word.

And I especially love his conclusion when he says that we Christians ought to have soft hearts towards those who struggle with same sex attraction. If we don't have soft hearts, we are not really believing the gospel. The gospel says that we are all God's enemies, dead in our sin, and in need of another's merit and propitiatory sacrifice to bring us back in to fellowship with our Creator. Christ is this Savior. He's is all we have to rely on. This should make us humble, loving, and a repentant people.

(HT:Challies)

Reformed Movements & the Enduring Church

I've really I've really grown to appreciate Michael Horton these last few months, mainly through reading his book People and Place in my ecclesiology class this semester. He has helped me increase in my appreciation for the church (as I've blogged about earlier) and the importance of being confessional.

He provides some interesting thoughts on what many have termed the "young, restless, and reformed" movement or the New Calvinism (which was highlighted by Time magazine last year). When comparing this movement with the historical Reformed tradition, he borrows an analogy from C.S. Lewis about the hallway and the rooms. The hallway is the place "where believers mix and mingle", but they can't live there. The rooms are analogous to the church where Christians are meant to live, to be fed and nourished.

Like wider evangelicalism, the “young, restless and Reformed” movement is a grassroots trend among people who are, generally speaking, not Reformed. I’m energized by this movement every day, as I interact with people from a variety of churches, backgrounds, and traditions who are drawn to the doctrines of grace. I spend a lot of my time in this hallway and am enriched by it.

Nevertheless, not even a “Reformed” hallway is anything more than a hallway. “Reformed” has a specific meaning. It’s not defined by movements, parachurch ministries, or powerful leaders, but by a confession that is lived out in concrete contexts across a variety of times and places. The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort) define what it means to be Reformed. Like Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Anabaptism, Reformed Christianity is a particular tradition. It’s not defined by a few fundamentals, but by a whole system of faith and practice. If being Reformed can be reduced to believing in the sovereignty of God and election, then Thomas Aquinas is as Reformed as R. C. Sproul. However, the Reformed confession is a lot more than that. Even the way it talks about these doctrines is framed within a wider context of covenant theology.

It’s intriguing to me that people can call themselves Reformed today when they don’t embrace this covenant theology. This goes to the heart of how we read the Bible, not just a few doctrines here or there. Yet what was once recognized as essential to Reformed faith and practice is now treated merely as a sub-set (and a small one at that) of the broader “Reformed” big tent.

And I love how he closes:

Right now, though, the “young, restless and Reformed” movement is in danger of succumbing to the fate of all movements at their peak: splintering. Our confessions help us major on the majors, leaving secondary matters open. Yet the “New Calvinism” movement is already showing signs of stress over questions like the age of the earth. Churches have ways of dealing with questions of fraternal relations and cooperation, but leader-driven movements can’t handle the stress. Conferences operate as quasi-official church courts, with vigilante benedictions and excommunications determining who’s in or out. It’s like the wild west.

Christ promised to be with his church to the end, expanding his embassy to the ends of the earth. Christ pledged that the gates of hell cannot prevail against his church. The same promise can’t be invoked for a movement. May God swell the hallway with new visitors! And may we all have the charity to come out of our rooms every now and again to bless each other and bear witness together to God’s sovereign grace. But discipleship has to be formed in the rooms—in real churches, where the depth and breadth of God’s Word is explored and lived.

Read the whole thing

(HT: Challies)