DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed

The first place in the Bible where the new heavens and new earth are mentioned is in the book of Isaiah, chapter 65. It gives a sweetly glorious picture of what is to come.

For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind. The ways of this world, with its sin and suffering, will be forgotten. You will never think of the affair you had, the abortion you had, the pornography you saw, the gossip you spread, the drugs you took, the pain you caused. You won’t think of it. The pain of your divorce, the crushing disappointment that your marriage was marred with disease, the unbearable agony of waiting each month wanting to be pregnant, the feeling of non-stop aching in your joints because of arthritis, the unspeakable sadness you felt when you lost a child or watched him walk away from the Lord, the nights you couldn’t sleep because of anxiety, the dark days that seemed to never end–you won’t remember any of it. It won’t come to your mind.

But be glad and rejoice forever in that which I create; for behold, I create Jerusalem to be a joy, and her people to be a gladness. I will rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in my people; no more shall be heard in it the sound of weeping and the cry of distress. In the new heaven and new earth you will never hear a moan or a groan or an ouch. You will hear no weeping, no sighs of exhaustion or desperation. You will only hear gladness–laughter, singing, whistling, music, the sound of a buzzing party with your friends, the high-pitched excitement of a feast that is finally under way. And besides all this, God will rejoice and be glad in his people. God will delight in his finished work of consummation. He will rejoice to his image reflected in millions of his children. He be glad to have you around and will thrill to hear songs sung in his honor without ceasing.

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed. This doesn’t mean there will death in heaven (Isaiah 25:8 says death will be swallowed up forever). Isaiah is simply grasping for some human analogy to describe what this new world will be like. In the new heaven and new earth you will not need to fear old age. There will be no cancer cells, no MS, no car accidents, no SIDS, no miscarriages, no ALS, no Trisomy 18. You won’t have to get blood tests, or chemo, or worry what the CAT-scan will say. Death shall be swallowed up in victory.

The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, says the Lord. There will be no predators, no thieves, no bullies. Nations will not make threats of nuclear strikes. Children will not be subject to exploitation. Women will not be sold as sex slaves. AIDS will not ravage entire countries. Hunger will not pain any belly. Poverty will not cripple families. Men will not hit women or leave their children fatherless. Women will not belittle men and children will not reject their parents. Their will be no animosity between siblings, no hurt feelings between friends, no awkward moments between those who used to be close, no harsh words, no slanderous accusations, no misunderstandings, no broken hearts, no unfulfilled expectations, no shattered dreams, no disappointment, nothing that hurts shall ever be felt again.

And best of all, Jesus will be there. We will be able to see him, touch him, talk with him, ask him anything, learn from him, and most of all worship him. We will love to praise him and laud him. We will love to sing with brothers and sisters in a thousand different languages. We will love to hear him say “Well done, good and faithful servant.” And we will love to shout as a great multitude, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne , and to the Lamb.” And we will hear a voice from the throne say at the consummation of all things, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”

In memory of Don Hageman, who glorified God in his life and in his death. "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints" (Ps. 116:15).

I'm very pleased that Christianity Today online now has Ted Kluck writing periodic "open letters" on sports related topics. Ted is a terrific writer, a solid Christians, and actually knows sports too. Kluck's latest installment is an open letter to ESPN the magazine about their upcoming "no-clothes" issue.

Here's the gist:

Nudity is the most over-ridden pony in mass media. I dare say that nakedness is more available to the masses today, thanks to technology, than it's ever been. It's not difficult to find pictures of people without their clothes on, but it is, ironically, increasingly difficult to find good sports writing. That's where you come in. The apostle Paul had some good advice that would seem to apply to many spheres of life: "Whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." I think that adage works for great sports writing—and sports magazines.

Not to sound overly biblical, but I think you've lost your first love, ESPN (assuming, of course, that your first love was ever sports to begin with). There's real beauty in one of Kobe Bryant's playoff performances, or Marc-Andre Fleury's game seven. It's the kind of beauty that, regardless of your rooting interests, makes you feel sort of proud to be a human being, and proud to be a sports fan. It transcends, for a moment, the overriding need to move product that is the backbone of our economy and has become the glaringly obvious point of all sports media.

So before you throw your hat into the nudity-saturated, lad-mag ring (or, ironically, remove your hat, as it were), consider the ramifications of your decision, particularly for the young male readers who idolize the Adrian Petersons and Lebrons on your pages. Ask yourself if what they need is more nudity and sexuality at increasingly younger ages, or perhaps more greatness—in the form of great performances and, more important to me, truly great writing.

Read the whole thing.

Correction: I had said we were leaving today. I meant to say in the next few days, in case you're interested in our comings and goings.

In the next few days we leave Colorado and head back home after several weeks of vacation/study leave. There were many highlights to our time here: the monster truck show, a bean stuck up our three-year old's nose, and lots of time with cousins, aunts, uncles, Grandma and Papa. And, of course, several trips to Chick-fil-A, over ten by my count.

Many people know that Chick-fil-A was founded by Truett Cathy, a committed Christian. Amazingly the franchise has had positive sales growth for 41 straight years, with more than 2.9 billion in annual sales last year alone. I've been told that when Cathy made the decision to close his restaurant on Sundays experts told him he'd be out of business in two years. I'm glad that prediction was wrong.

So here's what I love about Chik-fil-A. First, good food. Best chicken sandwiches. Waffle fries are filling. The shakes are just right. Even the two pickles taste good.

Second, the restaurants are clean and the service is quick. I've seen the drive-thru line here in Colorado Springs wrapped twice around the building and everyone still gets their food in pretty short order.

Third, everyone is so nice. I mean really, how do they get every single person working at every Chik-fil-A to be so polite? They must train them well or screen their employees well or boil their knuckles in chicken grease if they fail to say "My pleasure sir." How do they do it? Yesterday the young man at the drive-thru stopped and asked me how my day had gone. Sometimes I don't even remember to ask my wife that question! I've asked a number of employees why everyone at Chick-fil-A is so friendly. I've yet to get a good answer from anyone, but they all are. They smile and walk food out to your car if you need a hand. They give out balloons and free food. The result is that the people eating in Chik-fil-A seem to actually be enjoying themselves. How pleasant.

No one from Chick-fil-A put me up to this little commercial. I just thought it worth pointing out how a little kindness can go a long way, not to mention the kindness of God's common grace. The rain falls on the just and the unjust. And everyone can eat at Chick-fil-A.

Oh, except for people in Lansing, Michigan! We don't have a Chick-fil-A for hundreds of miles. If anyone from corporate gets a hold of this blog, I strongly suggest a few more Michigan stores. Our economy is terrible, but we still like chicken and always appreciate a friendly smile.

Back by popular demand...

Update: Recommended resources at the end

One of the best things I get to do as a pastor is to administer the sacrament of infant baptism to the covenant children in my congregation. Before each baptism, I take a few minutes to explain why we practice infant baptism in our church. My explanation usually goes something like this:

It our great privilege this morning to administer that sacrament of baptism to one of our little infants. We do not believe that there is anything magical about the water we apply to the child. The water does not wash away original sin or save the child. We do not presume that this child is regenerate (though he may be), nor do we believe that every child who gets baptized will automatically go to heaven. We baptize infants not out of superstition or tradition or because we like cute babies. We baptize infants because they are covenant children and should receive the sign of the covenant.

In Genesis 15 God made a covenant with Abraham. This covenant was sealed with the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17. God promised to bless Abraham. For Abraham this meant two things in particular, offspring and land. But at the heart of the covenant was God’s promise that he would be a God to Abraham and his children (Gen. 17:7, 8).

Circumcision was not just a physical thing, marking out ethnic Jews. Circumcision was full of spiritual meaning. The circumcision of the flesh was always meant to correspond with circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:25-29). It pointed to humility, new birth, and a new way of life (Lev. 26:40-42; Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 6:10; 9:25). In short, circumcision was a sign of justification. Paul says in Romans 4:11 that Abraham “received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” God’s own interpretation of circumcision is that it was much more than just a physical sign for national Israel.

Remarkably, though, this deeply spiritual sign was given to Ishmael as well as Isaac, even though only Isaac was the continuation of the promised line. The spiritual sign was not just for those who already embraced the spiritual reality. It was to be administered to Abraham and his sons. Circumcision was not a simple equation. It didn’t automatically mean the recipient of the sign was in possession of the thing signified. Circumcision, like baptism, also pointed to belonging, discipleship, covenant obligations, and allowed for future faith that would take hold of the realities symbolized. Just as there were some in Paul’s day who were circumcised but not really circumcised (Rom. 2:25-29), some children of Abraham who were not truly children of Abraham (Rom. 9:6-8), so in our day there are some who are baptized who are not truly baptized. Children should be marked as belonging to the covenant, but unless they exercise saving faith, they will not grab hold of the covenant blessings.

Children today are baptized based on this same covenant with Abraham. Paul makes clear in Galatians 3 what Peter strongly suggests in Acts 2, namely that the Abrahamic covenant has not been annulled. It is still operational. In fact, we see the basic promise of the Abrahamic covenant running throughout the whole Bible, right up to the new heaven and new earth in Revelation 21.

Because sons were part of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament and were circumcised, we see no reason why children should be excluded in the New Testament sign of baptism. Admittedly, there is no text that says “Hear ye, hear ye, circumcision replaces baptism.” But we know from Colossians 2:11-12 that baptism and circumcision carried the same spiritual import. The transition from one to the other was probably organic. As the Jews practiced proselyte baptism, that sign came to be seen as marking inclusion in the covenant people. For awhile circumcision existed along baptism, but as the early church became more Gentile, many of Jewish rites were rendered unnecessary, and sometimes even detrimental to the faith. Thus, baptism eclipsed circumcision as the sign renewal, rebirth, and covenant membership.

Although not conclusive all by themselves, there are several other arguments that corroborate a paedobaptist reading of the New Testament.

One, the burden of proof rests on those who would deny children a sign they had received for thousands of years. If children were suddenly outside the covenant, and were disallowed from receiving any “sacramental” sign, surely such a massive change, and the controversy that would have ensued, would been recorded in the New Testament. Moreover, it would be strange for children to be excluded from the covenant, when everything else moves in the direction of more inclusion from the Old Covenant to the New.

Two, the existence of household baptisms is evidence that God still deals with households as a unit and welcomes whole families into the church to come under the Lordship of Christ together (Acts 16:13-15; 32-34; 1 Cor. 1:16; cf. Joshua 24:15).

Three, children are told to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph. 6:1). Children in the church are not treated as little pagans to be evangelized, but members of the covenant who owe their allegiance to Christ.

Four, within two centuries of the Apostles we have clear evidence that the church was practicing infant baptism. If this had been a change to long-standing tradition, we would have some record of the church arguing over this new practice. It wasn't until the 16th century that Christians began to question the legitimacy of infant baptism.

So we come to administer the sacrament of baptism to this child today with the weight of church history to encourage us and the example of redemptive history to confirm our practice. We baptize in obedience to Christ’s command. The sacrament we are about to administer is a sign of inclusion in the covenant community as circumcision was, and the water we are about to sprinkle is a sign of cleansing from sin as the sprinkled blood of bulls and goats in the Old Testament was. We pray that this little one will take advantage of all his covenant privileges, acknowledge his Lord all the days of his life, and by faith make these promises his own.

*****
I hope it goes without saying that I have great respect for the credobaptist position and count many, many baptists as my friends and heroes. I imagine some of them may make counterpoints in the comments suggestion or recommend books on the other side. I have no problem with this.

What resources would I recommend?

The best short defense of infant baptism I've read is from Dennis Johnson (Westminster West). We use this paper in our new member's class. You can read it here. See also:

John Murray. Christian Baptism.
The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, edited by Gregg Strawbridge.
Joachim Jeremias. Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries and The Origins of Infant Baptism.
I haven't read Understanding Four Views on Baptism but I imagine it is also helpful.

While listening to a young lady sing "I Can Only Imagine" in church yesterday, I couldn't help but think of this. Once you listen to it, you too can think of margarine during special music numbers.



And just in case you haven't seen this classic from Tim Hawkins...

Thomas Sowell is a great writer. He's not great because he turns such a powerful phrase or uses such colorful imagery. He is a great writer because he makes complex subjects understandable. He makes the dull-ified air of economics seem terribly interesting and completely accessible. He succeeds in the most important task for any writer: make sure your readers understand what you are saying.

Recently I stumbled upon an old paper from Sowell entitled "Some Thoughts about Writing." I recomend it to anyone remotely interested in writing and publishing. Here's a taste:

On Writing Well
People who want to be complimentary sometimes tell me that I have a “gift” for writing. But it is hard for me to regard as a gift something that I worked at for more than a decade—unsuccessfully—before finally breaking into print. Nor was this a case of unrecognized talent. It was a case of quickly recognized incompetence.

On When to Write
Instead of trying to be someone that you are not, be the best at what you are. My own writing practices are the direct opposite of that followed by these prolific and renowned writers. I write only when I have something to say. The big disadvantage of this is that it can mean a lot of down time. There are manuscripts of mine that sat around gathering dust for years without a word being added to them. How then have I managed to write more than 20 books within the Biblical threescore and ten years?

On Agents
What can an agent do that a writer cannot do? First of all, an agent can get a manuscript read by a senior editor at a publishing house, rather than by some lowly reader who is assigned the thankless job of looking for a needle in a haystack among the tons of manuscripts that come in “over the transom” from would-be writers that nobody ever heard of. But why will a senior editor take a manuscript from an agent more seriously? Because the agent pre-screens manuscripts and sends only the ones that will justify the editor’s continuing to take the agent seriously. For those manuscripts that fall below this level, the agent can offer advice to the writer, ranging from a few changes here and there to a suggestion that taking up carpentry might offer a better way of making a living.

On Academic Writing
Too many academics write as if plain English is beneath their dignity and some seem to regard logic as an unconstitutional infringement of their freedom of speech. Others love to document the obvious and arbitrarily assume what is crucial. A typical work of this genre might read something like this:

As surely as the world is round (Columbus, 1492), and as surely as what goes up must come down (Newton, 1687), when Ronald Reagan was elected President (Cronkite, 1980) and then re-elected (Rather, 1984), it signaled a change in the political climate (Brinkley, 1980–88). Since then, we have seen exploitation (Marx, 1867) and sexism (Steinem, 1981) on the rise.

But no attempt to parody academic writing can match an actual sample from a scholarly journal:

"Transnationalization further fragmented the industrial sector. If the dominant position of immigrant enterprises is held to have reduced the political impact of an expanding industrial entrepreneurate, the arrival of multinational corporations possibly neutralized the consolidation of sectoral homogeneity anticipated in the demise of the artisanate."

You can’t make that up. If academic writings were difficult because of the deep thoughts involved, that might be understandable, even if frustrating. Seldom is that the case, however. Jaw-breaking words often cover up very sloppy thinking.

On Copy-Editors (they are not all like this)
Where Shakespeare wrote, “To be or not to be, that is the question,” a copy-editor would substitute: “The issue is one of existence versus non-existence.” Where Lincoln said, “Fourscore and seven years ago,” a copy-editor would change that to: “It has been 87 years since . . .” Where the Bible said, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” a copy-editor would run a blue pencil through the first three words as redundant.

Pedestrian uniformity and shriveled brevity are the holy grail of copy-editors, the bureaucrats of the publishing industry. Like other bureaucrats, copy-editors tend to have a dedication to rules and a tin ear for anything beyond the rules. Seldom is there even the pretense that their editorial tinkerings are going to make the writing easier for the reader to follow, more graceful, more enjoyable, or more memorable...

I do not arbitrarily dismiss copy-editors’ suggestions. I usually consider them and find them to be stupid beyond belief. That is hardly surprising. In fact, what is surprising is that anyone would authorize people who are not writers, and who do not know the subject matter, to over-ride people who are writers and who do know the subject matter. Add to this the fact that a book may be written and rewritten over a period of years, while the copy-editor has at most only a few weeks in which to second-guess all the stylistic decisions that were made by the author after far more deliberation.

On Non-Reviewing Reviews
The non-reviewing review seems to be considered chic these days. The first four or five paragraphs don’t even mention the book that is the ostensible reason for the review. Instead, the reviewer puts the whole subject “in context” with lofty generalities and pre-emptive assertions. Then the book’s title puts in a cameo appearance, followed by an analysis of what the author was “really” trying to do and the reviewer’s comments on its appropriateness, originality, and consonance with his own ideological predispositions.

All this is often just a prelude to a long editorial by the reviewer on the subject raised by the book—or even on a tangential topic suggested by it. Sometimes it takes some shrewd reading between the lines to figure out whether the reviewer thought the book was good, bad, or indifferent. Sometimes even a shrewd reading draws a blank. One of the reasons some people cannot get to the point is that there is no point to get to. In non-reviewing reviews, the only point often seems to be a display of the reviewer’s sense of superiority.

On Writing Reviews
Over the years, I have come to find writing book reviews even more distasteful than reading them. Part of this is my own fault, for being one of those old-fashioned holdouts who still believes that you should actually read the book before reviewing it.

Sometimes I am only into the first 20 pages of a 500-page book when it becomes painfully clear that this one is a real dog. The rest of the ordeal is like crossing the Sahara Desert—except that often there are no oases. True, the reviewer gets to slaughter the author in print at the end of it all, but this merely appeases the desire for revenge, which only real blood would satisfy.


As you can see, this is a spirited little paper. Very worth your while. And very written, naturally. Read the whole thing.

6. MOVE FORWARD THE RIGHT WAY…

If you feel you are ready to send something to a publisher, here are our suggestions. We do not personally deliver manuscripts or book ideas to editors. We feel this would be an inappropriate use of relationships we have developed over the past two-decades of working with Christian publishers. What we can do is guide you in a way that will get your work into the hands of the right person in the right format. This means you will avoid the part of the process where many of the manuscripts are tossed out. You will start as the smaller percentage of manuscripts that gets put into the hands of an AE. Then, your work will have to stand on its own merit.

Here is what we suggest:

Pray for the Lord to lead the process. If it is God’s plan for your work to be published, He will guide you. Be prayerful every step of the way.

Get your book proposal to the right person. Never just send your work to a publisher. Call first and ask for the name of the editor who should receive it. For instance, if you are writing a book on marriage, simply call and ask for the acquisitions editor who handles books about marriage. Once you have a name, be sure to send your work to their attention. Add a cover letter that introduces you, your vision, and expresses your appreciation for them taking time to look at your work. Be sure your cover letter is less than one page. Less is more! These are very busy people. You might even try to call the AE to whom you will be sending your proposal and ask for a brief five minute conversation to share the vision of your book and give them a heads-up that it is coming.

Quality, Quality, Quality! Your cover letter and proposal need to be professional and high quality. If they are full of mistakes, the chances of your proposal progressing drops fast! Everything you send in needs to reflect your skill as a writer and your commitment to excellence.

Send only what they want and need. There is a very specific format and content needed in a book proposal. If you include the following things in the order we give them, your proposal will be complete and professional. Please, don’t add lots of extras. Less is more!

• Cover page: A proposal for…book title (top and center on the page). At the bottom of the page put your name, address, phone number and e-mail
• Proposal summary: A page or less giving the heartbeat and focus of the book.
• About the author: Tell about yourself. Why are you qualified to write on this topic? Do you have a platform from which you speak on this topic? What else have you published? Keep this to less than a page.
• Audience: Who will want to read this book? Why will they buy it? Here are two very important reminders. 1) Don’t say that everyone will want to read your book. This is simply not true. Think specifically about who will be excited enough to pay for your book and list these people. 2) Publishers must sell books to stay in business. Don’t resent the fact that there must be a strong audience for your book. If Christian publishers are not wise and discerning about what they commit to produce, they will go out of business. If they are not discerning, they will forfeit their position of influence for God’s Kingdom.
• Competition: List five or six books (both classic and newer) that have been written on the same topic. You can do a search on the internet to help with this. Be honest, even Solomon said there was nothing new under the sun (and that was thousands of years ago). The truth is that what you want to write about has already been said, and said very well. However, if you have a unique spin or perspective, make it clear. What will make your book stand out?
• Suggested length, format and completion date: Be clear about how long you feel the book needs to be. How long will it take for you to complete the book?
• Book introduction: Include a copy of the introduction to your book. It needs to be clear, compelling, and very well written. An AE will toss out the whole thing if the introduction does not hit home. Make sure this is no longer than two pages.
• Chapter 1: Include a copy of the first chapter of the book. Again, this needs to be your best writing. It must grip the reader immediately and convince an AE that there is reason to consider publishing your book. If you have already written the book, do not send the whole manuscript! Send only the first chapter. If they want more, they will ask.
• Chapter summaries: Give a title and one paragraph overview of every chapter of the book. Keep it tight, but make it compelling and clear.

That’s it! Once you send in your proposal, pray again and entrust the whole process to the Lord. We hope this is helpful as you consider your next steps as a writer. Again, write out of love, passion and calling. If you get published, great! If not, remain faithful.

Sometimes God calls us to write for Him, for ourselves, or for those close to us.

God bless,

Kevin and Sherry Harney

Now that I have a few books under my belt people will ask me from time to time how they too can get published. That’s a hard question to answer because getting published is not very easy. One person from the industry told me once that getting published is like a horse race. You have the jockey, the horse, and the track. The jockey is the author, the horse is the idea or subject matter, and the track is the timing or the cultural environment. You need at least two of the three to get published. So when Ted and I got a deal for Why We’re Not Emergent, we were basically nobodies with no platform (though Ted had written a few books which helped). But the subject matter was hot and the timing was just right. Still, we were very fortunate that Moody was interested in the book. We got turned down by plenty of other houses first.

When I was thinking about trying to get published I was very impressed with the advice I received from Kevin Harney. Kevin is a fellow RCA pastor and friend of mine. Besides working (along with his wife) with Bill Hybels and John Ortberg on different projects, Kevin is the author of several books: Finding a Church You Can Love and Loving the Church You’ve Found, Seismic Shifts, and Leadership From the Inside Out. Kevin has given me permission to post his brief paper on getting published for my blog.

*****

Dear Friend,

Over the years Sherry and I have been writing we have had many people ask us about how to take first steps into the world of publishing. Since this is a very common question, we decided to write down some basic guidelines we feel will be helpful. What follows is simply a collection of our observations and thoughts on what might help anyone who wants to be a writer or to publish a book.

1. LEARN TO LOVE WRITING FOR THE SAKE OF WRITING NOT FOR THE SAKE OF PUBLISHING…

We encourage you to grow as a writer because you love to write. If you love it, you will do it. Also, if you feel God is calling you to write, go for it. No matter what else happens, you will have been faithful to the Lord, and this matters most of all.

2. LOOK AT PUBLISHING FROM A REALISTIC VANTAGE POINT…

Most acquisitions editors get countless unsolicited manuscripts each year. These are books or book proposals they did not request, but were just sent in by an aspiring author. Some of these are never read or reviewed. The truth is, acquisition editors (The ones who decide what books should be considered for publication) are already over worked and have many published authors who they are partnering with. When the time comes for you to submit a proposal to an AE (Acquisitions Editor) you need to present the right thing in just the right way. We will give you some ideas about how to do this later in this paper.

The simple truth is, it is hard to get a proposal to the right person. And, once they have it, it still might not go forward and become a published book. This is why we encourage people to write out of a passion and desire to write, not to publish. If you end up being published, great! But, if you knew you would never be picked up by a publisher, would you still write?

3. CONSIDER SELF-PUBLISHING…

If you are certain you want to publish something you have written, but you can’t find a publisher, we encourage you to consider self-publishing. The cost of publishing your own work has gone down with time. This is a very viable route to take for anyone who is really committed to seeing their work in print and available to others.

My little sister Lisa had a book idea that was turned down by every publisher she went to. So, she self-published! My mom was her editor. Friends proofed the work and gave input. Her book has become a leader in her industry (employment). If you asked her if she wished she was working with a publisher today, she would say, “No.” Self-publishing worked very well in her case and it might be the way you want to go, at least with your first project.

4. START SMALL…

People who think they have a great book idea (but have never been published in some other format) rarely get a hearing from publishers. There are very few professional basketball players who did not play in grade school, high school and college. When Sherry and I did our first projects for Zondervan, we had already written over 200 articles (for youth and adults) for a publication called The Sunday School Guide. This guide has a modest circulation and is used in Christian education settings. We started small! Also, we wrote small group guides and did editorial work for Zondervan for almost a decade before we wrote our first book.

One suggestion is to write short sections of your book and seek to have them published as magazine articles. Pick what you feel will be your strongest pieces. Choose what you are most passionate about. Then, write articles that are 600-1,500 words long. Once you have three or four solid pieces, go to your local super-bookstore and look for a few magazines that might fit the content of the pieces you wrote. E-mail the magazine and ask them about the procedure for submitting an article. If they publish a piece you have written (and maybe ask for you to send them more articles) you have a confirmation that there is interest in the topic of your book. Also, if you take your book concept to a publisher down the line, you can show them that sections of your book have already been published.

Another helpful idea is to have your articles published in church magazines, the local paper, or anywhere else. Be creative…but get some stuff in print and in front of people.

5. TAKE WISE STEPS IF YOU WANT TO BE A WRITER...

Here are some general suggestions if you want to progress as a writer:

Write often. Make time to write at least 4-5 times a week. You might not even plan on showing it to anyone, but develop a discipline of writing.

Be sure to focus your writing on things you are passionate about. Don’t let writing become a chore, but let it flow from your heart.

Be realistic. Too many people say, “I have a great book idea” but they have not written anything. What they mean is they have a great idea and maybe a clever title. Unless you have been moved to write many pages already, you don’t really have a book, you have a dream. If you want that dream to become a reality begin writing.

Don’t over-spiritualize your desire to write. Too many people say things like, “I know God wants my book published,” or “The Lord gave me this book.” It is fine that you feel this way, but Christian publishers will not respond well to someone who tells them they need to publish this book because God said so! Let your work speak for itself. And, if God wants it published, He will make this known.

To be continued...

Our church is blessed to have a lot of thoughtful people, including several ex-missionaries, on our missions committee. They take their work seriously and work hard at putting together our missions budget each year. But many churches, even if they give a lot to missions, don’t put enough thought into the missions budget as a whole. With many fiscal years operating from January-December, the budget process for 2010 will be begin in many congregations within a couple months. With that in mind, here are four questions to ask as you put together your missions budget.

1. Are we supporting 1 Timothy 4:16 kind of people?

The command to keep a close watch on your life and doctrine may have been first of all for Pastor Timothy, but it is important for all of us. We are all called to be examples of godliness. We are all called to believe what accords with sound doctrine. This is true for our missionaries as well. No one gets a free pass on life and doctrine, no matter what they are doing or how difficult their surroundings. Each church will need to decide how much doctrinal uniformity is necessary, but surely every evangelical congregation will want to support missionaries that believe in the full trustworthiness of the Bible, glory in Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice, feel the weight of heaven and hell, and affirm justification by faith alone, just to name a few of the most important doctrines.

Likewise, though our missionaries don’t have to be perfect (and we shouldn’t expect them to be), they must be growing in godliness and live lives above reproach. We certainly don’t want to create an adversarial relationship with our missionaries by constantly checking their life and doctrine, but by some mechanism (e.g., through an annual report, through personal contact, through denominational oversight) we want to make sure we are sending out the sort of people we would be happy to have serving in our own churches.

2. Are we supporting ministry in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth?

It would be pressing Acts 1:8 too far to think that we need to have our missions budget divided up exactly 25% into four different areas. But it makes sense that the priorities Jesus gave the disciples would be our priorities. We should be engaged in all four areas of missions. Jerusalem: ministry to those like us nearby. Judea: ministry to those like us away from us. Samaria: cross-cultural ministry that may be close to home. Ends of the earth: cross-cultural ministry that is far away. So for example, church planting in a different suburb of the same city would probably be Jerusalem ministry. But starting a vacation Bible school in a trailer park would probably be Samaria ministry. Supporting other college ministries in the U.S. is for us Judea ministry. And obviously, supporting missionaries in Asia and Africa usually counts as ends of the earth.

The idea is not to be slavishly tied to some quarter-quarter-quarter-quarter system, but to make sure that we are not too lopsided. Some churches invest almost everything in local church planting. They should think about doing more cross-culturally. I’ve known strong missions churches that gut all their overseas funding because they feel like they aren’t doing to evangelize their neighbors. Well, no one is against evangelizing our neighbors, but just stay in Jerusalem with your mission priorities. Others send all their money overseas and never consider the work to be done around them. You get the picture. Take a look at your missions budget. You might be surprised what you find.

3. Are we striking the right balance of word and deed in the ministries we support?

Very few people are against wholistic missions in principle. Most agree that there is a place for social ministries (education, medicine, disaster relief, agricultural development). And hopefully every evangelical acknowledges that we must share the gospel. The tricky part is how to get the balance. Personally, I think word ministry should be the priority (not the exclusive ministry a church supports, but the priority). It is telling that we are told to obey the Great Commandment, but we are told to go and fulfill the Great Commission. This isn’t to say that loving our neighbors is not important. Please hear me: it is. We should not make apologies for supporting missionaries who care for others in the name of Christ. But it is easy to lose sight of the goal--teaching the nations to obey everything Jesus has commanded. As I recently heard one missions executive say, “We believe in doing wholistic missions. But wholisitic is not a euphemism for not sharing the gospel.” So make sure that “word” missionaries know how to love people. Make sure your “deed” missionaries are looking for ways to tell others about Jesus Christ. And make sure you have room for both in your missions budget.

4. Are we giving priority to long-term missionaries?

It’s no secret that we’ve seen an explosion of short-term missions in the past generation. Almost every church sends out teams to build homes or do street evangelism or teach in the Bible school for a couple weeks. Thank God for the interest more and more Christians have in serving God in different places. But it’s easy for churches to spend too many resources on short-term missions. People like helping people, they like visiting new places, and they like hearing the stories on the other end. So some churches spend tons of money sending their adults to Russia every year and their teens to Belize every summer and the college students to Uganda. Short term missions are good for some things: creating interest in missions, planting the seed for missions, exposing people to different cultures and needs, and doing some kinds of support ministries.

But there are lots of things short-termers usually can’t do. They can’t speak the language. They can’t follow up with discipleship. They can’t really become a part of the culture. They can’t earn the trust of the people. They can’t translate the Scriptures. They don't have time to learn from the people already there. In other words, the Great Commission will not be completed through short-term missions. The church needs more people committed to cross-cultural missions for 5, 10, 25, or 50 years, especially in the places where the church is smallest or non-existent. Make sure your budget reflects this priority. It's not always as sexy as the youth trip to Kentucky, but it is the only way to win the world for Christ.

And I just got a Blackberry...

The series continues on "regular" people from my church who are serving God and ministering to people in their "regular" lives. This week's interview is with Stacey Bieler, a 54 year old woman with a unique knowledge of China. Stacey and her husband, Tom and daughter, Renee, are longtime attenders at URC.

1. Where did you grow up?
I grew up in Delano, CA. I was a teenager during the grape strike in the 1970s. It was a tense time in the town.

2. Tell us about your family—the family you came from and the family you have now.
My parents met at the University of Arizona. After the war they and two small children moved from San Diego to Delano. After several years my father started selling life and health insurance because it was difficult to make a living as a journalist in a small town. I was born 9½ years after my brother. My mom was a music major who played cello. When she arrived in Delano she became active in the Methodist church, in Music Memorial (which gives scholarships to students), organized a trio, etc. They both helped to start a college in the town. They, at 91 and 94, are now in the same room in the skilled nursing facility in Delano.

I met Tom Bieler in the InterVarsity group at UC San Diego. We were married in 1994. He finished his degree in Materials Science at UC Davis in 1989 and we moved to East Lansing for him to become a professor at MSU.

In 1995 Tom and I adopted Renee. It is an open adoption. We saw her the day she was born. We visit with the birthfather and birthmother at least once a year. She is a gift of joy, creativity and activity.

3. How did you become a Christian?
I grew up going to the Methodist church. My mom is a Christian and my dad is not one yet. At age 12 I went to a church camp and heard an altar call.

4. Describe your current vocation and why you decided to do what you are doing.
I was on IV staff for six years, including the last two as an international student specialist with Chinese scholars at UCLA. When we moved to MSU, I decided to study Chinese history. After my advisor at MSU found that I was interested because of my Chinese friends, he suggested that my thesis focus on a journal written by Chinese students in 1905-1931. Perfect! After reading my thesis, three friends (two Chinese and one Taiwanese) asked that I write a book because this was a history they knew nothing about. “Patriots” or “Traitors”? came out in 2003. Recently I wrote three chapters and co-edited a book about ten Chinese Christians called Salt and Light. Another volume will come out this fall.

Writing stories about Chinese students who returned from the U.S. and Chinese Christians is recovering stories that have been denied by the Chinese government and then forgotten by most. It is an honor to learn about them and share their stories with others. Many are my heroes for being presidents of universities, doctors, involved in rural reconstruction, etc. during the 1920-1940s - a time of chaos due to warlords, Anti-Japanese war and then civil war. They knew God’s protection and provision. I ask would I be that faithful?

5. What are some of the blessings of your vocation?
Talking to families about their relatives. Watching God guide me to sources. Honoring God through encouraging Christians to ask God how they can follow the examples of these great men and women in their own careers.

6. What are some of the challenges?
Sitting down and writing. Difficult to find material or pictures. Being distracted by other pressing needs.

7. How is your commitment to Christ challenged, strengthened, and exercised in your vocation?
When I was writing Patriots or Traitors, I only had a MA (that is still all I have). I did not have an agreement with any publisher. I felt called to write and had to trust that God would work out a publisher once the manuscript was done. I worked on it for ten years without knowing. Along the way were encouragements that kept me going, especially from my best editor, Tom. It was published and recently is available in paperback!

8. How has your life and/or vocation been affected by the downturn in the economy?
None. I haven’t yet made money from writing books. Tom’s work pays for this habit.

9. What is one thing you know now that you wish you knew when you were younger?
Take risks to follow God’s calling even if no one else is doing it, even if you lack the gift (writing, in my case). His strength is sufficient and He loves to work through our weaknesses.

10. Any good books you are currently reading or would recommend to others?
Duane Elmer, Cross-Cultural Servanthood – years of wisdom; Rob Gifford, China Road – written by a NPR journalist (a Christian) who traveled across the country; Mischa Berlinski, Fieldwork – novel set in Thailand about missionaries; Boris Pasternak, Dr. Zhivago – great way to understand the Russian Revolution

John Calvin at his God-glorifying best:

We see that our whole salvation and all its parts are comprehended in Christ. We should therefore take care not to derive the least portion of it from anywhere else. If we seek salvation, we are taught by the very name of Jesus that it is “of him.” If we seek any other gifts of the Spirit, they will be found in his anointing. If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth…If we see redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly Kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other (Inst., II.xvi.19).

Here are my final two questions after reading N.T. Wright’s Justification.

Question #3: On what basis are we declared to be in the right before God?

Wright argues that the present verdict of justification is on the basis of faith and faith alone. But, says Wright, there is also a future verdict based on works. The present verdict gives the assurance that the future verdict will match it, that the Spirit will empower the believer to live a life in accordance with his present justification (251, 260 n.11).

This sounds very close to the traditional Reformation understanding that we are justified by faith alone and our works must give corroborating evidence that indeed we were truly saved. But this isn’t what Wright wants to say. He does not make clear the basis for the declaration of our innocence. He simply does not think that debating about the word “basis” is the way to clarity. (258 n.7).

Yet, how can we avoid talking about the “basis” of our justification? Is there a more important question than what is the ground of our right standing before God? Does God declare us to be in the right because of Christ’s work grabbed hold of through faith or because of present faith and future works. Wright is very nuanced here and we must try to be fair. He is not telling us to go earn our salvation. But it does seem to me that he is saying we are declared to be in the right before God, on the last day, on the basis of works, that works are not merely evidence of saving faith but are the grounds for God’s favorable verdict toward us. The word “basis” matters.

Question #4: Why not just say “imputation”?

I’ll get to this question in a minute, but first let me say I don’t agree with Wright’s interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21, though I tried as best I could to take his advice and not just dismiss it out of hand because it would blow up my tradition. Wright argues that 5:21 is yet another two-pronged statement about the Messiah’s death on the one hand and, on the other, a statement of Paul’s apostolic ministry. So on this reading, Paul says nothing about being reckoned to have the righteousness of God. Instead he is saying that we embody God’s faithfulness as we proclaim the message of reconciliation.

I find this exegesis strained for several reasons. 1) Wright doesn’t think Paul could be imploring the Corinthians themselves to be reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:20). This is not an evangelistic sermon after all, Wright argues (162). But Paul is concerned that the Corinthians are deceived (11:2), that they are putting up with another Jesus (11:4), that he may have to mourn over many who have sinned and not repented (12:21). In other words, the Corinthians, like people in our churches every Sunday, need to be evangelized. Paul has every reason to urge some of them to get reconciled to God.

2) Wright imposes the larger context in such a way that crowds out the immediate context. Yes, Paul is arguing for his apostolic authority in chapters 2-6 (in the whole book really). But that doesn’t mean he can’t bring up the atonement in chapter 5. Reading through chapter 5 we find that Paul is talking about our heavenly dwelling, persuading others based on the fear of coming before the Lord, being made new in Christ, and being reconciled to God. This is all Old Perspective stuff! Heaven, reconciliation, faith. So it makes perfect sense that Paul would talk about the atonement and “how we get saved” in verse 21 (contra Wright, 166).

In the interest of long-windedness allow me to digress. My main critique of Wright is that he gets the big picture right but then forces that big picture on the individual verses in such a way that doesn’t do justice to all the important points Paul is making along the way. Often Wright says a whole book or an entire section is about this, therefore if you talk about this other specific thing, you aren’t really paying attention to the context. But the context in any given section may have its own crucially important point, a complementary or even more important point.

For example, the Wizard of Oz is all about Dorothy trying to find the Wizard who can help her get home. But along the way there are all sorts of other things that happen. They are part of the bigger story, but they have a point themselves. The scene with the flying monkeys is, on the most basic level, about how flying monkeys can really weird you out. But I can imagine Wright arguing, “But we must keep in mind that the Wizard of Oz is about the Dorothy-to-the-Wizard-so-she-can-get-home story. The flying monkey scene is not about how we must all avoid aerodynamic primates, it’s about how Dorothy’s attempt to reach the Wizard and through him to get home has once again been put on hold by the Wicked Witch.” Well, yes that’s true. But flying monkeys are still scary. It does no injustice to the rest of the story to think that monkeys zooming in the sky is freaky stuff. The scene is about the Witch trying keep Dorothy from reaching the Wizard and about how flying monkeys are scary. To leave this last crucial fact out in an effort to do justice to the Dorothy-to-the-wizard-so-she-can-get-home story does not preserve the story. It flattens it.

Paul is capable of defending his apostolic ministry and talking about some very specific theological truths in the midst of that defense. My contention, then, is that Wright cannot see the imputation trees because he only has eyes for the God’s single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world forest. But I digress.

3) I find Wright’s inner logic for verse 21 to be missing a step. According to Wright, God made Christ who knew no sin to be sin for us so that we could be reconciled to God and then in Christ embody God’s covenant faithfulness to others. But this reading has to supply the middle step; namely, that we are reconciled to God. So instead of 21b being about reconciliation through imputation, Wright assumes reconciliation so that 21b can be about something else, Paul’s apostolic ministry. It is an easier reading to see the righteousness of God in 21b as providing the remedy for the sin in 21a instead of thinking Paul’s parallelism in verse 21 must be dictated by the concerns of the larger unit.

Back to the original question: I confess to not always understanding why Wright won’t dare claim imputation. He acknowledges that God accomplished his purposes through Israel in the single person of Israel’s faithful representative, but then is quick to add that this doesn’t mean Jesus fulfilled the law in a way that can be “reckoned” to us (135). He pooh-poohs the idea of a simplistic exchange where Christ bears the curse of the law and we go free. But I fail to see how this is materially different from saying “the Messiah came and bore the covenantal curse in himself, so that the new covenant blessings might flow out at last to the world” (136). I don’t understand why Wright must put quotation marks around reckoned as if it is not a biblical category and a biblical word that deserves to stand on its own two feet.

Above all, I don’t understand how we are declared righteous without some sort of reckoning of righteousness. It’s all well and good that God would declare us to be in the right. But why? Because of Jesus’ death and resurrection no doubt. Ok, but why does that matter? Because he fulfilled the role of faithful Israel. Alright, so you’re saying he did what we we’re supposed to do so we could get covenant blessings and bore the penalty we deserved as covenant breakers? And how does this work without imputation? I’m not really sure. I imagine Wright is sure, but I’m not sure he should be so sure.

Yesterday I offered some preliminary comments on N.T. Wright’s Justification. Today I want to offer a critique by asking two of my four questions.

Question #1: Are the best parts of the New Perspective really lost on those who hold to the Old Perspective?

Wright frames his work as helping the sincere, but dim-witted Old Perspective folks realize that the earth orbits around the sun even though it looks like the sun travels around the earth. His point is to call Christians back to a theocentric view of reality where the story is all about God and not about how me, myself, and I get saved. Well, Amen to that. But who is the shadow boxing partner here. Surely not Piper. Who has done more in our generation to call the church to a God-entranced view of all things than Piper? Is he talking about his Reformed critics? If so, it seems like his framing story better fits seeker-sensitive types or the fundy with the revival tent.

Wright is at his persistent best in hammering away that Paul’s gospel is the story of God’s-single-plan-through-Israel-for the world. Three cheers for Wright’s attention to the redemptive-historical narrative. But again, is this lost on the Old Perspective? Wright claims, “In ways that the Western tradition, Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran and Calvinist–yes, and Anglican too!–has often failed to recognize, Scripture forms a massive and powerful story whose climax is the coming into the world of the unique Son of the one true Creator God, and, above all, his death for sins and his bodily resurrection from the dead” (250). I love Wright’s summary of the story, but I’m puzzled. Has the whole Western tradition missed this story? Really, we are just now seeing it by virtue of the Sanders revolution? Did Ridderbos miss this? Or Vos? Or Edwards with his massive history of redemption? Haven’t thousands of preachers for hundreds of years gone through Ephesians 2 and preached on justification by faith alone and the mysterious inclusion of the Gentiles? Much of the theology I read predates the New Perspective and it gets many of the same “discoveries.”

Piper, Carson, Westerholm, Luther, Hodge et. al don’t need me to come to their defense. But does Wright think they do not also believe and teach the grand meta-narrative of Scripture? They may want to go back to Adam and put Abraham and Israel in the broader context of fall and redemption, but surely they see the same God-through-Israel-for-the-world narrative without embracing the New Perspective.

Question #2: Can we still tell people the good news that if they believe in Jesus they will go to heaven when they die?

One of Wright's pet peeves is reducing "salvation" to "going to heaven when you die" (10). This is a recurring theme in this book and every book I've read from Wright. He thinks Piper and others have not allowed the idea that God is rescuing the world to really permeate their thinking. I wholeheartedly agree that salvation is about more than being beamed up to heaven when we die, but the whole heaven thing is also pretty critical to folks when they come to die. They may find it encouraging to know that the whole cosmos is going to be renewed one night, but they really want to know where they will be if they choke on their mucus and stop breathing tonight.

Where we go when we die is one of the most important questions we as pastors have to answer. It isn’t enough to tell our people that they’ll live in a new world in the age to come. They want to know what tomorrow will be like? Will they be with Jesus today in paradise or not? Paul talked about his heavenly dwelling waiting for him once he died (2 Cor. 5:1-10) and the joy he would have to depart and be with Christ (Phil. 1:19-26), so we ought to have no shame in glorying, as the saints for two millennia have done, that we go to heaven when we die.

Wright argues that the Jews in the first century were not sitting around discussing how to go to heaven, and swapping views on the finer points of synergism and sanctification (55). Perhaps, but I’m willing to bet their discussions had much more to do with the afterlife and how people were saved and how people got holy than with relieving third world debt. The sword of rhetorical anachronism cuts both ways don’t you know.

Now, I'm sure Wright believes we go to heaven when we die. And I know he is trying to correct an imbalance in some wings of the church. But I wish he would do it in a different way and not undermine or minimize one of the most precious promises in all the Bible, that he who believes in Jesus will never die but has eternal life. I am simply jealous that in emphasizing cosmic renewal we don't lose the precious hope of heaven that anchors the believer in hard times and is our sweet reward at the end of our days.

It’s taken me a couple months, but I finally finished N.T. Wright's new book, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision, which is, in large part, a response to John Piper's book, The Future of Justification. This is an important book that deserves careful attention from important reviewers. But since they’re busy I thought I’d take a stab.

Ok, not actually a book review, more like comments and questions. Today, I’ll make some comments. Then over the next two days I’ll ask some questions.

• N.T. Wright and I go way back, at least seven or eight years. When I was a student at Gordon-Conwell, Wright gave a guest lecture (or chapel or both or something - I went to it but I can't remember exactly what it was). As Wright walked with one of our professors through the hallway one afternoon my friends and I nearly cracked the English bishop in the back of the head with an apple. I promise you it was accidental. What are seminary students supposed to do to unwind if not pick up wiffle bats and swing at apples in the hallway? Anyway, Wright, ever the gentleman, took the apple-rolling-toward-his-feet-unintentional assault like a man, and we were very embarrassed. A little cleaner contact with the barrel of the bat and the New Perspective on Paul could have ended that very day, as could have my seminary career.

• I like reading Wright. Wright is wicked smart and witty - a rare combination. He challenges me to think. He believes the Bible and writes well.

• The tone of Justification is not harsh toward John Piper (and others like him), but it is exasperated. I admit to getting a little impatient with Wright's impatience toward Piper (and Reformed people like me), but then again Wright feels like we just doesn't get it, which is bound to be frustrating.

• In a day when emoting passes for argumentation and hurt feelings trump rational discourse, it's refreshing to see Piper and Wright actually give reasons for their positions and go to the text to support their convictions. Even though I disagree with Wright in some key places, he is surely trying mightily to exegete the text. I have a lot of respect for Wright's scholarship and ministry. How can you not? His work on the gospels is well-worth reading. His work on the resurrection is a masterpiece. His defense of marriage is commendable. Not that he cares what I think (nor should he), but he strikes me as a decent, honest, Jesus loving chap, deeply committed to the Church and the Scriptures.

• Wright is right about a lot in this book. He is right to follow Calvin’s view of the law more than Luther’s. He is right to think that lawkeeping in Judaism was supposed to be a gracious response to God’s covenant mercy (“supposed to”, not “always was” in my opinion). He is right to see that the story of the Bible has God at the center and not us. He is right to see that Paul’s gospel is steeped in “single-plan-through-Israel-for-the-world” theology. He is right to think that not all his critics have taken the time to understand what he is saying (though Piper certainly has). In short, Wright is right more often than he is wrong. But I don’t think he is always right, nor is he always clear. More on that tomorrow.

Finally a fast food company is getting serious about the environment. I knew there was a reason I felt so good about eating at Taco Bell.


Taco Bell's New Green Menu Takes No Ingredients From Nature

Just so there is no confusion: this is fake news.

This is the continuing series on "regular" people from my church who are serving God and ministering to people in their "regular" lives. This week's interview is with Mark Whalon, a 60 year old man who is a professor of entomology at Michigan State University. He is a voracious reader, devoted husband, father and grandfather, church elder, and truth seeker.

1. Where did you grow up?
A split between Eastern Oregon (wilderness) and S.E. Vermont (small machine industry and milk cows).

2. Tell us about your family—the family you came from and the family you have now.
I grew up in an Irish Roman Catholic Family. We had 11 kids in the end; his, hers and ours. My dad and mom were truly in love and we lived a very respectful, organized and disciplined life style. My dad was an outdoorsman, and I learned to be the same—and became a man when I was lost out in the Mountains overnight Elk hunting when I was 12. But my mom had died refusing a therapeutic abortion, and the baby died too a week later.

My dad handled things very poorly. He was devastated, his world dried up and he started to drink heavily. Six months after my mom died, he went back to Chicago to a woman that had introduced him to my mom. He proposed to her (she had been jilted), and she agreed to marry. He brought a cosmopolitan, non-driver, semi-executive single woman to a one-horse county seat in Vale, OR. She lasted about 4 weeks. My dad got permission from the Vatican to annul their marriage—I never heard from or saw Mary again.

My dad was miserable and so were we. He hired a string of daytime house keepers, mostly women from broken marriages; a Texas cook, a bar-room drunk who dropped my sister Kathleen, a battered divorcee with a 6 yr old son that she protected like a mother wolf, a Basque princess (local sheep herder’s daughter-beautiful and tough), my old first grade teacher for a summer, etc.. My dad had promised my mom on her death bed, that he would keep the family together, no matter, but he raised a wild, independent lot.

After that we started to move around. I was in 24 schools in E. Oregon, W. Oregon and Vermont before I graduated from High School in Springfield, VT. In ~1962 my dad finally married a much younger woman from a broken marriage and Edith had a daughter (my little sister to this day). They had 3 boys. So 7 kids by my mom, one adopted daughter and 3 “little boys” = 11 kids.

I met the love of my life at the U of VT (UVM) where she was in nursing school , and we were married 18 months later. Both of our daughters were born in PA. We almost lost them both. We lived on $3K/yr and what I could scrounge on the side—but lived well.

3. How did you become a Christian?
In the midst of my MS degree, farm work and early marriage problems, I came to know Jesus. I was an unlikely convert as a thoroughgoing Darwinian evolutionist with a self-deterministic attitude. My life changed; I saw things totally rearranged. I swam across Darwinian swamps, was drug through intellectual and heart trauma in an academic hippy, return-to-the-land, rural drug-culture to meet a little Baptist Pastor with an MS in Mathematics. I struggled hard, but found myself on my knees in an upstairs “prayer closet”, yes Puritans really had prayer closets complete with a kneeling pew! My life changed, my hard core swear words caught in my throat, and I experience heart wrenching confession followed by washing forgiveness. I was clean in God’s eyes…wonderful. We were baptized on July 4th, 1977 in an icy Deer Creek. We joined the Church in Starksborro, VT and attended a small group. We still visit and communicate regularly with our dear farming family friends in VT. I mark those days as some of my best, ever!

4. Describe your current vocation and why you decided to do what you are doing.
I am an entomologist, a “bug” guy. I study the most abundant and variant animal life-form on earth—both numerically and also in diversity. I research, teach and educate the public about insects, insect damage, control, disease dynamics and “management”.

I teach a large undergrad class in Intro Biology. On the first day in that class I explain that I am a “Jesus Follower.” And I explain why it is important that they know why I would tell the class that bit of “personal” belief. I point out that my worldview explains some of the things that I choose to teach, and that a committee in the U prescribes some other things as well. I explain that everyone has a way of viewing or believing. Period. After all, almost any academic subject taught cannot be covered in a single class. Therefore, teachers and professors “choose” to teach what they think is important (even if the curriculum is set by a committee---those individuals still choose from thousands and thousands of sources). Worldview and belief bias is introduced through the processes of “choosing” what to teach! I pray for “divine appointments”, and I try to serve Him faithfully.

5. What are some of the blessings of your vocation?
Access to young minds. Washington D.C, policy work. Spring, summer and fall outdoors doing research and helping food producers. Graduate students! A campus environment with many young people to interact with. Global travel opportunities. A challenging, learning and contentious environment.

6. What are some of the challenges?
A contentious environment with some discrimination against Jesus followers, particularly in biology. Always striving to be current in my field. The “Funding & Publication Treadmill”. Ordering my personal world after my Lord’s teachings and example.

7. How is your commitment to Christ challenged, strengthened, and exercised in your vocation?
By disclosing my belief, I often have to “defend” my faith and this leads one to the Word and to his knees. Therefore, I have worked on my faith articulation, and my knowledge of other worldview positions. I also attempt to remain “current” on what the atheist leaders in my field are saying in order to remain relevant and ready to address or attempt to refute their structures and arguments.

8. How has your life and/or vocation been affected by the downturn in the economy?
Remaining “funded” is increasingly difficult, and relevance as a researcher in an academic institution today depends on your granting ability. Public research $ are declining, although my area for many practical reasons has a real “applied” side to it. Therefore, because significant diseases like malaria (which kills far more people than AIDs annually), stored food destruction (approaching 50% globally), crop destruction (increasing) and invasive species (outbreaks) due to travel and global trade remain very high and increasing priorities in the public’s funding eye.

9. What is one thing you know now that you wish you knew when you were younger?
Humility.

10. Any good books you are currently reading or would recommend to others?
Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from it Cultural Captivity by Nancy Pearcey

Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview by Al Wolters

The Dawkins Delusion? by McGrath and McGrath

Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer by J. Oswald Sanders;

The Galileo Connection by Charles E. Hummel

Botanical Medicine in Clinical Practice by Watson and Preedy

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism by Michael Behe

The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretentions by David Berlinski

Evolution, A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton (the book that started it all for me).

The sky was aglow with the sun’s descent and the travelers stood at the mouth of the Caves.

Then Sincerity spoke up. “The view into the western horizon is simply breathtaking.” And she was right. Even Evangelist agreed that they were witnessing a stunning sunset. “Soon the stars will be out and the night sky will be alive with constellations.”

“But more than the stars will come out my friend,” offered Evangelist. “Come Sincerity, the others are waiting.”

“I don’t see what could possibly be of trouble out here. My companions will be the moon and stars and maybe a comet if I’m lucky. I’ll make my bed right here.” Sincerity cleared a patch of ground with her foot.

Evangelist was insistent. “Believe me. You won’t be safe unless you hide in the cleft of rock with the rest of us.”

“Look, I don’t care where you sleep Evangelist, but I am sleeping here. I have no doubt that I will rest well and be safe,” insisted Sincerity.

“What if you are mistaken?”

“There’s no mistake in sleeping under the stars, I’m quite sure of that. Enjoy the Caves. I’ll be fine. Don’t worry about me. Now, please, go take your rest with the others.”

Evangelist couldn’t afford to argue any longer. Sunlight had given away to moonlight and he needed shelter. Although Evangelist knew that those already cleared for entry into the Great City would certainly make it there, he couldn’t help but mourn the loss of so good a traveler. (Evangelist never knew for sure who had been granted citizenship in the City, but all her citizens arrived and no one who arrived had ever been turned away.) Evangelist was understandably upset, but the others, fast asleep, were too tired to notice.

A Very Good Morning (Perhaps)
“Good morning,” Evangelist chirped, displaying a cheerier countenance after a short but splendid sleep in the Caves of Rest. “We are almost there! The Pearl of Greatest Price is just though the other side of this cave.”

“I’ll believe it when I see it,” Skeptic muttered to himself.

“And what about the Rocks?” queried Civil Religion from his makeshift pillow.

“The Rocks of Offense can be dangerous, Civil Religion. But follow me and you will be safe,” Evangelist assured. “Now let’s get going. Time to get up. Rise and shine.”

“Rise and shine?” Intellect was confused. “I can’t see a thing. What happened to the sun?”

Nothing had happened to the sun, of course. It was hanging in the sky like the morning before, bright and brilliant. But they were in a cave after all, and it was dark as night. In fact, no one (except Evangelist) had noticed that even before the sun went down the previous night, inside the Caves had been pitch black.

“Trust me,” said Evangelist. “The darkness will only be a temporary part of the journey. If you just follow me to the other side of the Caves soon you will be walking in the light.”

“How will I know where to go if I can’t see?”

“You must believe my word, Intellect. You have been valuable to our trip. Don’t hesitate now. Have faith beyond what you can see.”

“I can’t go, Evangelist. I can’t. I won’t. I would rather stay here in the darkness. I know what is right here, my pack and my bag. I know this spot, but without my sight I don’t know what is front of me.”

And so Intellect took a seat on the ground, more content to sit in the darkness than trust Evangelist into the light.

“Some people just can’t believe in what they can’t see,” offered Civil Religion. “It’s a pity.”

“We must press on,” Evangelist urged. “The Great City is expecting us today.”

Shining Like the Sun
When they reached the mouth of the Caves on the opposite side, the light streamed in, causing the pilgrims to squint down hard. True, their eyes had seen nothing but darkness for several hours, but even so, the sun seemed especially radiant.

Then, as if in a dream, the Great City suddenly burst upon them. They froze. Even Evangelist who had seen the Great City hundreds of times stood speechless. The City was adorned with rubies and emeralds and many precious stones. A rainbow surrounded the city and its streets glittered with gold. The gates to the city, ornate as they were opulent, swung wide open, beckoning any pilgrim who would come.

Then Skeptic broke the silence with an announcement. “I’m turning back.”

“What!” Chosen was shocked. “But the Great City is right before your eyes. How can you turn back now? I would gladly count all things rubbish just to walk through those gates.”

“I guess it’s nice.”

“Nice! What more could you want?”

Skeptic gathered his thoughts. “It seems so final, so absolute, this Great City.”

“It is absolute,” Evangelist added. “This is what we’ve been looking for. This is the end and the beginning. This is what is. I thought you wanted proof, Skeptic. I thought you wanted answers. Well here’s your answer. Here’s the end to all your questions.”

“I guess I like questions more than answers,” the always candid Skeptic asserted. “I enjoyed the journey, don’t get me wrong. I’m just not so sure I like the destination. I’m really more of a wanderer. I enjoy seeking more than finding I suppose.”

Civil Religion stood appalled as Skeptic walked off. “I have never seen such blatant disregard for the things of religion. Chosen and I–we will see your work is not in vain good Evangelist.”

“I pray that you will.” Evangelist sighed. “All we have left is to cross this mighty river before us. But to do so requires the Rocks of Offense.” At this Evangelist pointed to a humble series of stones poking through the surface of the water. “Who will go first? Bear in mind, the Rocks of Offense will either be your salvation or your undoing.”

“I see no other way across,” Chosen said with desperation. “I am not strong enough to swim against the current nor can I jump to the other side. The Rocks of Offense are my only hope.”

Chosen took his first tentative step onto the first small rock. He was pleasantly surprised. His foot fit firmly in place. In fact, the rock seemed grooved especially for his feet. Chosen carefully, but boldly, bounded across over the river from rock to rock. In fact, it seemed at that moment that a strong wind picked him up and blew him across. Chosen felt like he wasn’t doing a thing.

“Come on. There’s no problem,” Chosen cried halfway across the river. “It’s not your effort that will get you across. Trust me. Everything is taken care of. Come on.”

“Your turn Civil Religion,” Evangelist exhorted.

“I think I will just wade across. The water doesn’t look that deep.”

“You won’t make it!” Chosen and Evangelist were crying almost in unison. “Only the Rocks of Offense can save you.”

“But I’m strong. I’m a good man. I love my family. I work hard. I value faith. I don’t need the Rocks of Offense!” Civil Religion was uncharacteristically feisty. “It would be a scandal for someone like me to get this far and then take the easy road. I’ll make it across on my own just fine!”

But of course he didn’t. The waves and breakers swept over him and Civil Religion was washed away. Evangelist wasn’t happy with Civil Religion’s decision, but his job was too important to wallow in discouragement. Besides, there were still one with him. So he pressed on and led Chosen to the other side.

Home At Last
When Chosen made his final step there was no longer any loss or weariness, only much rejoicing. He looked around at the city, dazzling and full of life. He noticed for the first time–as if his eyes were opened to some new reality–throngs of people in the city and many more streaming to it from every direction. From every angle there were scores of pilgrims walking across the Rocks of Offense. Many more, sadly, were being swept away down the river just like Civil Religion. He saw others darting back into the forest like Skeptic. No doubt, there were countless travelers who hadn’t made it this far.

But Chosen was delighted to be home. And all were cheered by his arrival. With food and drink and loud singing, the entire City celebrated into the evening, through the night, and forever.

Whatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God. From sermons to lectures to letters to tracts to treatises to confessions to catechisms to books, his adult life was consumed with one thing: the word of God–the word as a summons to obedience, the word as a blueprint for reform, the word as the foundation for all truth.

Calvin’s confidence was not in the world of technology and progress. He would have scoffed at Bultmann’s now laughable line from several generations ago that “it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.”

Calvin’s confidence was not in man’s potential or the triumph of the human spirit. He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”

Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.

I’m all for young people dreaming big dreams. Go out and change the world. Make a difference. Discover a cure for cancer. Write a best-selling novel. Become president. But remember, your “glory” (and mine) will not last. Your great accomplishments will fall away–either in your lifetime, or in a generation, or at the end of all things.

No one will care about your GPA and SAT scores in ten years. If you win a state championship, you’ll be forgotten the next year you don’t. Your beauty will get wrinkles and trim figure plump. Write a great book and it will gather dust in a library some day. Have a big famous church, it won’t last forever. Be an important person in your field, you still be unknown to over 6 billion people in the world. Build an amazing house, it will crumble some day, if it doesn’t go into foreclosure first. All of our achievements and successes are destined to be like dead grass and faded flowers.

But...the word of our God stands forever. The word about Babylon in Isaiah 40 stood firm. and so will his word in our generation. All God’s declarations about himself and his people are true. All his promises will come to pass. Our only confidence is in the word of God. John Calvin was a man, an imperfect, sinful man, but a man that God used enormously because he put his confidence in the word of God.

We do the memory of Calvin no disservice to admit that he had weaknesses. He was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile. No one lamented his own weaknesses–physical and spiritual–more than himself. And no one understand general human weakness better than Calvin. The universe of Calvin’s thought was one where man was small and God was very big. He had no problem being thought of as dust, or a worm, or grass, because he knew that’s what he was compared to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God. In a culture like ours where everyone has their thing, their schtick, it’s worth remembering that Calvin’s thing was always the word of God and the glorious God he met there.

God’s promises are sure and his declarations are always right. Opinion polls will come and go. Focus groups can say what they want. Pundits will wax eloquent on everything under the sun. God’s word will still be true. The word is our compass pointing us in the right direction. It’s the North Star, fixed and firm. We may wander and waver, but the word will remain. It’s like a stately evergreen in a field of grass and tulips. The grass will get green. The tulips will have their day. But the evergreen alone will survive the winter. It will not be moved. Humans are weak, failing, and temporal. The word is strong, abiding, eternal.

This is one of the great paradoxes of life. We all want significance. We all want affirmation. We all want to leave a legacy. Some seek significance in work, some in performance, others in stuff, a lot of people in family. Yet, we all have a God-given sense that for all our bluster and bravado we are still grass. But we all want to bloom. So we pour our lives into degrees, and professional advancement, into ministry, and business, and houses, and kids. All the while, knowing deep down that life is fleeting and passing us by and we desperately need to take hold of something that is eternal.

This is the paradox of permanence. The only way our lives will ever touch that which is eternal is to admit that our lives are hopelessly temporal. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” You want a legacy? You want to transcend your own meager existence? Let go of your vain supposed success and grab hold of the word of our God. “This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2).

The truly significant people in this world know that God is everything and they’re nothing. Fads and fashions will rise and fall, but the word will keep on accomplishing its purposes. It will outlast us all. So let our reading, memorizing, catechizing, and preaching be saturated with the word. Let our songs, ministries and mission submit to the word. May all of our theological questions, relationship questions, family questions look to the word. May every new doctrine, new movement, new church, and new book be tested against the word. May all our living and dying be undertaken with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar (Rom. 3:4).

God's word is smarter, clearer, truer, and speaks to people's deepest needs more than you and I ever could. So try thinking a few less original thoughts and people just might find you relevant in 500 years. “A voice say, Cry out. And I said, What shall I cry? All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8).