Let me proceed to part 2 of his book: this is going to be interesting if you know some of the names that will be mentioned here. This is sort of like behind scene story of Lloyd-Jones. 

(i) Reformed churches: Often you hear the term, “evangelicals” in the news media. For the people who’s not familiar with those terms, let me clarify. Usually, when you hear the word. “the church” usually it refers to Roman Catholic Church (well, context may refer to other churches). Then you hear the word, “evangelicals”. The media uses that word to designate whole variety of Christian churches, in contrast to “mainline” churches (”mainline” being “traditional” or “historical” churches whose roots may go back few centuries), that are united in common beliefs such as: historicity of death and resurrection of Christ, 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. But you never hear the word “Reformed”.

(ii) Reformed vs. Evangelical churches: In a sense, “Reformed” churches belong to Evangelical churches because Reformed churches affirm (doctrines) what Evangelical churches affirm. Think of it as a small circle inside of a bigger circle. But except for the very basic doctrines (which will barely qualify as historic Christian confession), two circles of Christian churches usually part their ways (we are talking about theology here). So, Reformed churches do not like to identify themselves as Evangelical (though certainly they are evangelical) churches. It’s (theology of “Evangelical” churches) just too broad. Let me give you an example: Rick Warren’s Saddleback church in Cali might be categorized as Evangelical church by media. Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church Reformed. But when you start talking about “what they believe in certain things” differences emerge (this has to do with their denominations. For example, what did Christ’s atonement accomplish? Evangelical believes Christ’s death “enabled” sinners so that when they hear the Gospel they can exercise their freewill to respond to the Gospel (unlimited atonement). Many of you may think that way. But Reformed believes Christ’s death purchased salvation for certain people (limited or definite atonement) definitely. Difference is: when Gospel is presented to Tom and Jerry, for Evangelicals (usually Methodists, Baptists, Church of Christ belong here) say God should not know who’s coming to Christ (if God knows that, He violates person’s freedom of choice). Reformed theology says: God knows Jerry is to be saved and Tom is not. God is sovereign and omniscient. Since all men are dead in sin, God has to choose, call, regenerate dead sinners. This sounds like violation of freedom of will. And it does. But final appeal should be made not to your logic but to the Bible. Bible is crystal clear in that no man’s will is “free”. Our will is “enslaved” by sin and spiritual death. Now without going into further details, I came to conclusion that Reformed churches are the churches that submit to Westminster Confession of Faith. Well, I will stop here. It’s too long and to defend the positions I must be much more clear and cogent in definitions of terms, which I cannot do here.       

(iii) New Song: What are we? We are Reformed in theology (5 point Calvinist, Paedo-Baptist: believe in infant baptism, Amillennialist (there is no literal 1000 year of Christ’s reign in Jerusalem), Van Tilian Presuppositional Apologist), but since I do not like coldness and arrogance that often characterize many “Reformed” churches, we are happy to be an evangelical church.

(iv) Lloyd-Jones: finally. Ok. Why so much other stuff? To understand 2nd half of Iain Murray’s book. In it Murray tells us something that younger generations do not know. That is, parting of 2 great British evangelical leaders. Lloyd Jones, evangelical (notice I’m not using “E”vangelical) and Reformed vs. John Stott (Anglican: Church of England and Evangelical). In opposition to liberalism (Liberal Christians don’t believe in historicity of the death and resurrection of Christ, virgin birth, nor 2nd coming: Jesus is a myth to them), Llyod-Jones led Westminster Fellowship (comprised of many evangelical pastors from different denominations), which conducted Puritan Conference. But it came to halt when Lloyd-Jones refused to acknowledge J.I. Packer (Anglican minister) as part of leadership for Puritan Conference. The Church of England’s constitution says: British Monarch is the “Head of the Church”. They may acknowledge Headship of Christ in theology but in practice as well as in constitution they don’t. So this is bothersome for many of us. Lloyd-Jones didn’t ask Anglican minsters to leave their denomination because MLJ thought they both had many good things in common. However, trouble started when J.I. Packer proceeded to support the position/policy of the Church of England (Anglican) to support Ecumenical movement (Movement for denominational unity): coalition between Church of England and Roman Catholic church. John Stott who was Anglican was supportive of fellow Anglican minister J.I. Packer (author of Knowing God). But MLJ was not. Because when “unity” is emphasized over against theology, he believed, rightly so, one stopped being a Christian. How can I unite with a church who confesses Pope is the Head of the Church, who worships Virgin Mary, who still believes in Purgatory, who prays to Saints, who believes in Justification by faith and works? But Stott and Packer thought MLJ was too narrow. MLJ thought they were not being true to Christian confession. So MLJ writes a letter (full manuscript included in the book) to one time friend and colleague of Puritan Conference to terminate partnership. The end of Puritan Conference. The behind scene stories that we didn’t know. 

(v) Reformed Militancy?: If you believe Jesus is one of the ways to heaven, you are not and cannot be saved. I went to Westminster Theological Seminary. It was founded by J Gresham Machen along with few other professors who all taught at Princeton Theological Seminary in NJ. But PTS became liberal. In Auburn Affirmation 1924, many of the professors of theology denied historic Christianity. Then Machen makes an exodus with few of comrades who “believed” in the Bible. And founded WTS. If you read his Magnum Opus, Christianity and Liberalism, he is firm: His Thesis: Liberal Christianity is altogether a different religion. If you don’t confess very basic essential doctrines such as historicity of death and resurrection of Christ, no matter what you say you believe, you are not a Christian. And many of that first generation professors at WTS wrote many “Defenses” in provocative, uncompromising, belligerent words, WTS became the center for Reformed Militancy: No compromise. And subsequent generations of WTS grads acquired nickname, “Machen’s Warrior Children”, for better or worse. I cherish that tradition. Because that tradition is rooted-grounded in the Bible. Had Jesus said, “I may be the son of God and there are many ways to heaven,” think religious leaders would have killed him? Why was Paul persecuted by Jews and finally executed by Romans? Because of the claim of exclusivity of Gospel message.

MLJ did well. He was not being militant nor narrow. He was being a Christian. Simply put.

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Regarded as the greatest 20th century expository preacher, his life is continually re-examined and re-told by countless admirers of his. That is, by the preachers. For example, C.S. Lewis and The Doctor (as Keller likes to put Lloyd-Jones) are the two most quoted people in Tim Keller’s sermons. Now, if you look at wtsbooks.com, the sheer number of new books on Calvin and Lloyd-Jones will amaze you. This tells me one thing: Calvin and Lloyd-Jones are still (Calvin after 5 centuries, MLJ after .5 century) shaping people’s lives anew (resulting from their theology) and their works are like deep well from which countless buckets of refreshing water could be drawn. Iain Murray’s (he was an assistant pastor for MLJ) newly published book, LLOYD-JONES: Messenger of Grace, caught my attention when John MacArthur recommended it recently and of course WTSbooks did it as well. Murray portrays the man from two perspectives: (i) MLJ as a preacher-evangelist and (ii) Defense of MLJ from other accusing voices in evangelical circles. What’s helpful to me in particular was the second half. But let’s not skip the first part for therein lies great treasure.

(i) MLJ as a preacher-evangelist: Not all but in key areas, I. Murray quotes or refers to MLJ’s greatest work: Preaching and Preachers. This book was given to me as a gift by my mentor, guide, friend, Casey Han when I entered into WTS. In fact, he sent me two books: P&P by MLJ and J.I. Packer’s Knowing God. How ironic! Now that I read Murray’s second half of the book (will be clearer later). Anyways, P&P left a deep dent in my soul even when I was a freshman in the seminary, where MLJ gave series of lectures at the invitation of Westminster Theological Seminary in 1971. The intention of brother Casey was obvious. He wanted me to listen to one of the greatest preachers giving “advice” to the students who will soon occupy pulpits all around the world. Even after many years of reading the book, I remember few key concepts LJ emphasized. His message to the seminarians could be summarized in these words: Before you prepare your message, you must be prepared. Now, I am well aware of the fact that the readers of this post will be my church members, most of whom will never “preach”. Why would I talk about “preaching” to the members of the church? Because before I am a preacher, I am a Christian. And You and I have one Lord and one Holy Spirit. If spiritual principle (One must be prepared as a Christian) applies to pastors, the same principle will surely apply to so-called “lay-people” (that sharp distinction between priest and laity is more or less Catholic tradition, not Protestant one). Also, knowing what takes a preacher to be ready and what his greatest concerns are will give you a better understanding of the direction of our church as well.

Backdrop against which MLJ rose to high esteem: MLJ was a minster of Westminster Chapel (in London) from 1938-1968. And when he took the pulpit, Christianity in Great Britain was already in decline. From outside Secularism was taking dominance and from inside Liberalism was destroying the church. Murray describes pulpit ethos of that time as “sentimental, moralistic, and anecdotal”. History repeats itself, indeed. Isn’t that what’s happening in our generation? Recently, I myself fell in love with a pastor in CA and would listen to his Podcasts (no not FC). At first, I was amazed at his insights, stories and ability to communicate. But now I don’t listen anymore. As moving as it is, as inspiring as it is, he does not explain the Bible verses. Actually, I tried to listen yesterday when I was on treadmill. After 20 minutes, he was still talking (yes, good and inspiring), but not explaining God’s word. So I got tired of hearing man’s talk. Power in the Truth. Truth in the Word of God. MLJ goes up to pulpit and starts to preach the judgment of God on sins. He began preaching God’s majesty and holiness. He began what’s known as “expository” preaching: pick a book from the Bible and explain God’s word verse-by-verse. Look at the result of such a ministry. His Ephesians are 8 vols. and his Romans 14 vols. To do what MLJ did on the pulpit, the preacher’s chief concern must have been [what God thinks of him] rather than [what people think of him]. After all, it is God who called him to preach His word. He wanted to be “faithful” to his God. Murray quotes him saying, “If I had depended on men for encouragement I should have been dead long ago.” It is obvious then (when he preaches expository sermons to people who are accustomed to sentimental, moralistic, anecdotal sermons) he sought God’s power when he went up to the pulpit, knowing that apart from Holy Spirit’s intervention, his own endeavor is futile. Murray summarizes MLJ’s main emphasis in preaching in one word (well, this could sum up P&P as well): Unction. The anointing of the Holy Spirit. MLJ says, “If it is true that ‘man is dead in trespasses and sins, and ruled by the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now works in the children of disobedience’ then the need is beyond all human efforts and abilities. The Spirit alone can change situations.” In Unction and the Preacher, MLJ says, “The preacher is nothing unless he is an interpreter and exegete of revelation.” Elsewhere he says, “Do you always look for and seek this unction, this anointing before preaching? Has this been your greatest concern?” ” To pray for the Spirit, without living and ‘walking’ in the Spirit, is to treat being a preacher as more important than being a Christian.” “it is a Person, not power, we are to seek.”

I hope you see insights applicable to your lives as well. I as a pastor of New Song see my job as to interpret and exegete the word of God, as faithfully as I can. My responsibility is much more than that but it starts from there. That’s why we are learning God’s word one verse at a time. If MLJ sought the anointing of the Holy Spirit, I need (not want) that anointing 70 times more than he. Something that you can pray for as I pray for you. Also, given the situation of New Song, we need to seek His divine intervention with one heart, mind, and spirit. Where else can we turn? To whom can we turn? Nothing and Nobody. But Him.

Deut 4:29 you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul.

Part 2 to be cont’d

I had a blast: good food, game, prize, and prayer meeting, like good old days.

We have a meeting @ 12pm, my house, giving 1/10 of the first day of 2009 to the Lord.

• Bring your Bibles.
• If you want to participate in gift exchange (something we didn’t do on Christmas eve), bring a gift ($15-20). *At YG’s request, no books/Bibles, plz. 
• Word, Prayer, Food, Fellowship.

Spent some time with my family (and with extended fam) today. First time visiting, doing winter recreation in one of the most spiritual places in the East Coast (most of our church retreats were held in those holy mountains). But anyways. See few more pics from Snow Tubing.

• PS 94 will remain open on Sunday morning no matter how much it snows (head custodian will in fact be at school starting 8 am incase it snows on Saturday or early Sunday morning)
• New Song Church, therefore, will have worship service on Sundays at 11am no matter what.

(i) Context: There was a nice, sleek, new car passing by. He says:

“Wow, that’s hot. I’m gonna finance that baby!”

(ii) Context: we were talking about how we were aging and now couldn’t eat as much. He says:

“I couldn’t even finish Big Mac yesterday. I used to eat 3-4 of them like nothing.” We said,”true”. If you know him, actually you will worry about him for what he said. “You couldn’t even finish Big Mac! That’s some serious aging sign.” Few more conversations back and forth. We realized what he really meant was: “I couldn’t finish all the fries and drink of the Big Mac Meal!” Yes. He sure finished little Big Mac.

(iii) Context: I was talking about my new account with Captial X. He screams:

“I hate Captial X!!” I asked, “why? something wrong with the service?” “I just hate it!” He said it with much disgust. And a brother who were listening said, “Dude, it’s not Capital X’s fault that you didn’t make credit card payments.” Yes. He had a reason to “hate” Capital X.

*Thanks for your unusual perspective! You make us laugh all the time. I know 08 was toughest year for you and fam. But I’m praying for you.

When an array of most distinguished names of conservative preachers/theologians is displayed and the volume appears in WTSbooks.com (since they do pre-screening), I usually purchase one. This time the book was Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching. The contributors include: Beeke, Boice, Ferguson, MacArthur, Mohler, Piper, Sproul and so on. And since this was re-publication of 1st edition in 2001, I thought the book was worth reading. Not at all. In the first chapter, I noticed the chapters weren’t long. Long does not mean good. But some were unusually short. And from the style, I realize this is a publication of sermons/lectures once delivered on church or conference settings. I once was fooled by such a publication: Preaching the Cross by the Crossway pub. Conference messages were written down word for word and was published as a book. This is not a new thing. And I do understand the intention of making it into a written format to preserve valuable lessons for coming generations. But to me it’s very unpleasant experience.

First, the manuscript written for a speech is very different from the one written for publication in its purpose and in its depth. When you write a message for lecture, you expect the maximum impact of the message from “listening” and not from “reading”. And they use their voices, illustrations, jokes to make their cases. But stripped of all those, what you have is skeleton of their messages. Yes, from time to time, such lectures do bring out in-depth materials and are worthy of publication as a book such as Lloyd-Jones’ “Preaching and Preachers,” a series of lectures delivered at WTS. But John MacArthur’s chapter in this book has only 8 pages! This I think of it as marketing tactic; include the big name as a contributor. But 8 total pages? Very disappointing. 

One comfort though: Albert Mohler’s chapter (his chapter is provide as sample on wtsbooks.com; and I read half of that chapter and decided to buy the book) encouraged me greatly. So, if you are thinking about buying the book (if you are a Reformed pastor), my suggestion is just to read Mohler’s chapter in PDF format.

Last week, as I was studying the passage in original language, I’ve noticed somewhat odd English translation of 1:13. ESV says: “it has become known…my imprisonment is for Christ.” And the eyebrow raiser was the word “for.” In Greek, that simple preposition is almost invariably translated as “in.” If anybody knows Greek, he/she knows that little word. So I began comparing English translations. And the version that came closest to the original Greek was: KJV. It reads: “So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places”. Now, why is that important? 

In NIV, NASB, ESV, it “can” give an impression to the reader that Paul is saying I’m in prison “for” Christ’s cause. I’ve done much “for” Christ and in result I’m in chains, giving some credit to his own work. Though certainly that is true, that is not what Paul is saying.

In Greek and KJV, Paul is saying, I’m in chains because “I’m in Christ.” Not for what I’ve done. Not because I have done Christ’s work. But because I’m in union with Christ. Paul does not hint at any human accomplishments. In a way he is saying, I am in prison because I was simply being a Christian. 

Humility. Absolute humility. His love for Christ. That’s what can be shown in KJV translation of the Greek. And Philippians 1:13, I believe, can be better understood in Paul’s own language in another place. 1 Cor.15:10: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Read Phil.1:12-18 in light of these, Paul decreases and Jesus Christ increases. All for the glory and praise of God. I hope we can have the same attitude as we serve Jesus Christ together.

His peace and grace to all of you: New Song celebrating her 1st Christmas (soon).