Review: The Knowledge of the Holy - A.W. Tozer

Today I'm reviewing a book that has become a classic work on the attributes of God. A.W. Tozer wrote The Knowledge of the Holy in the early sixties with the aim to fill a gap he perceived in the church. He watched the church slide away from being a relevant influence on people's lives as the evangelical movement became splintered and riddled with inaccurate theology. So he wrote to fight that trend. In light of the modern fight for relevance within the church, one could almost say he was a man before his time, but then again such problems seem to arise in nearly every generation of the church.

This book strives to strengthen believers by responding to the church's lack of focus on the person of God. Tozer writes, "Were Christians today reading such works as those of Augustine or Anselm, a book like this would have no reason for being." He feels that the nature of the problem is one of a lack of focus: "Apparently not many Christians will wade through hundreds of pages of heavy religious matter requiring sustained concentration." Thus Tozer sets out to write a short, concise summary of some of the attributes of God in a non-technical, reader-friendly way. The strength of Tozer's writing here lies in his brevity. Tozer makes many clear, concise statements about God that explain his character well.

Besides keeping the words short and the contemplation deep, Tozer also does a good job reminding the reader not to think of God as the sum of separate parts. This is important. Sometimes we conjure an image of a god who has to conform to such and such standards, like being just or good or merciful or holy etc. But Tozer points out that when God does anything, he is just, good, merciful, and holy because he is God. When God acts, his acts are those things because when God acts he acts as Himself.

Neither does God have competing attributes. In the chapter on God's justice Tozer writes, "To think of God as we sometimes think of a court where a kindly judge, compelled by law, sentences a man to death with tears and apologies, is to think in a manner wholly unworthy of the true God. God is never at cross-purposes with Himself. No attribute of God is in conflict with another."

Tozer also leads each chapter with a prayer, asking God for the wisdom to understand the attribute at hand, thanking God for it, and requesting the grace to act in light of it. This could be one of my favorite aspects of The Knowledge of the Holy. It reminds us that good theology does not come by good studying techniques and training, but by grace through the Holy Spirit. Prayer is essential to knowing God in a way that brings us closer to him. Yet in many books on theology, there is much talk about correct prayer, and little actual talking to God. Tozer gets it right here. The Christian must pray, lest he become atheist in practice.

While The Knowledge of the Holy is a classic for good reason, I do have some things against it. One day I was reading the chapter on the goodness of God, and I felt like it was something I should focus on in Scripture, because that was where I was that week. So I turned to the back of the book where the Scripture is listed. There I found a mere two verses supporting the entire chapter of the goodness of God, and one of them was not about the goodness of God, but some other point that he quoted the verse for.

So I began to look at the other chapters, and realized very quickly that this book was really short on Scripture. I understand that this may have been purposeful, keeping with the brevity theme. But on the other hand, how does one do a study of the character of God without God's Word? All of these nice, concise statements became to me somewhat like paper houses on a movie set. They look good, but you can't live in a two-dimensional house. It would fall apart. Similarly, one could not rest in these statements, because they were not grounded in Scripture. I realized if Tozer's understanding of God's attributes were challenged, the reader would be the one to have to defend them. Because this book lacked Scripture, it also at the end of the day, lacked an enduring usefulness for me.

A smaller, but somewhat connected complaint I had with Tozer's book was his treatment of the sovereignty of God. He starts out with some great statements like, "God is said to be absolutely free because no one and no thing can hinder Him or compel Him or stop Him. He is able to do as He pleases always, everywhere, forever." But later, when he considers the problem between divine sovereignty and the will of man, he gives this as his view: "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil."

Once again, this statement is not backed by any Scripture, so the reader is left thinking, "Where or when did God decree that? How do you know God decreed that, Mr. Tozer?" It seems to be a completely arbitrary statement. And it wouldn't have been so bad if he had said "God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man, since the fall, has fulfilled that decree by choosing evil every time since "the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God" (Romans 8:7-8). That would have made more sense, and at least sent the reader to Romans for proof. But, no dice. The statement, such as it is, is how Tozer wrote it.

So overall, I give this book about an 80%. It does good on being readable, concise and driven by a desire to get God back in the church. But it lacks Scripture and is therefore sometimes theologically unstable. I would recommend it to Christians who need a fresh look at God's character (and, given enough time, that's every Christian), and to those who may not be well acquainted with who God is, providing they have someone mentoring them who can also provide the Scripture where it is lacking.

Tim Challies Reviews Twilight

Tim Challies, Christian blogger extraordinaire (the one who provided live blogging of Resolved 07) has written a review of Twilight. I'm excited about this, because now I don't have to. After reading his review (which by the way I think everyone who has read or will read Twilight should do), though I know reading a review doesn't actually count for reading the book, it seems that it contains exactly what I thought it would, and will therefore avoid it. Once again, I strongly recommend that all of my readers who are thinking "Hey, I wonder about this whole Twilight thing..." should read this review soon.

By the way, as soon as paper writing season is over, I'm planning on writing some new posts (possibly as many as 5). That's right, all new original material, not just me posting links to other posts (Lord willing and the creek don't rise).

Ok, one last plug, also from Tim Challies blog. He has started this (for lack of a better word) thing where everybody can memorize the same large chunk of scripture and encourage and hold each other accountable to it. It's appropriately called Memorizing Scripture Together. It would be cool to see a lot of people doing this. So click the above link to sign up and/or to find out the passage.

Clarifying "Desiring God" -A response to Craig Booth

In this post, I hope to help those who have not read Piper's Desiring God who have been discouraged from doing so by the claims of the books opponents. Often Piper's opponents' claims present a straw man argument, claiming Piper said what he didn't say, or defining "Christian Hedonism" in a way Piper strictly forbids. What follows are quotes from Craig Booth's article "Christian Hedonism--A Wake Up Call to the Church" and then quotes from Desiring God that directly contradict what Booth says about Christian Hedonism.
(Note: this list of quotes is nowhere close to exhaustive, and that is because I had no desire to reproduce the entirety of Desiring God's pages on my blog, as this would most assuredly lead to Carpel Tunnel, and also as my point is only to show that Piper has already answered the critics if one is willing to read what he says)

Craig Booth:

“Converts to this nouveau philosophy [Christian Hedonism] sincerely feel that the acquisition of personal pleasure (sensations of good feelings) is a higher order obligation and better pursuit than any other command or pursuit, such as pursuing love for others.”

John Piper:

“Christian Hedonism as I use the term does not mean God becomes a means to help us get worldly pleasures.”
“Our exceeding joy is He, the Lord”
“Christian Hedonism does not reduce God to a key that unlocks a treasure chest of gold and silver. Rather, it seeks to transform the heart so that “the Almighty will be your gold and your precious silver” (Job 22:25).”
“Christian Hedonism does not make a god out of pleasure. It says that one has already made a god out of whatever he finds most pleasure in (pg 24).”

Craig Booth:

“Among the most serious of the issues surrounding the "Christian Hedonism" movement is that salvation is no longer held to be fully dependent on faith in Jesus Christ alone, but also on whether a person adheres to this recently unveiled philosophy.”

John Piper:

“Conversion, then, is repentance (turning from sin and unbelief) and faith (trusting in Christ alone for salvation). They are really two sides of the same coin. One side is tails—turn tail on the fruits of unbelief. The other side is heads—head straight for Jesus and trust His promises. You can’t have the one without the other any more than you can face two ways at once or serve two masters (pg 64).”

Piper summarized the need for conversion (i.e. the gospel) in Chapter 2 pages 55 to 63 with four questions, which I will summarize here:

How have we failed?
1. God created us for His glory. (Isaiah 43:6-7)
2.Therefore, it is the duty of every person to live for the glory of God. (1 Cor 10:31)

How desperate is our condition?
3. Yet all of us have failed to glorify God as we ought. (Romans 3:23)
4. Therefore, all of us are subject to eternal condemnation by God. (Romans 6:23, 2 Thess 1:9)

What has God done to save us from his wrath?
5. Nevertheless, in His great mercy, God sent forth His Son, Jesus Christ, to save sinners by dying in their place on the cross and rising bodily from the dead. (Romans 4:25)

What must we do to be saved?
6. The benefits purchased by the death of Christ belong to those who repent and trust in Him. (Acts 3:19; 16:31)

Craig Booth:

“Hedonism makes its ambition to receive pleasure. …Love seeks to give;”
“Regarding hedonism, this is perhaps the single most important understanding one can take away. Hedonism seeks to get pleasure for itself.”

John Piper:

“Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when we seek Him out of self-interest. A patient is not greater than his physician (pg 24).”

“Someone might object that in making the joy of worship an end in itself, we make God a means to our end rather than our being a means to His end. Thus, we seem to elevate ourselves above God. But consider this question: Which glorifies God more—that is, which reflects back to God more clearly the greatness of His glory—(1) a worship experience that comes to climax with joy in the wonder of God? Or (2) an experience that comes to climax in a noble attempt to free itself from rapture in order to make a contribution to the goal of God?
“This is a subtle thing. We strive against God’s all-sufficient glory if we think we can become a means to His end without making joy in Him our end. Christian Hedonism does not put us above God when it makes the joy of worship its goal. It is precisely in confessing our frustrated, hopeless condition without Him that we honor Him. A patient is not greater than his doctor because he longs to be made well. A child is not greater than his father when he wants the fun of playing with him.
“ On the contrary, the one who actually set himself above God is the person who presumes to come to God to give rather than get. With a pretense of self-denial, he positions himself as God’s benefactor—as if the world and all it contains were not already God’s (Psalm 50:12)!
“No, the hedonistic approach to God in worship is the only humble approach because it is the only one that comes with empty hands (pg 95).”

In Chapter 4 Piper defines the nature of genuine love through the Macedonian eagerness to give the poor saints in Jerusalem in 2 Cor 8:1-4, defending the statement “Love is the overflow of joy in God.” Piper goes verse by verse in his argumentation from page 118 to page 120.
Here’s a quick summary:

“First, it [genuine love] is a work of divine grace …
Second, this experience of God’s grace filled the Macedonians with joy…
Third, their joy in God’s grace overflowed in generosity to meet the needs of others…
Fourth, the Macedonians begged for the opportunity to sacrifice their meager possessions for the saints in Jerusalem… They wanted to give. It was their joy! (pg 118-119)”

That is all for now. I may decide to post more on this topic. I hope that all will give Piper a fair hearing of what he argues from Scripture, and only after seeing and meditating on his argumentation decide to accept or reject it. Only let the clear teaching of the Word of God stand.

10/14/08 - Ok, I found another quote from another article by Craig Booth that raised my ire.

Craig Booth:

"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him."

Dr. John Piper, author of Desiring God--Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, wrote this creed (page 50) and now uses it on some of his published material much as one would use a logo or a motto.

Having a logo or a motto is of no concern. But in recent years many pastors and churches have adopted this expression in much the same way a doctrinal creed is embraced. The problem? This creed is not biblical, it is not scriptural, it is not traditional, in fact, it is not even logical. It is nothing more than a newly invented precept of men. (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:7)

This is a bad argument. Booth says that it is not logical to say that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." Booth says that statement is not true. Apparently, he believes "God is not most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." May I present a little bit of logic here, since Booth is concerned about being logical?
Let's turn Piper's statement into an if-then:

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is most glorified in us.

Booth disagrees with this, that is he believes the premise (IF) does not lead to the conclusion (THEN). This can also be written as an if-then.

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is not most glorified in us.

In if then statements it can be shown that if you exchange the IF for the THEN and negate them both, the statement is still true.
Thus:

IF There is a hurricane
THEN School is closed

is the same as:

IF School is not closed
THEN There is not a hurricane

Let's apply this principle then to the above statement:

IF We are most satisfied in Him
THEN God is not most glorified in us

is logically the same as:

IF God is most glorified in us
THEN We are not most satisfied in Him

That is to say that if you believe that the statement "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" is not true, you must logically believe then that "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in anything other than Him," which is utterly ridiculous.

The Essence of Christian Counseling (linked post)

Once again, Dan Philips has written a blog that I consider greatly informative and thought provoking, and I wanted to share it with my readers. Dan writes about what marital counseling should be based on, and in so doing finds the essence of all Christian counseling.
And now, coming to you in original format, here's..... Dan's post!!!

Sin and Sensitivity

The enormous amount of evil we can see (or hear) in one day is a bit of a modern phenomenon unlike anything in the time before electronic communication. Turn on the news and you'll see poverty, violence, murder, and corruption. Watch a comedy routine or a sitcom and you'll likely hear ungodliness glorified and God's name dishonored. We experience all these things on a daily basis.

Here's my concern: What's our reaction to it? I fear that far too often my own natural reaction is the same as that of many in the church. We harden our hearts to it, and become desensitized. "Sure, that movie had two sex scenes and dragged God's name through the dirt for two hours. Sure it depicted violence and misery where evil often triumphed over good," we say, "but it was a pretty good piece of film and you should go see it." Obviously film is just one example of the pattern of desensitization that extends into most parts of our lives.

But what should our reaction be? Hear what David says in Psalm 119:136: "My eyes shed streams of tears, because people do not keep your law." What an incredible statement of sensitivity! Oh that we would go to God in humility and beg for such sensitivity to sin. Lord, help me to never look down my nose at society, but to be broken as Your heart is over people's denial of You. Help me to see the places in my life where sin is and to be broken over my sin as well. Soften our hearts and change us to be more like Your Son, who wept over the city of Jerusalem. Put sorrow in our hearts where indifference once was, and magnify Your name in it.

Unity: Desirable, Possible, and Something to Fight For

I am honestly sorry for how incredibly long this post is. I hope that you will take the time to read it and find it edifying, as I do believe the subject matter is worth the time it takes to read.

Tonight I went to a praise and worship service and the focus was unity. For the record, I believe worship happened and that God was honored tonight. Desiring God's people to worship together and then providing a place for that to happen is an awesome thing to initiate for God's glory.

I can say now, by the grace of God, that I have become passionate about the unity of the church. This is owing to the study of Ephesians (and to some extent, in Philippians), and generally God changing my heart. If you had brought up the subject of unity to me a year or more ago, my attitude (to my shame) would probably have been general deflection or disinterest. God has changed that (He did, because I had no particular desire to) and I think that the desire for unity is a godly one.

And that's why I hate the ecumenical movement. This may sound contradictory, so I'll explain. The ecumenical movement tries to bring together people by moving any divisive thing out of the way. So basically the only thing one has to believe to be in the ecumenical movement is to believe there is a God, and generally this God must be the God of the Bible. However some ecumenicals would argue that any belief in a god is a belief in the God. It is a movement with unity at its center that then tries to orbit God and his Word around that central focus.

Forget that. Jesus Christ had nothing to do with that kind of unity. I could go many places in His Word to demonstrate that, but for the sake of brevity (which I realize probably won't be characteristic of this post), I will only point to the fact that he made no attempt to unify with the religious leaders of his day (who "believed in the God of the Bible") but instead called them to repentance. I also point to Matthew 10:34-42.

Christianity divides, simply because the fact that God opens some people's eyes to see the light of the glory of Christ (2 Cor 4:6) but to others the gospel is veiled (2 Cor 4:3-4). This will naturally divide us (by us, I mean human beings). The thing is many perishing people to whom the gospel is veiled are "religious" people (see the "many" in Matt 7:22, and the seeds that "immediately spring up" Matt 13:5-6, 20-21). Should we then be unified with them because of their religious claim? By no means! When people try to unify the church for unity's sake itself, disunity is the result. In short the ecumenical movement is doing the opposite of its intention. More on this later.

Should we then just give up on unity altogether and huddle in our small groups and our comfort zones and allow fellowship to suffer? By no means! Doctrine should not be sacrificed for unity, but unity should not therefore be left out of the picture. For if we have good doctrine and an understanding of God's Word, we cannot miss the call to be unified:

Eph 2:22 "In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit."

Eph 4:1-6 "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Phil 1: 27 "Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,

Phil 2:1-2 "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

I'd like to point out that here's a bit of where my interpretation comes in. This part is my opinion, because the Word of God doesn't really address it: I believe the splintering of the church into different denominations is displeasing to God. I don't see anything (properly) dividing the early church other than mere distance. People in Ephesus went to the church in Ephesus. They didn't go to the one in Philippi, because it was too far to walk. But all the believers in Ephesus fellowshipped together. Why then is it that there are multiple "churches" per street in Pinellas County? Should there not just be "the believers in Clearwater" fellowshipping together, or "the believers in Largo" or Tarpon Springs, or whatever your city may be?

I think this kind of fellowship is the "unity" that is commanded in Scripture. Unity in the "local" body of Christians. "Local" qualifies that the Christians are generally in the same location. The body is divided by nothing but distance. If the body is divided by something else, it is not the body. The people we are divided from by the Word of God are people who do not value Christ as their treasure, and therefore are not part of the "body."

However you happen to view it, the command for unity is present and clear. But so then is the truth that God's Word will divide people. But here's the clincher: God's Word not only divides, it also unites. How? By a common devotion to the Word of God as sufficient for our Christian walk and in life in every way. I see this idea in Acts 2:41-42:

So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Notice first who was unified: "those who received his word." This should be self-explanatory: Those who are not Christians have no part of Christian unity. What was "his word?" This (in summary) :

"Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified. Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36,38)"

What then is the means of unification? I believe verse 42 of Acts 2 holds the key: "They devoted themselves to apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers." The key to unity is the Word of God, and a sincere belief , like that of the early Christians, that the Word of God was sufficient for their lives. In other words, they believed in the truth of Scripture, because an errant word is not a sufficient word. And they also believed in the clarity of Scripture, because an unknowable word is also not a sufficient word.

It is this core belief that should drive us together in unity. The Word of God is what we are to meditate on, the Word of God is what we should talk about in fellowship, it is the Word of God that instructs and informs our prayers to God. It is in the Word of God where we find out about who God is and how to serve Him and how to worship Him. If we, by God's grace, submit ourselves to God's word in a spirit of humility and teachability we should find that we can worship with others who have the same attitude.

What about theological differences? What a great reason to delve deeper into the Word of God! Having theological differences is true even in a body of two believers, so it is no excuse for disunity. Differences should not be ignored but discussed, but all based in the Word of God, not in man's reasoning. We may even find ourselves resolving differences based on a accurate understanding of God's Word.

As Christian unity comes by affirming God's Word, conversely disunity comes from a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. This is why the ecumenical movement doesn't work. But when Christians from all different theological backgrounds are changed by the Word of God in their lives and become more like Christ, we should all become more unified to each other as well.

Eph 2:19-22: So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

This may sound a little bit too Utopian to some. Indeed it is Utopian, for the church will only be perfectly unified in Heaven. But it can also be said that the eradication of sin in the life of the believer will only be accomplished on the other side of death's door. Will that then keep the believer from pursuing holiness in his life? It better not! And far be it from us to say "Well unity just seems like a far off dream" and then fail to pursue it, and disobey God's command.

I can already hear someone saying, "Are you then advocating we all meet in one building and sit under one pastor, and if you are then what pastor and what about this and..." The answer to probably most of those questions is I don't know yet. But that does not mean I give up on unity. To give up on unity just because it is a hard thing to achieve (or to try to achieve it apart from the Word of God) is not honoring to God. So for the questions I don't know how to answer, I continue to pray to God for wisdom and ask other people of kindred spirit to join with me in considering these things. But for the things I do know how to do, I should try to start them right now. Beginning with fellowship between believers (in the church you attend on Sunday and otherwise). Join me please in this endeavor.

Even fellowship and unity with in our own church would be a huge thing to strive for. But if it is God's desire that we be unified (and it is) and if Christ has ultimately won the war over the sin of disunity (and He has) and if we have the Spirit of God within us to give us the ability to battle against disunity (and believers do) then unity is desirable, possible, and something to fight for.

For this reason I bow my knees before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that according to the riches of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith—that you, being rooted and grounded in love, may have strength to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Now to him who is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen. (Eph 3:14-21)

Transformation and Renewal, Not Conformity.

Lately I've been thinking about my everyday life, and the everyday life of the average American Christian. And here's what I've seen: we love our culture too much. Not in the true sense of love though, that would seek to drive our culture to God. But rather in the sense that popular culture has said to the Christian, "Come, sit down. Watch this show. Make some money. Be prosperous. Get comfortable." And we have done so. Though we may disdain the teaching of the "prosperity gospel," which seeks to make God's message and the culture's message harmonious, we do not however disdain the places in our lives where our aim is comfort above and against God's glory.

Maybe I could provide some examples. Example number one will be familiar to those readers who have seen Dan's blog on modesty. Who told girls that their clothes had to attract guys (like a UV lamp attracts bugs)? It was our culture, not the Word of God, and when we shop (notice the "we," guys often shop with the same motives as girls do) to glorify ourselves instead of buying our clothes to the glory of God, we become no different than those who aren't saved.

But let's not just stop there. How about entertainment? Modern American society rivals the ancient Roman society (which at times had non-stop games for months) in its love for entertainment. Oh, how often do we compromise godly virtues for a moment of entertainment! How often have I watched something inappropriate in the name of comedy! Friends, do we really think that we can continue to drink in all the violence, selfishness and lust that our culture seeks to "entertain" us with and be unaffected by it? Did Jesus Christ ever command us to watch something solely because we found it entertaining or humorous? Why then do we seek our own amusement with more vigor than we seek to minister to the church, or to evangelize those "among whom" we are to "shine as lights (Phil 2:15)?"

I'm not advocating monasticism here. I realize the desire to be "in the world, not of the world" is a good desire. Christ prayed "I do not ask that you [God the Father] take them out of the world (Jn 17:15)." I acknowledge that. No one should necessarily throw their TV in the garbage and go live in the desert somewhere with just their Bible. That's clear.

However I don't believe that's the temptation for the American believer. We've all heard the phrase "being too heavenly minded to be any earthly good." Though I have never seen one person with that problem, I have seen scores of Christians (including the one in the mirror) who are often too earthly minded to be any earthly good.

In fact, I would venture so far as to say if we are not "heavenly minded" we won't be "any earthly good." What good is a Christian that is drenched in American culture? About as much good as red dye is in cherry Kool-Aid®. What do we have to offer a culture that we're no different from? We can't offer them the God who gives ultimate joy if our highest joy is no different than theirs.

Jonathan Edwards would seem to agree. His twenty-second resolution reads:

Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness in the other world as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

As he lived out this resolution (and the others) in his life, he in turn affected the world in which he lived. Edwards became one of the driving forces in the Great Awakening, a period of spiritual revival in early America. Moreover, these words, written by 19 year old Edwards, continue to be of "earthly good" over 200 years after he wrote them.

But we shouldn't think of Edwards as extra-spiritual. He was merely following Biblical commands.

1 John 2:15 "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him."
Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The difference between transformation and conformity is "the renewal of your mind." I can't renew my mind if I'm feeding it the same things I did when I was still dead in sin. The 1st century Jewish believers couldn't have renewed their minds if they had stayed under the works-based teaching and culture of the Pharisees. The Ephesian believers couldn't have renewed their minds if they had kept their books of magic, or (if they had had them) their subscriptions to the monthly magic magazines. How then do we expect to renew our minds if our time in front of the TV is more substantial then our time in the presence of our Father in heaven, through prayer and reading His Word?

You then should do what you need to do to be renewed. Cut out what you need to cut out. Get immersed in God-centered things that will encourage you to change. Most importantly, pray that God will show you where you compromise, and that He will empower you to make the changes in His strength. And pray for me. I'm in the thick of the same battle. I'll be praying for you in your battle as well.

Living Morally Significantly

About a week ago, I was reading the intro to Desiring God by John Piper where he talks about his path to the main thesis of the book, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." In a paragraph on our tendency to consider it unholy to be motivated to do good by a desire for happiness, I came across the following apparently benign statement:

"At the time, buying ice cream in the student center just for pleasure didn't bother me, because the moral consequences of that action seemed so insignificant (18)."

For one reason or another that sentence just leaped off of the page at me. I think it was the word "seemed." The consequences "seemed so insignificant." "Seemed" implied to me that the consequences of buying ice cream for the enjoyment of it was not morally insignificant. But how could that be? Having read Desiring God before, I considered the big picture of the book: joy in God, in and through every other joy. With this in mind, I wrote in the margin of my book, "if we found pleasure in God through small things, they would cease to be morally insignificant."

How can we make seemingly inconsequential actions meaningful? For example how can I glorify God in taking out the trash? Well that one's easy, we conform to the character of God by doing the responsible thing and by not letting things pile up. But how do we glorify God in say, changing the radio station when we hear a song we don't like? Here, I might have to borrow an old phrase from a teacher's handbook : "Answers may vary." However, for me in that case the answer was, "Changing the station is an expression of our inherent search for beauty. Ultimately God is the source of all things beautiful, and that which is beautiful is so because He is."

But why? Why shouldn't certain moments have no moral significance? Certain things are just so minute as to not even merit thought. Why should these be anything other than morally inconsequential? There are probably several reasons but I will list two:

1. To remember God. On a day to day basis, I spend hours without even giving a single thought to the Creator and Sustainer of whatever it is that I'm focusing my attention on instead of Him. Thinking through minute actions and basing them on the character of God, or my response to His character helps me to not only evaluate what I'm doing, but also worship God on a moment by moment basis.
2. Glorifying God in everyday actions is commanded.

Prov 3:6: "In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

1 Cor 10:31: "So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

Col 3:17: "And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him."

So in summary, every decision or action, big or small, whether it be anything from changing the radio station to talking to a friend to starting your to-do list, connect what you do back to the character of God and glorify Him in everything.