Our staff team at the church was looking at Colossians 2:6-15 this morning, the passage our pastor will preach on this coming Sunday, and we found something very intriguing. He likes to use the English Standard Version, and this is what Colossians 2:13-14 says in that translation:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

Now look at how the New International Version translates those two verses:

When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

That really is quite a difference. The ESV emphasizes the atonement, particularly stressing penal substitution, while the NIV presents Christ as the head of the new covenant, delivering us from bondage to the law by fulfilling its demands.

How do we account for the difference? The ESV is more literal—in the original Greek, χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν, the phrase in verse 14 that is translated as "record of debt" and "legal demands" gives the idea of something like a signed certificate of indebtedness to a set of decrees (cf. Zerwick). However, the ESV is not as clear as the NIV is on what we are indebted to, the NIV making it much more clear that it our indebtedness is to the Law (written code, regulations).

What do you think (especially you Greek scholars out there)? Why do you think the translators of the NIV opted for a less literal, more covenantally-focused interpretation?

Loading mentions Retweet

Several times here I have spoken of the need for unity in the church. It is something so frequently spoken of, but so rarely acted upon. Richard Baxter, in The Reformed Pastor, makes mention of this need for unity as well. Below, at length, is a forceful critique of those who actively sow disunity in the church:

Of the multitude that say they are of the catholic Church, it is rare to meet with men of a catholic spirit. Men have not a universal consideration of, and respect to, the whole Church, but look upon their own party as it it were the whole. If there be some called Lutherans, some Calvinists, some subordinate divisions among these, and so of other parties among us, most of them will pray hard for the prosperity of their party, and rejoice and give thanks when it goes well with them; but if any other party suffer, they little regard it, as if it were no loss at all to the Church. If it be the smallest parcel that possesseth not many nations, no, nor cities on earth, they are ready to carry it, as if they were the whole Church, and as if it went well with the Church when it goes well with them. We cry down the Pope as Antichrist, for including the Church in the Romish pale, and no doubt but it is abominable schism: but, alas! how many do imitate them too far, while they reprove them! And as the Papists foist the word Roman into their creed, and turn the catholic Church into the Roman Catholic church, as if there were no other catholics, and the Church were of no larger extent, so is it with many others as to their several parties. Some will have it to be the Lutheran catholic church, and some the Reformed catholic church; some the Anabaptist catholic church, and so of some others. And if they differ not among themselves, they are little troubled at differing from others, though it be from almost all the Christian world. The peace of their party they take for the peace of the Church. No wonder, therefore, if they carry it no further.

How rare it is to meet with a man that smarteth or bleedeth with the Church's wounds, or sensibly taketh them to heart as his own, or that ever had solicitous thoughts of a cure! No; but almost every party thinks that the happiness of the rest consisteth in turning to them; and because they be not of their mind, they cry, Down with them! and are glad to hear of their fall, as thinking that is the way to the Church's rising, that is, their own. How few are there who understand that true state of controversies between the several parties; or that ever well discerned how many of them are but verbal, and how many are real! And if those that understand it do, in order to right information and accomodation, disclose it to others, it is taken as an extenuation of their error, and as a carnal compliance with them in their sin. Few men grow zealous for peace till they grow old, or have much experience of men's spirits and principles, and see better the true state of the Church, and the several differences, than they did before...

Nay, commonly it bringeth a man under suspicion either of favouring some heresy or abating his zeal, if he do but attempt a pacificatory work. As if there were no zeal necessary for the great fundamental verities of the Church's unity and peace, but only for parties, and some particular truths.

And a great advantage the devil hath got this way, by employing his own agents...by which means the motion for peace, is presently under suspicion of being one that hath need of it for an indulgence to his own errors. (157-159)

Baxter continues to go for several more pages about this. We cannot deny how terribly we have failed in this matter. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have mercy on us, that we may be one as you are one.

Loading mentions Retweet

Things have been silent here for a little while as I've been busy with a few side projects that have taken up quite a bit of time. One of the more interesting things I am now doing is functioning as the worship director for our church, which, consequently, gives me a lot of opportunity to think more practically about some of the issues I raised here a few weeks ago regarding worship. About a month ago, we installed a new pastor at our church, and it's been great to talk with him about these things and bounce ideas back and forth.

On Monday I start a new job working as a transporter for Hertz. The job simply entails moving cars between the five or six locations Hertz has in the Orlando area. It should be fun (especially for a gearhead like me), and I'm grateful that they were willing to take me on temporarily until we move.

Speaking of the move, no news has come out of England yet regarding our visas, but we continue to pray that we'll hear something soon. We just want to get over there, and each day we admittedly get a little more impatient as we wait for some indication of how things are progressing. I think the prayers of our church family here are proving effective—they repeatedly tell us that they are praying for England to fall into the sea or something like that so we will stay here with them. All joking aside, though, we continue to ask for your prayers that things might fall into place soon.

In the meantime, we are slowly beginning to make preparations. We've been selling a few things, and starting to pack up some nonessentials just so that when the time comes for us to get everything ready, we'll have had a head start.

As I get settled into my new routine this coming week, I'll hopefully have a few new posts for the blog. One or two are already half-written, so it's just a matter of finishing them up. Thanks for checking in.

Loading mentions Retweet

We have just begun to read John Stott's little book, The Living Church, together as a staff team at our church. In the first chapter, he writes about some of the defining marks of the early church as recorded in Acts 2:42-47, one of which was a strong committment to evangelism.

The fervor the early church manifested in fulfilling its mission to be witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ is no secret, and Stott highlights the fact that the Lord blessed their efforts by "adding to their number daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47). He notes that "those early Christians did not regard evangelism as an occasional activity...[but] their witness was as continuous as their worship" (32).

Part of the reason they devoted themselves wholeheartedly to this task was because they had this eager expectation that the Spirit was actively at work drawing people to himself and believed that they were his instruments to gather the people of God from every nation, tribe, and language. They were animated by the conviction that if they faithfully proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ, they would see their efforts bearing fruit by the power of the Spirit.

In the West as we continue to witness the rapid decline of Christianity, it is easy to lose hope in ever seeing this kind of result in our day. And our disillusionment plays a part in leading us to neglect our call to bear witness to the risen Lord. We also lose confidence in work of the Spirit, and in some instances, may even be tempted to think that the Spirit has left the church. As a result, we turn to devising all kinds of plans and methods and programs to get people to come into our churches, and hope that in the process, the Spirit comes back.

But the Spirit already came at Pentecost, and the reality is that he has not left the church! We can rejoice in this truth, and root ourselves in the knowledge that he is always with us. Jesus promised in Matthew 16:18 that he will build his church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. We are living in a time where most of his work to build his church seems to be going on in other parts of the world, but the staggering growth of the church around the world alone should remind us how amazing the work of the Spirit can be.

Let us recover the eager expectation that characterized the early church and pray that God would work powerfully through us to gather his people to himself.

Loading mentions Retweet

Abraham Sangha, one of the contributors for the blog, The Institute, mentioned in his most recent post that he was once asked how you would tweet the gospel, to which he quickly replied, "You don't." I'm inclined to agree with him.

In recent months, I've noticed that some people involved in church ministry have increasingly been using Twitter as a platform for talking – though perhaps it would be better to call it preaching – about the gospel, in some cases almost exclusively (I'll attribute it to mere coincidence that this started to happen with more regularity once John Piper started tweeting). Below, I pulled a sample of some of these tweets so you could see what I'm talking about:

Reading the sample tweets I've posted above, there were a few things that came to mind. First, while I don't disagree with anything said above (although I might word them differently), these short tweets are lacking context. Now, in the case of the persons who tweeted these things, the vast majority of their followers will be Christians, with many likely coming from a similar tradition of the Twitter user and able to supply the needed context. In one sense, then, they are preaching to the choir. But perhaps one of their followers is in a place where they need to hear one of these messages, and are encouraged by it.

However, if you have people following you who are not Christians, none of this will likely make any sense to them. And though having followers who aren't Christians shouldn't stop you from tweeting thoughts that resonate with you or inspire you, it is worthwhile to consider your audience and the medium of the message. One other thing bearing consideration is the nature of social media relationships – is there some semblance of a personal relationship when following someone on Twitter such that you are sharing the gospel in the context of relationship, or is tweeting the gospel a 21st century varient of tract evangelism?

Secondly, these types of tweets seem to restrict the gospel message to the singular idea that we are saved by God's grace apart from anything we can do. While this is entirely true and was one of the major themes of the message Jesus came to proclaim, is this all the gospel is about? What about Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom of God? The presentations of the gospel that come out of this recent Twitter trend seems to focus solely on personal salvation and individual piety. Again, while these are parts of the gospel, it is not the whole message. Is it a good practice to present bits and pieces of the gospel 140 characters at a time?

At any rate, I am probably reading too much into it this, and could just be missing the point. These are just some of my initial reactions to this increasing trend of tweeting the gospel. What do you think? If you like to tweet the gospel, why do you do so? Can you really present the gospel in 140 characters?

Loading mentions Retweet