Blog

Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 19, Session 3: Jesus, the Deliverer, Is Born

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 19, Session 2: John, the Herald, Is Born

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 19, Session 1: Jesus Is the Last Adam

“Who can even begin to appreciate what this royal marriage means? Who can comprehend the riches of this glorious grace? Christ, the rich and divine bridegroom, marries this poor, wicked whore, redeems her from all of her evil, and adorns her with all of His goodness. It now is impossible for her sins to destroy her, for they are laid on Christ and swallowed up by Him. She has her righteousness in Christ, her husband, which she now can boast is her very own. She can set this righteousness over against all of her sins and, in the face of death and hell, say with confidence: ‘Though I have sinned, nevertheless, the One in whom I trust, my Christ, has not sinned. Through our marriage, all that is His is mine and all that is mine is His.’” Martin Luther

Scripture: Luke 3:23-38; Romans 5

Dig & Discover, Bible Study Principles: https://www.leadershipresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dig-and-discover-hermeneutical-principles-booklet.pdf

Sermons:
Be Still My Soul Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/be-still-my-soul-by-northbridge-church/id1503091917

Help Me Teach the Bible: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/help-me-teach-the-bible/teach-first-last-adam/

D. A. Carson: https://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/death-through-adam-life-through-christ-romans-5-12-21

John Piper: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-fatal-disobedience-of-adam-and-the-triumphant-obedience-of-christ

Michael Kruger: https://rts.edu/resources/whos-your-representative-adam-or-jesus/
(Notes for the sermon: https://rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Sermon-Notes-Romans-L15.pdf)

Daniel Lawson: https://faithemporium.org/2019/06/14/luke-323-38/

Tom Schreiner: https://www.cliftonbaptist.org/sermons-and-audio/sermon/2010-10-24/original-sin-original-death

Mark Dever: https://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/jesus-the-son-of-adam-the-message-of-luke/

Articles:
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/jesus-last-adam/

https://www.crossway.org/articles/the-first-adam-the-last-adam-and-the-gospel/

Videos:
The Bible Project: https://youtu.be/0SVTl4Xa5fY

Paul Tripp: https://www.paultripp.com/bible-study/posts/046-romans-summary

Fill-ins:
pg 12: unbelievers, suffering, separated
pg 13: pardoned, righteousness
pg 14 (chart):
First Adam
Sin, death
Condemnation
sinners
Last Adam - Jesus
Grace, life
Justification
righteousness

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 18, Session 4: God Warns His People Through a Prophet

Scripture: Malachi

Dig & Discover, Bible Study Principles: https://www.leadershipresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dig-and-discover-hermeneutical-principles-booklet.pdf

Sermons:
Be Still My Soul Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/be-still-my-soul-by-northbridge-church/id1503091917

Nancy Guthrie: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/help-me-teach-the-bible/help-me-teach-the-bible-lee-gatiss-on-malachi/

Matt Chandler, Refining Love: https://www.tvcresources.net/resource-library/sermons/the-refining-love-of-god/

Graham Benyon: https://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/malachi-1-4-overview

Jonathan Cruse: https://www.sermonaudio.com/solo/kalamazoocpc/sermons/10122011505052/

Mark Dever: https://www.capitolhillbaptist.org/sermon/does-it-matter-how-i-worship-god-the-message-of-malachi/

Ryan Kelly: https://dscabq.com/messages/going-through-the-motions

John Piper Malachi Series: https://www.desiringgod.org/series/malachi-the-sun-of-righteousness-will-rise/messages

Beau Hughes: https://subsplash.com/+0541/lb/mi/+pm6qt4j?branding=true&embed=true

Articles:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/jared-c-wilson/malachis-place-grand-story/

TGC Intro to Malachi: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/malachi/#overview

Lee Gatiss, Malachi Notes: http://tgc-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/Malachi-Lee-Gatiss-2005.pdf

Videos:
The Bible Project: https://bibleproject.com/videos/malachi/

Paul Tripp: https://www.paultripp.com/bible-study/posts/040-malachi-summary

Fill-ins:
pg 122: work, reputation, beauty, purpose

pg 123: money, idols

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 18, Session 3: God Revives His People Through a Scribe

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 18, Session 2: God Protects His People Through a Cupbearer

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 18, Session 1: God Saves His People Through a Queen

Read More
Guest User Guest User

Love, Purpose, & True Christian Doctrine

But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 1 Timothy 1:5 (NASB)

τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς παραγγελίας ἐστὶν ἀγάπη ἐκ καθαρᾶς καρδίας καὶ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς καὶ πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, 

When a contemporary English-speaking Christian reads the New Testament, it is often the case that points of special emphasis and significance (which an ancient Greek-speaking Christian would have readily perceived) get lost in translation. This is not the fault of contemporary readers or translators as much as it is an opportunity to enrich our Bible study as we work to understand and experience the Biblical texts as the original audiences would have understood and experienced them. 1 Timothy 1:5 is a prime example of this.

In his first letter to Timothy, after Paul charges Timothy and the church to preserve true Christian doctrine (1 Timothy 1:3-4), he states in verse 5 that there is a “goal” to the work of preserving Christian doctrine. This goal is love from “a pure heart,” “a good conscience,” and “a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).

As contemporary English-speaking readers, it is easy to gloss over the word ‘goal’ in 1 Timothy 1:5. In many cases, the “goal” or “the point” of a thing (as English speakers often think of goals) can be subjective. For example, physical exercise can have many different goals, and we often consider each of them to be a matter of preference. One person’s goal in exercising might be better physical health while another’s goal is to be more physically attractive, and the goal of yet another person might be greater athletic ability or strength. With this sense of “goal” in mind, it is natural to see Paul’s use of ‘goal’ in 1 Timothy 1:5 as though maybe the goal he mentions is somewhat prone to change based on time, place, and intent.

All this to say, the English word ‘goal’ does not begin to capture the significance of the Greek word which Paul used, which is ‘telos’ (τέλος). To get into what telos means, we will give a definition that may seem pretty hard to wrap your mind around at first, but then we will give an example to help it make sense.

In the mind of a learned ancient Greek, telos is a rich and complex word which denotes the purpose, or end, of a thing’s very existence. At the same time, the purpose of that thing’s existence (the telos) also serves to define what it means to be that thing in the first place. In other words, many ancient Greek-speaking people (notably Aristotle) considered the telos (purpose, end, or “final cause”) of a thing to be crucial to understanding the real essence of a thing (the what-it-is-to-be a thing).

Here is a simple example: The purpose, or end, of a coffee mug is to hold coffee, keep it warm, and make it possible to drink the coffee. If the mug breaks, or if it has a hole in the bottom, then it can no longer achieve that purpose, and, in a sense, the mug loses its “mug-ness.” It might still have been designed to be a mug when it was first made. We might still recognize it as a mug despite its being broken, and call it mug just because it is convenient to do so. But, in reality, the broken mug no longer has the essence of a mug. It is not actually a coffee mug since it does not and cannot achieve its purpose ­­– its final cause.

When Paul uses the word telos in 1 Timothy 1:5, he is referring to the final cause, the purpose, the end, of his instruction (his charge) to Timothy to maintain the integrity of Christian doctrine.[1] In other words, Paul is not stating his own personal opinion or preference about why it is important to maintain Christian truth. He is stating the ultimate reason for why we must do so which exists and stands apart from all opinion and preference. If we fail to uphold the telos of the teaching of Christian doctrine, then we really fail to uphold Christian doctrine at all.

When Paul claims that the telos of maintaining the integrity of Christian doctrine is love, what does he have in mind? When Paul mentions “love” in 1 Timothy 1:5, Paul uses the word agape (ἀγάπη). This is the most sacrificial, deepest kind of love which one thing can have for another thing. It is the kind of love with which God loves us, and the very purpose of preserving truth is to have that kind of love spring from us – from a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith.

When we uphold Christian truth and achieve that purpose, we fulfill an essential role of being the Church. When we neglect the ultimate purpose of our preserving of truth, we are not merely neglecting a secondary, trivial end. We neglect the sole reason for which we strive to uphold true doctrine and recognize it as sacred to begin with, and anything we do as the Church becomes empty. Without love, we essentially cease to be the Church at all, no matter what words we repeat from our pews.

All of this illuminates Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 13 regarding the worthlessness of anything we as Christians do if we fail to have agape. Paul writes:

If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. (NASB) 

A Church without love is really a Church as much as a coffee mug with a big hole in the bottom is really a coffee mug. When the purpose is not realized, the real essence of the thing is lost. It is true for coffee mugs, and it is true for the body of Christ.

To avoid a potentially significant misunderstanding here, we should note that individual Christians who fail to love as they should may well retain their salvation. The entire point of salvation is that we are given grace when we fail to be what we ought to be. But that is no guarantee that the Church will not fail to actually be the Church even though its individual members retain their salvation by God’s mercy.

All of our concerns about preserving truth, all of our debates about Scriptural interpretation, and all of our deliberations on what we ought to think as Christians have one singular goal: selfless love which is entirely interested in God as the ultimate object of human affection and in the well-being of one-another, entirely for the sake of one-another. If we as the Church fail to have that love, then we have failed to really be the Church.

We have looked at some pretty high level stuff, but at the end of the day Paul’s charge to Timothy is one of the most practical messages we could wish for in Scripture. When we wake up every morning, we must intentionally commit ourselves, enabled by the renewing that comes from the Holy Spirit working within us, to the maintaining of Christian truth such that it will yield an outpouring of the love with which Christ first loved us, springing from pure hearts, clean consciences, and sincere faith.

[1] Telos can have different meanings in other contexts, but Paul’s intended meaning here is fairly straightforward. See The Expositor’s Greek New Testament by Robertson Nicoll for more on this.

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 17, Session 4: The Promise of a Coming King

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 17, Session 3: The Rebuilding of the Temple

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 17, Session 2: The Return of Exiles

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 17, Session 1: God Restores His People

Read More
Northbridge Church Northbridge Church

The Foundation of Human Society: A Christian Case for Parental Authority

by Colin J. Smothers

Colin J. Smothers serves as Executive Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and Associate Pastor of Kenwood Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. He has taught adjunctly at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where he earned his MDiv and PhD.

Parental authority is a biblical and natural concept that should be upheld by church and state alike. Any attempt to violate this parental authority apart from extreme circumstances that demand intervention on behalf of justice should be vehemently opposed in the name of Scripture and the natural order.

Most people recognize that intentionally separating a child from his parents interferes with an inviolable human bond and eviscerates a natural law that precedes any man-made law. While the postwar consensus enshrined by the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that parents have a “prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children,” it is not apparent that all member states remain in agreement. For instance, Germany’s national ban on homeschooling was recently upheld by the supranational European Court of Human Rights in Konrad v. Germany. But when a German family fled to the United States to escape such tyranny to pursue homeschooling for their children, the United States under the Obama administration opposed their asylum request.

Recently, to the alarm and consternation of many, Harvard Magazine ran an article that profiled Elizabeth Bartholet, a Harvard Law professor who is campaigning for a “presumptive ban” on homeschooling in the United States. This article ran ahead of a school-sponsored anti-homeschooling summit at the university that was subsequently canceled. In an article for the Arizona Law Review, Bartholet lists a variety of reasons why she opposes homeschooling, including the state’s interest in preventing child abuse and protecting a child’s rights to a meaningful education. But the veil slips a bit when in the midst of listing her grievances against homeschooling, Bartholet notes that up to ninety percent of homeschoolers are driven by conservative Christian beliefs. Why would this be a problem? Here Bartholet is explicit: these Christians want their children to adopt their religious and social views, which apparently is beyond the pale.

“The Root of Humanity”

What would be wrong with a secular state forcing a secular education on a Christian family? At the heart of this question is the nature of the family and parental authority. Human persons owe their existence to two essential but unequal sources. As Thomas Aquinas writes in his commentary on the book of Ephesians, “God must be honored as the source of our existence, and our parents also as the source of our existence.” God is the ultimate source and author of human life. In his divine economy, God has authored a secondary, proximate source. Aquinas affirms what Scripture and nature teach together, that a child comes into the world on account of two authors, or sources: God, and a father and mother.

The conceptual relationship between author and authority, while plainly visible, is rarely reflected upon. Both words derive from the Latin auctor, which roughly means originator, father, producer. The connection between author, or source, and authority in Latin parallels the use of the Greek word kephale, which literally means “head.” Scholars debate whether kephale always implies a sense of “authority over,” but the conceptual connection between “source” and “authority” underlies this debate. An author or source exists in some relationship of authority to what is authored. We preserve this conceptual connection in phrases like “head of household.” As the human auctors of their children, parents have a fundamental and natural authority over them.

Parental authority is enshrined in Christian Scripture in a prominent position as the first commandment of the second table of the Ten Commandments: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you” (Exod. 20:12). The ordering of the decalogue is instructive: primary is man’s duty to the authority of God, who is the author of life and the world and everything in it. This duty to God is followed immediately by man’s duty to parental authority. The Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo of Alexandria was so impressed by the connection between divine and parental authority that he understood the fifth commandment to be in the first table as part of man’s duty to God.

When the Apostle Paul commends the fifth commandment to the early church in Ephesus, he notes, “this is the first commandment with a promise” (Eph. 6:2). Proper respect and honor for one’s father and mother are closely tied to a full and meaningful life (Eph. 6:3; cf. Exod. 20:12). The Westminster Divines rightly recognized in the fifth commandment not only a duty to parental authority, but also a duty to all legitimately established human authority. The Westminster Larger Catechism teaches that what is meant by father and mother is “not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.”

Among the manifold benefits of the divine institution of the family is a social good: it is a school of proper love and respect for authority. The child who experiences love and nurture from his father and mother is naturally disposed to obey them when very young. Where this disposition decreases with age, it is reinforced by command. Where command is inefficient and some form of consequential punishment is meted out, disobedience is disincentivized. An adolescent learns quickly that to disobey father and mother, who lovingly provide him with food, clothing, and shelter, is to bite the hands that feed, as it were. In this way the connection between life, prosperity, and proper deference to authority is naturally reinforced in the home.

Thomas Watson, in his Body of Practical Divinity, identifies five spheres of paternal-like authority to which we owe proper respect: political, ancient, spiritual, economical, and natural. The son and daughter who learn obedience in the family are made ready to relate well to conventional human authorities, such as magistrates, elders, pastors, or employers. The connection between natural and conventional authorities helps explain why familial language pervades the language we use to speak about various authorities. Christians call to our Father in heaven after the example of the Lord Jesus who taught us to pray. Paul could speak to the church at Corinth as a “father in the faith” (1 Cor. 4:16), a tradition preserved by many Christians who call their priests and pastors by titles like “Father.”

This use of familial language is not restricted to Christian tradition alone. Subjects in antiquity referred to kings and queens as fathers and mothers of their kingdoms, and today we still refer to the country from which we hail as our motherland. E. H. Gombrich, in his wonderful book Little History of the World, explains how the Chinese philosopher Confucius considered familial authority as related to human society:

Someone who is always good to his parents, who obeys them and cares for them—and this comes naturally to us—will treat others in the same way, and will obey the laws of the state in the same way that he obeys his father. Thus, for Confucius, the family, with its brotherly and sisterly love and respect for parents, was the most important thing of all. He called it “the root of humanity”

In other words, the natural structure of the human family undergirds and informs human society. What would it be, then, to undermine this structure? Would it not be to attack “the root of humanity,” to unsettle the very foundation of all human authority? The child who is given permission, either by church or state, to ignore the authority of his source—his author, the raison d’être of his existence—is a child primed to throw off respect for any human authority.

In The Christian Family, Herman Bavinck notes that familial or natural authority is divinely authorized in the Garden before mankind’s fall into sin (Gen. 1–2). Ecclesial authority isn’t authorized until after mankind’s fall, when in God’s curse against the serpent he promises enmity and salvation through the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). Governmental authority is likewise authorized only after the fall in Genesis 9, with God’s recreation of the world after the flood and his delegation of the power of the sword to mankind in order to avenge human life. Three spheres, three rightful claims to authority, all derived from God’s direct authorial delegation. But as Bavinck notes, the order and constitution of each authority are important:

Family, state, and church each share this feature, that each is independent of the other, each has its own origin and purpose, and none came forth from the other. They differ, however, in the fact that the family is the oldest institution and came into existence immediately with the creation of the first human couple; the state and the church, however, were instituted after the fall, and in such a way that the church owes its existence to special grace, while the state owes its existence to common grace.

One implication of this biblical account is the realization that the family, like the church, is a pre-political institution. As such, familial authority is prior to any political authority and should be respected as such—even if sometimes the state may have to interfere in familial affairs in its pursuit of justice and peace. Jesus hinted at how ecclesial authority may supersede familial authority, both in this life and the next, when he said he was bringing a sword between father and son, daughter and mother (Matt. 10:34–39). But as Aquinas affirms in the Summa Theologiae, “it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents’ custody, or anything done to it against its parents’ wish.”

Categories of logic help us understand why. One’s father and mother are essential to the nature of one’s existence in a way that does not hold true of state or church, which are more accidental to one’s essence. If your parents never existed, you would never have existed. If the nation in which you live or were born had never existed, or ceased existing, you would be citizens of another; the same holds true with the local church. The exceptional and unique fact that you have only one natural father and one natural mother contains within it a sacred duty, and Scripture universally recognizes this duty to parental authority.

Parental Right

The other side of parental authority is parental obligation to nurture, provide for, protect, and form the child under one’s care. Scripture confirms what nature proclaims: The one who does not provide for his own relatives denies the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim. 5:8). And fathers are charged with disciplining and instructing their children in the Lord in a way that does not provoke them (Eph. 6:4; cf. Deut. 11:19). The Bible’s pervasive concern for the orphan is negative evidence of the same principle: an orphan has neither father nor mother to protect or provide for him, and the community is called to step in and fill the role. But the role is not without form: they are called to be like God, who is a father to the fatherless (Ps. 68:5).

In talking about rights, we must never lose sight of what is right according to the will of God and to which nature and plain reason testify. Parental authority, and what some have come to call parental rights, is a biblical and natural concept that should be upheld by church and state alike. Any attempt to violate this parental authority apart from extreme circumstances that demand intervention on behalf of justice—such as the preservation of life and the prevention of physical and sexual abuse—should be vehemently opposed in the name of Scripture and the natural order.

As the human source and “authors” of their children, parents are endowed by their Creator with a sacrosanct authority over their children, an authority that includes the right and duty to educate them after God’s commands. All people of good will should oppose a state-coerced education against the will of parents, Christian or otherwise. For the same sovereign God who “made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts 17:26), gave every son and daughter to their mother and father. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder—even and especially in the name of state-coerced education.

Read More
Guest User Guest User

An Introduction to End Times

As we get into the second part of Daniel, the plain meaning of the text continues to be clear; we can trust God even when evil powers, rulers and difficult circumstances are present.  However, the details of Daniel's visions and their specific interpretations become more complex. 

Your small group leaders will not cover many of the deeper details although those in your group who are more informed in the study of last things may bring them up. Don't expect that your group will cover these things in detail.  A class setting is more appropriate for this kind of detailed study.

The following information is from “Eschatology Comparison,”https://bit.ly/32AyCjv

There are numerous variations in end-times teaching today, a fourfold categorization has been widely accepted:

  1. dispensational premillennialism;

  2. historic premillennialism;

  3. postmillennialism; and

  4. amillennialism.


Of the first three categories, all of which hold to a millennium or utopian age on this earth, the most commonly held view is dispensational premillennialism.

Dispensational Premillennialism

Distinctive Features and Emphases:

Dispensationalists usually divide God’s dealings with humanity into seven distinct “dispensations”: Innocence (Gen. 1:28-3:6), Conscience or Moral Responsibility (Gen. 4:1-8:14), Human Government (Gen. 8:15-11:32), Promise (Gen. 12:1-Ex. 18:27), The Law (Ex. 19:3-Acts 1:26), The Church (Acts 2:1-Revelation 19), and the Millennial Kingdom (Revelation 20). A dispensation is defined as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect to his obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.” In each of these periods, a distinct revelation of God’s will is dominant and tests mankind’s obedience to God.

a. Dispensationalists argue for the necessity of the literal interpretation of all of the prophetic portions of Scripture….

b. Dispensationalists insist that God has two redemptive plans, one for national Israel, and one for Gentiles during the “church age.” This presupposition forms the basis for the dispensational hermeneutic.

c. There is a “rapture” of believers when Jesus Christ secretly returns to earth before the seven-year tribulation period begins (the seventieth week of Daniel, cf. Daniel 9:24-27). Believers do not experience the persecution of the Anti-Christ who rises to prominence during this “tribulation period.” The Biblical data dealing with the time of tribulation is referring to unbelieving Israel, not the church. Therefore, the church age, or the “age of grace,” is to be seen as that period of time in which God is dealing with Gentiles prior to the coming of the kingdom of God during the millennium.

d. The visible and physical second coming of Christ occurs after the great tribulation. Those who are converted to Christ during the tribulation, including Jews (the 144,000) who turn to Christ, go on into the millennium to re-populate the earth. Glorified believers rule with Christ during his future reign.

e. Jesus came to earth bringing with him an “offer” of the kingdom to the Jews, who rejected him. God then turned to deal with the Gentiles — thus, the church age is a parenthesis of sorts. The rapture is the next event to occur in Biblical prophecy. The signs of the end of the age (i.e., the birth of the nation of Israel, the revival of the Roman empire predicted in Daniel as seen through the emergence of the EEC [common market], the impending Russian-Arab invasion of Israel, etc.) all point to the immediacy of the secret return of Christ for his church. The antichrist is awaiting his revelation once the believing church is removed.

f. The millennium is marked by a return to Old Testament temple worship and sacrifice to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ. At the end of the millennium, the “great white throne” judgment occurs, and Satan and all unbelievers are cast into the lake of fire. There is the creation of a new heaven and earth.

Leading Proponents:

[Scofield Reference Bible, Ryrie Study Bible, Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late Great Planet Earth, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, J. Dwight Pentecost, Norman Geisler, Charles Feinberg. Popular dispensational pastors and writers include; Charles Swindoll, Dave Hunt, Jack Van Impe, Charles Stanley, Chuck Smith and the Calvary Chapel movement, Dallas Theological Seminary, Talbot Theological Seminary, the Master’s College and Grace Theological Seminary.]


Historic Premillennialism

Distinctive Features and Emphases:

a. While often popularly confused with “dispensational premillennialism” with but a mere disagreement as to the timing of the “rapture,” historic premillennialism is, in actuality, a completely different eschatological system, largely rejecting the whole dispensational understanding of redemptive history.

b. The basic features of historic premillennialism are as follows. When Jesus began his public ministry the kingdom of God was manifest through His ministry. Upon His ascension into heaven and the “Gift of the Spirit” at Pentecost, the kingdom is present through the Spirit, until the end of the age, which is marked by the return of Christ to the earth in judgement. During the period immediately preceding the return of Christ, there is great apostasy and tribulation.

C. After the return of Christ, there will be a period of 1000 years (the millennium separating the “first” resurrection from the “second” resurrection. Satan will be bound, and the kingdom will consummated, that is, made visible during this period.

d. At the end of the millennial period, Satan will be loosed and there will be a massive rebellion (of “Gog and Magog”), immediately preceding the “second” resurrection or final judgement. After this, there will be the creation of a new Heaven and Earth.

Leading Proponents:

[George Eldon Ladd of Fuller Theological Seminary the late Walter Martin, John Warwick Montgomery, J. Barton Payne, Heny Alford, Theodore Zahn, the many scholars of the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Evangelical Free),  Ireneaus [140-203], Justin Martyr [100-165], Papias [80-155]), Fuller Seminary,  Trinity Seminary, J.O. Buswell, J. Barton Payne and R. Laird Harris.]


Postmillennialism

Distinctive Features and Emphases:

a. Generally speaking, postmillennialists affirm that the millennium is a period of one thousand years of universal peace and righteousness in this world, which precedes the return of Jesus Christ to earth in judgement. Postmillennialists are divided as to whether or not the period of time is a literal one thousand years, and whether or not the millennial age begins abruptly or gradually. Some see the millennial age as entirely future, others argue that it may have already begun to gradually emerge. Postmillennialists also disagree as to the events that mark the beginning of the millennial age, such as the conversion of Israel (Romans 9-11), the binding of Satan (Revelation 20), and the defeat of Antichrist.

b. …Postmillennialists see the millennial age as commencing at some point during the present age, and as a period in which the kingdom of God triumphs over the kingdoms of this world. Amillennial Christians see the millennial age as occupying the entire period of time between the first and second coming Christ. Generally speaking, amillennial Christians see the millennial age as one of both the triumph of the spiritual kingdom of God and the corresponding rise of evil in opposition.

c. According to postmillennialists, there will be universal preaching and acceptance of the Gospel, and a complete and total victory of the kingdom of God, over the forces of Satan and unbelief. Postmillennialism is an optimistic eschatology of the victory grace of God in subduing evil in the world. During this period Satan will be effectually bound by the triumph of grace. Israel be converted somewhere near the beginning of the millennial Postmillennialists do disagree however, about the nature and details of these events.

d. At the end of the millennial period, Satan will be released the period of great tribulation and the apostasy described in Revelation 20 occurs, culminating in Gog and Magog and the Battle of Armageddon. Christ then returns in judgement (the “great throne judgement”), the resurrection occurs, and there is the creation of a new heaven and earth.

Leading Proponents:

a. Postmillennialism was popular among American Evangelicals in the period of unprecedented technological growth between 1870 and 1915. World War I largely served to squash the tremendous optimism regarding the growth of technology and the related optimism about the future of man, which was carried over in church in the form of an optimistic eschatology. Many Reformed theologians of this period are generally considered postmillennial, including the “Old-Princetonians,” Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield.

b. Recently, postmillennialism has seen a resurgence, with the rise of Christian reconstructionism and theonomy. In addition, there is mass confusion generated by critics of postmillennialism, such as Dave Hunt and Hal Lindsey, who portray the movement as taking two quite different and confusing forms — that of “Theonomy,” and that of “Dominion Theology.” Thus many Evangelicals fail to see these two forms as distinct and divergent movements. Setting out the differences between the two forms then is helpful.

1). The “theonomic” form of postmillennialism was initially presented by J. Marcellus Kik, and reworked into a full–blown ethical system known as “theonomy” or “reconstructionism” by R. J. Rushdoony. The business of the church was to work to see a theocracy restored upon the earth by emphasizing the continuity of OT law (civil, ceremonial and moral) with the NT. Once established, this victorious church would be the divine vehicle from which the ever advancing kingdom of God would bind Satan and subdue all evil in the world. The emphasis of theonomic postmillennialism is that it is God who exercises dominion through his church establishing His law as the law of the land. Other theologians in the postmillennial theonomic movement are, the late Greg Bahnsen, Ray Sutton and Gary North. Popular writers include Gary DeMarr, Kenneth Gentry, and Peter J. Leithart.

2). The “dominion” form of postmillennialism (though not all “dominion” advocates are postmillennial) is exclusively Pentecostal. This form believes the charismatic revival “Latter Rain”) is God’s means of binding Satan and allowing the Spirit-lead church to reclaim material possessions and wealth, which had been surrendered to unbelief and the kingdom of Satan. Once the Church understands its role and potential for dominion, through the work of the Spirit, be able to establish the kingdom of God on earth in it fullness, thereby bringing in a millennial age. The emphasis here is that it is the believer who must learn to exercise dominion if he is to take part in the advancing kingdom. Bishop Earl Paulk, Paul Yongli Cho and perhaps Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin and Pat Robertson.

d. The older form of postmillennialism, as practiced by Reformed theologians such as Hodge and Warfield, has little in common in emphasis with the modern theonomic approach to eschatology, which emphasizes the rise of a theocracy as the vehicle of dominion. The modern form raises serious questions about the Reformed understanding of the distinction between law and gospel. The result in many circles a peculiar hybrid, (a tertium quid, if you will) with a propensity for making strange bed-fellows.


Amillennialism

Distinctive Features and Emphases:

a. The “a” millennial (literally meaning “no” millennium) position is the eschatological view of historic Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Christianity. It would be my educated guess that about two-thirds of the Christian family espouse an amillennial eschatology. The amillennial position is as well the position of the vast majority of Reformed and Lutheran theologians. The position portrayed in these lectures is the Reformed understanding of amillennialism, which is better understood as “present” millennialism [or “realized” millennialism], since Reformed eschatology argues for a real, present, though “invisible” non-spatial millennium.

b. Amillennialists insist that the promises made to national Israel, David and Abraham, in the OT are fulfilled by Christ and the Church during this age, which is the millennium, that is the entire period of time between the two advents of our Lord. The “thousand years” are therefore symbolic of the entire inter-advental age. Satan is bound by Christ’s victory over him and the establishment of the kingdom of God via the preaching of the gospel, and Satan is no longer free to deceive the nations, through the presence of Christ is reigning in heaven during this period with the martyrs who come out of the great tribulation. At the end of the millennial age, Christ returns in judgement of all men. The general resurrection occurs, final judgement takes place for all men and women, and a new Heaven and Earth are established.

C. In most forms of amillennialism, immediately before the return of Christ, Satan is unbound, there is a great apostasy, and a time of unprecedented satanically inspired evil. This last Satanic gasp and subsequent rebellious activity is destroyed by our Lord at his return

Leading Proponents:

a. Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family. It was first articulated by St. Augustine, and has been given a distinctive Reformed emphasis through the work of Geerhardus Vos (the “Biblical-Theological” approach). As the “dispensational” movement captured the hearts and minds of conservative American Evangelicals, amillennialism was equated with “liberalism” or Roman Catholicism. The supposed interpreting prophecy “spiritually” or “not-literally” has lead to the rejection of amillennialism by many. In addition, amillennialism suffered greatly from the failure of Reformed and Lutheran writers to defend the position against the likes of Dave Hunt, Chuck Missler and Hal Lindsey, who has labeled the position as “demonic and heretical,” and the root of modern anti-semitism.

b. Leading contemporary “amill” theologians would include popular writers such as J. I. Packer, Mike Horton, [the late] Calvin seminary professor, Anthony Hoekema, and RC Sproul. In addition, all of the Reformers, as well as the Reformed and Lutheran confessional traditions, as a whole, have been amillennial.

(The following critique is from “A Lutheran Response to the Left Behind Series.”   The Left Behind Series was written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins with a Dispensational Premillennialism perspective.)

The Rapture and Millennium

The first person to propose the end time scenario adopted by Left Behind was an Anglican priest turned traveling evangelical preacher named John Nelson Darby. Darby arrived in the United States from England in 1862 for the first of seven visits, bearing his new understanding of Christ’s Second Coming. Darby and minister Cyrus Scofield, who would expand the evangelist’s ideas in the influential Scofield Reference Bible, divided God’s relationship with people into seven ages, or dispensations (the current sixth era began with the death of Jesus). Their vision included a rapture in which Christians will be snatched up to heaven before the beginning of an increasingly hellish seven-year tribulation (see “Diagrams of Millennial Views” in the Appendix at the end of this report).

Prior to Darby’s influence, most Christians understood the “rapture” as an event that would happen simultaneously with the final resurrection and the end of the age. Yet Darby uniquely repositioned it to take place at the end of the era of the church and just before the tribulation. He then taught that at the end of seven years of tribulation Christ would return and defeat the Antichrist and commence the seventh dispensation-the millennium, a 1000-year glorious reign on earth….

Prior to 1830 (the advent of Darby’s teachings) there is no indication that any Christian church embraced this pre-tribulation “secret” rapture doctrine. Rather, up until then Christians believed that Jesus would come again visibly at some undisclosed time to judge-once and for all-the living and the dead. This is what is affirmed in the Apostles’ and Nicene creeds. These statements of faith do not teach a two-stage coming of Christ as do the proponents of the Left Behind series -a coming first “for his saints,” and later “with his saints.” According to the historic creeds there will be one final eschatological event: the second and final coming of Christ. The rapture and the Second Coming are equated and are therefore synonymous. At this moment in history, not just Christians but all of humanity will respond to the Savior. Christ’s exaltation will mean, says Paul, “…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:10-11).

Moreover, the Left Behind series presents the rapture as an event that is not initially understood by all (or even most) people. But there is no biblical evidence of a secret rapture. …

Nor does the book of Revelation teach a pre-tribulation rapture of Christians. Instead, it teaches that God will preserve His people in the face of persecution and suffering (Rev 3:10; 14:12). Additionally, since Christ will resurrect all believers and unbelievers on Judgment Day, Revelation states that there will be no second chance for repentance (Rev 11:18; 20:11-15)….

Israel and the Church

An important component of the LaHaye/Jenkins manner of biblical interpretation is their belief that God will reestablish an earthly kingdom with the nation of Israel. These authors believe that by crucifying Jesus the Jews rejected the earthly kingdom offered to them, but God did not reject the Jews.

Left Behind assumes that because this kingdom was offered to (and then refused by) the Jews, it will be offered again in the future. In what way? The Old Testament prophecies of the restoration of national Israel to the land in the last days will be fulfilled literally. The series of books is built upon the belief that the promise of returning to the land was fulfilled with Israel’s re-birth as a nation in 1948. At that time the prophetic fuse was relit and now history is racing toward the end, and at an accelerated pace. For this reason the current events in the nation of Israel are of vital importance for followers of the Left Behind series.

So what about the church? According to Left Behind, as an alternate plan or as a parenthesis, Christ established the church because Gentiles believed what the Jews rejected. This is the “Church Age,” or sixth dispensation, and it must end with the rapture before God can re-establish His primary work with the Jews and bring about the culmination of history-the seventh dispensation, Christ’s reign on earth.

A biblically based response to the future of the Jews, however, is to join the apostle Paul in his earnest prayer for the salvation of his Jewish kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom 9:1-3). There always has been and always will be a remnant of Jews who are saved (Rom 11:5). It is not as though the rejection of some of the Jews serves no purpose. On the contrary, because the Jews were broken off in unbelief, the Gospel has gone to the Gentiles, who through grace now partake of its blessings and join with Christian Jews to constitute the Israel of God, the church of Jesus Christ (Rom 11:11-16). In Romans 11 Paul defines this relationship between Jews and Christians when he distinguishes between natural branches (the seed of Abraham according to the flesh) and foreign branches (Gentiles) who have been engrafted into the same tree. There is certainly a difference in their respective histories and genealogies (not all are natural branches), but in Christ both Gentile and Jewish believers are now the seed of Abraham (Rom 11:17-24).

The Bible does not support the teaching that God has a special plan for bringing Jews to faith in Christ. This is because when it comes to God’s plan of salvation there is no difference between Jew and Gentile, Israel and the church. Rather than teaching that these are two separate communities with two different futures, the Scriptures testify to a continuity between the old and new covenants and thus to a continuity between Israel and the church. Put another way, Old Testament Israel is a type and precursor for the church, for it is prophesied in the Old Testament that God’s redemptive purpose includes Gentiles (e.g., Gen 12:3; 22:18; Is 49:6). Therefore, the church is not an interruption in the redemptive plan of God, but the fulfillment of His eternal purposes….

According to Scripture, salvation is neither earned nor deserved. Nor is it based upon ethnic descent or natural birth (Jn 1:13; Lk 3:8; Eph 2:8-9).  Apart from Christ there is no special divine favor upon any member of any ethnic group (Rom 3:9-10; 22-23). In privileging ethnic Jews or modern Israelis with a distinct plan of salvation, Left Behind obscures this central teaching of the Bible.

The Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

Left Behind fails to recognize the distinctions between Israelite, Hebrew, Jew and Israeli because LaHaye and Jenkins err when they fail to appreciate the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and the ways in which the latter completes and fulfils the former. In privileging the Old over the New Testament, Left Behind contends that Old Testament prophecies regarding these events must be literally fulfilled (e.g., the restoration of the nation of Israel to her land, the revival of the Roman Empire, a reign of Christ on earth after His return, the rebuilding of the temple and the reinstitution of its sacrifices).

It is clear from Scripture, however, that the Old Testament is to be read in the light of the New Testament. Colossians 2:16-17 provides this guide for the proper interpretation of the Old Testament: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” However, Left Behind argues that redemptive history takes a kind of U-turn in the millennial age as the reality in Christ returns to the types and shadows of the Old Testament. The future is therefore not a consummation but a return to the past. This understanding obscures the person and work of Christ because it sees the ultimate reality not in Him but in the types and shadows of the Old Testament.

But if in the Old Testament the revelation of God’s acts in the history of Israel came in shadows, images, forms and prophecies, then the New

Testament announces the reality, substance and final fulfillment-all in the history of Christ. The question is not whether the promises of the Old Testament are to be understood literally or spiritually. It is instead a question of whether they should be understood in terms of Old Testament shadows or in terms of the New Testament realities.

Moreover, there is an organic unity that exists between the Old and New Testaments as stated by the 16th century Reformers in the classic formulation “Scripture interprets Scripture.” This principle is undermined by the approach of the Left Behind series to the degree that it attempts to interpret Scripture in light of current events, especially events occurring in Israel and the Middle East.

A problem for the Left Behind series, to the extent that it claims to be an expression of theology, is that the prophetic portions of the Old Testament are treated as a self-contained entity to be read apart from Christ and the New Testament. Overlooking the unity between the Testaments almost amounts to treating the Old Testament as a non-Christian Jewish book. To teach, for instance, on the basis of Ezekiel 40-48 that the temple in Jerusalem will be rebuilt during the millennium and that the sacrificial system will be reinstituted is to raise questions about Scripture’s teaching that Jesus Himself is the New Temple (Mt 12:6; Jn 2:12-22) and that His bloody sacrifice on the cross is fully sufficient for all people of all time so that no further shedding of blood is necessary (Heb 10:18).

It follows that the present state of Israel is not a prophetic realization of the Messianic kingdom of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, a day should not be anticipated in which Christ’s kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in the land of Palestine, its capital in Jerusalem, its constituency, or its ceremonial institutions and practices. Instead, the present age will come to a conclusion with the arrival of the final, eternal kingdom of the Messiah.

Read More
Guest User Guest User

Youth Ministry Isn’t About Fun

I am sitting in a nondescript church fellowship hall, attending a gathering of the church’s youth group. Over the next hour, three people—a man in his fifties, a woman in her early thirties, a boy in tenth grade—get up and tell stories. Their stories all are in response to the same text—Matthew 19:16–30, the story of the rich young ruler—and the same prompt, “Tell about a time when the good was a difficult or confusing surprise.”

As the stories unfold, music, laughter, tears, and friendship encase the stories as much as the four walls of the fellowship hall. It’s a beautiful example of a youth ministry that is much more than an adolescent religious holding pen.

In the final 15 minutes, the youth group leader, whom I’ll call J, laces these three stories together, drawing people deeper into the biblical text. She focuses in on the rich young ruler calling Jesus “good” and Jesus telling him that only God is good. She then invites the room to gather into groups of three or four, making sure each group has at least one young person and one not-so-young person. In the groups, participants end the night by praying for one another.

J and I have agreed to talk afterward. She motions me to a table. To my surprise a young woman joins her. As we sit, J says, “This is Lorena. She’s in twelfth grade.” I’m not sure why Lorena has joined us, but I’m happy to meet her.

I start with the obvious, asking, “What made you think of this kind of gathering?”

J starts by giving me context. “About two years ago, I was days from quitting as youth minister or, more likely, being fired. It was miserable. I was just a few years out of college, and my only youth ministry experience was a summer at camp. I was pretty good at the whole counselor thing, so I thought, No problem. Youth ministry in a church is just being a camp counselor year-round. I’d been the chief counselor of fun that summer.

“And so this church seemed like a perfect fit. The church wanted someone who’d create events and an overall program that kids would find fun. The idea was that if young people were having fun, then they’d have positive feelings about church and stick around.”

“I could see that,” I say.

“But nine months into it, it started eating me up,” J continues. “I mean, it’s one thing to be the chief counselor of fun for a week, then reboot with totally different kids for another week. But how do you do that in the day-to-day of church life? I knew things weren’t going well. And the more I tried to make things fun, the more energy left the youth ministry and me.”

“So what happened?” I ask.

“‘Make it fun,’ they said. As if fun were freedom, not a chain.”

“Well, a few people on the personnel committee started hinting that things weren’t working, and my senior pastor took some steps to both encourage me and hold me accountable. But they all just kept coming back to fun: ‘Teach them the Bible in a fun way,’ ‘Connect with them and have fun,’ ‘Make church a fun experience for my ninth-grade son.’ As if fun were freedom instead of a chain around my whole body.”

“So what happened?”

“She did,” J says, pointing to Lorena.

“What did you do?” I asked Lorena.

With a cutting, dry sense of humor that made her seem older than twelfth grade, Lorena responded, “Oh, I just got some fluid around my heart and almost died.”

J says, with equal measures of sincerity and sarcasm that nevertheless reveal a deep truth, “Having a kid in your ministry fighting for her life after some freak infection—that will change things for the chief counselor of fun pretty quickly.”

“If youth ministry isn’t for fun—because you watched Lorena almost die—then what is youth ministry for?” I ask.

J and Lorena look at each other and smile. Then Lorena says with bright eyes, “Joy.”

Youth ministry is for joy, I say silently to myself. Over the past 15 years of teaching and writing, I’ve focused on the cross and the experience of suffering. Lorena almost died, and J nearly burned out, but when they say what youth ministry is for, they don’t say support or commiseration but joy.

“Youth ministry is for joy,” I repeat. “Why did you use the word joy? Clearly you’ve talked about it. And I know it’s a biblical word, but it isn’t a word we usually use, particularly connected to youth ministry.”

“It’s the best word we have for the experience of transformation,” Lorena says.

J takes up that theme. “The more I was failing at youth ministry, the more people were sending me to popular youth ministry sites and conferences, which took me farther away from this deep sense of transformation. Some even talked about transformation, but it was really all about what you did and what you got kids to do . . . which only made me more burned out and tired.”

“That’s when I came in!” Lorena interrupts, with a fragile confidence, breaking the tense moment with some silly humor.

J laughed. “It is! When Lorena got sick, everything changed. And not only with our youth ministry, but with me, with the whole church. We started to witness real transformation.”

Moving to the edge of my seat, I ask, “What did your youth ministry look like? What did you do? What changed?”

“We didn’t do anything, really. That’s why it was joy, because it came as a pure gift, not as something we did,” J responds. “We had a sick kid, not a program or strategy.”

“You didn’t do anything?” I ask, not sure that could be true.

“No, you’re right,” J says. “We did start doing a lot of things, but that wasn’t the point. We could only get to joy when we focused more on receiving.”

Trying to push the conversation forward, I ask her how intergenerational storytelling had become part of the youth group. She takes me back to the day she found out that Lorena was sick.

“I remember when Lorena’s mom called and told me she was in the hospital. Lorena had been sick for over a week and a half. Her mom was keeping me up to date because this big, fun youth group outing was coming up. I’ll never forget that, because I was so stressed about the buses and just making sure everything was fun. I felt like that event would make or break me at the church. If kids had fun, I’d keep my job. But then, after that phone call, I just didn’t care anymore.”

“We just thought it was flu or something,” Lorena adds. “I could barely even walk into the doctor’s office. I just felt so dizzy and weak. Next thing I knew, two doctors were there. They did some other stuff to me. Finally, one doctor said to my mother, ‘OK, Mrs. Martinez, we’re going to have an ambulance take your daughter to children’s hospital; we need to go very quickly.’”

Jumping in, J says, “I met them at the hospital. Finally, the doctors came out to give us an update. They said they hoped they caught the infection just in time, but they wouldn’t be sure for the next few days. They’d need to keep Lorena unconscious to see how she reacted and allow her body the ability to respond to the meds. And it could be as much as a week or so before they knew if Lorena would recover.”

“Youth ministry is for joy. It invites young people to focus on the good. Joy is finding it.”

J continues, “What I’ll never forget is Lorena’s mom repeating back to the doctors, ‘If? If? If she recovers?’ The doctors told us even if things took a positive turn, it would be months until she was well enough to go back to school. We were now stuck waiting. Lorena’s mom was kind of furiously defiant; she sat down and said she wouldn’t leave the hospital until Lorena did.”

“And that’s when I stopped doing youth group,” J adds.

I’m moved by the story, and it gives me important perspective, but I really can’t see how it shifts things from happiness and fun to joy and transformation. So I ask, “How is this all connected to joy?”

“Maybe it was the stress of the moment or all the Diet Coke I was drinking,” J says, “but I started to notice how often people were referring to ‘good.’ The doctors and nurses used the word many times: ‘It’s not a good situation,’ ‘It’s good we caught it now,’ ‘We’ll see what her blood tests show; then we’ll know how good our chances are.’ Lorena’s mom just sat in a chair holding my hand for the first hour, repeating, ‘This isn’t good.’ And when we finally did get to see Lorena through the window, unconscious and all covered up and hooked up to machines, I found myself saying, ‘This isn’t good.’ When I said that, all these Bible verses started coming to my mind. ‘And God called it good’ ‘It isn’t good for the human to be alone,’ ‘For every good and perfect gift comes from above,’ and Jesus saying, ‘Why do you call me good?’”

“That’s the text you used tonight,” I insert.

“It is,” J says. “Focusing on the good has become central to our ministry. I’d actually say that youth ministry is for joy, because youth ministry invites young people to focus on the good, and only God is good. Joy is when you find the good.”

At the hospital, J wrote an email to all the parents, called her youth ministry board, and sent a group text to all the kids. With Lorena’s mom’s permission, she informed them of what Lorena was facing, asked for their prayers, and said if they needed her, she’d be where God had called her, sitting next to Lorena’s mom.

Within an hour Lorena’s two closest friends and their moms showed up. When they arrived, J explained the situation and asked them all to simply sit with Lorena’s mom and pray silently. They did so for a few hours. Then, after getting Lorena’s mom some food, they left, only to be replaced by others. By the next day, every young person who’d signed up for the big fun event—and more who hadn’t—made it down to the hospital to sit and pray, feeling the pull of the Good to be together.

What was even more amazing is that not only did the high school kids show up but other people from the congregation did as well. Kids and adults were now sitting together in the waiting room, praying and talking. Together they were following Jesus to the cross, seeking the good by sharing in the ministry of God, who comes near in a death experience, calling us into communion through it.

To J’s surprise, on the afternoon of day two, Bernard showed up. As a matter of fact, over the next week Bernard was as present as anyone. It was beautiful but weird. He was a member of the church. That’s how he found out about the custodian job there. But besides making it to worship once in a while, he wasn’t around the community much. J would only  later learn that he was a faithful member of a Tuesday morning Bible study and a committed participant in the church’s AA group. However, none of the young people except Tannon really knew him.

Tannon was a senior who worked five to eight hours a week at the church, helping Bernard move tables and prepare the Sunday school rooms on Sunday afternoons for the coming week of preschool. Tannon was a good but direct kid. He had no problem asking difficult questions and pointing out things he found odd or misdirected.

When Tannon made it to the hospital, Bernard was in the middle of his second six-hour stint in the waiting room. He hadn’t said much but just quietly sat across from Lorena’s mom, listening in as kids and other church members talked and prayed. He’d become the soda runner those first few days, intent on keeping Lorena’s mom and J fueled on Diet Coke. J would be lying if she didn’t admit that she’d wondered more than a dozen times why Bernard was there.

But soon that all became clear. And when it did, it changed everything for the next few days at the hospital, and from that point on, for the whole church. When Tannon arrived and saw Bernard, he sat down next to him and respectfully but loudly asked, “Why are you here?” Tannon and Bernard had spent enough time together for Bernard to not take offense. The two had built their relationship around direct talk. More than a few times Bernard had pushed Tannon to work harder and take more responsibility, even calling him back to church twice after 10:00 p.m. to redo his inadequate work from earlier in the afternoon.

Nevertheless, when Tannon asked Bernard why he was at the hospital, it sounded confrontational. Everyone seemed to freeze, holding their breath, not sure what would happen next.

Bernard looked at Tannon and said, “Twenty years ago, my baby girl died of something like this. And I wasn’t there. I was high.”

The vacuum created by Tannon’s question was now filled with something else. Already frozen people froze stiffer, not knowing how to react.

Then Lorena’s mom, who had been in a kind of dazed state, snapped back into the moment, looked directly at Bernard, and said, “What happened?”

And so Bernard told the story—all of it. When he finished, something remarkable occurred. For the next two hours different people, mainly adults, shared stories of loss, regret, forgiveness, and hope that most of the young people had never heard. People cried and people laughed; young people hung on every word. Tannon’s direct question created an opening that was now filled with a spirit of communion, in and through the confession of the cross.

J tells me she remembers vividly thinking to herself, Now, this is good. “It wasn’t good, like, Oh, good, this will distract people! or It will be good to get some happiness and fun back in this hospital waiting room! It was just stand-alone good. It was good to be together. It was good how the stories revealed and connected us. It was just good.” She pauses and then says, “I looked around at everyone’s faces while people were telling these stories, kids and adults sharing in each others’ lives, experiencing God’s work together. I remember this was the first time I thought to myself, Youth ministry is for joy.”

After Bernard talked, a woman named Kathy spoke up. Kathy was the mother of Nikki, one of the girls in the youth group. She was also the most vocal critic of the youth group. J said she couldn’t help thinking that Kathy had come to the hospital to offer another criticism of the program. But Kathy said, “I had an experience like that.”

Kathy went on to share a story of loss and Jesus’ presence in it. Two years before Nikki was born, Kathy had a miscarriage. Rushing to the hospital while working late one night, she tried to save her unborn child. But it was too late. “Crushed, I sat in an empty waiting room not unlike this one, waiting for Nikki’s dad to come pick me up. I was overwhelmed, not only because I had lost this baby but also because it was such a struggle for us to get pregnant at all. I was sure it would never happen, and my dream of being a mom was turned into a nightmare.”

Everyone was now hanging on Kathy’s every word. It was the first time J had ever seen anything close to vulnerability in her. Bernard’s story somehow awakened her to share.

Kathy continued, “When that all hit me, for some weird reason I stood up, covered my face, and started sobbing really hard. Next thing I knew, I felt some stranger touch my shoulder and comfort me. It was an old woman. She said, ‘Sweetheart, truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy.’ That just made me cry harder, because it was a verse my grandmother used to quote when she talked about my mom being born. She struggled with infertility too. My knees buckled and I almost fell to the ground. I caught myself and sat down. I couldn’t believe she quoted that verse. I asked her how she knew I needed to hear that verse, how she knew how precious those words were to my grandmother. She said, ‘I don’t know, the Holy Spirit just led me. I guess Jesus wanted me here; I thought I had some blood clots, so I came to the hospital, but it looks like Jesus wanted me to be with you.’”

“Whoa!” Tannon said.

Stepping out of the story, J says to me, “I remember feeling so drawn to Kathy’s words about joy. ‘Sorrow turned to joy.’ I realized, sitting in that hard chair, that joy comes from the sharing of sorrow. Joy is this incredible experience of sorrow being shared, leading us into a community of love. That’s what I was experiencing, the pure gift of sorrow being shared. I remember thinking to myself, Yeah, it’s true. Youth ministry is for joy because youth ministry is about creating a space for stories and moments of sharing that open us up to something big.”

We sit in silence for a few seconds, and I think about the ramifications of J’s words. I then ask, “What happened next with Kathy’s story? I’m with Tannon—it’s wild that the old woman used that verse.”

J continues, “Kathy then told us the old woman sat with her, holding her hand until Kathy’s husband showed up. Kathy said, ‘We exchanged numbers. I don’t know why; it seems weird now. But she started to call me, and then we started to meet to pray together. When I got pregnant again, she was the first person I called, because I was both so happy and so scared. We prayed together every week through the whole pregnancy. I just had this sense that God was leading me through. I’ll never forget when Nikki was born, seeing her hold Nikki, crying and praying for her. That’s why she’s Nikki, because in a waiting room like this God sent me Nichole Hunmurray, to pray for me, to see me through and bless us with our Nichole Marie Mattson.’”

J tells me that a silence came over everyone. After a minute, Kathy breathed in deep and said, “That’s why I came today, why I wanted Nikki to be here. In a very weird way, waiting rooms are holy places to me. I’d somehow gotten myself disconnected from that experience, but when I heard Lorena was in the hospital, I knew I needed to be here.” Kathy paused and then said, “I never intended to tell that story until Bernard told his, but I know it’s why I’m here.”

J says to me, “I thought to myself, I want my youth ministry to be a waiting room like this one. A place where we share stories and are open to something bigger that ushers us into joy.”

So what happened after Lorena was released from the hospital? How did the experience in the waiting room continue, or did it?

“Oh, it continued; it continued by waiting. One of the kids—I can’t remember who—actually started calling our midweek gathering the Waiting Room. Actually that’s now its official name. That’s what you were at. One of them even made up some T-shirts. Like I said, I stopped doing youth group in the waiting room, but I wanted to continue having young people wait with adults, sharing their burdens with one another as an experience of joy.”

“But what were you waiting for?” I find myself asking.

“Well, at the start we were waiting for Lorena. When she left the hospital, she was still pretty much bedridden for the next almost ten weeks. That was super hard for her. She was missing a bunch of school activities and other important stuff. But it was even harder on her mom, who needed to work. She’s a single mom, and it just wasn’t an option to take more time off. She pushed that as far as she could when Lorena was in the hospital. So we thought of ourselves as gathering together to wait for Lorena to return to us.”

J continues, “But in a crazy way that waiting moved us to do something: the more we were directly waiting for Lorena, thinking about her, the more we felt we had to do something for her. Next thing we knew, kids, parents, and a bunch of other adults from the church were helping Lorena and her mom out. Waiting for her together moved us into action, to do ministry. It was like the waiting ordained so many in our church to share in Lorena and her mom’s life by being there for them, by sharing in their burdens. Joy started to spread across our congregation. And that really changed our whole church.”

We pause for a second, and J continues, “But the Waiting Room became something else as well, which I guess is what really gave it its name. Right after Lorena went home, we all had this feeling that we’d experienced something important together. We just wanted to be together. But I had no time to plan anything, so I decided we’d just hang out. But the crazy thing is we just kept talking about Bernard’s and Kathy’s stories.”

J’s last comment intrigues me. I’m glad to hear that I wasn’t the only one who couldn’t shake those stories.

“The young people wanted to explore further what the stories could mean,” J explains. “We became detectives in mystery. We had these amazing deep discussions about the meaning of life, purpose, and God in and through trying to discern what these stories meant for us, what they said about life. As the weeks passed, I started to read a biblical verse or two, and we’d connect it to these stories.

“Finally, one of them suggested we keep the Waiting Room going by inviting other people to come and tell their stories. It was like the young people now thirsted for stories, to get inside them and wrestle with them. It was like they needed more stories to figure out what made life worth living, who they could be in this world, and how God was acting. And since then it’s now become a whole church thing. So I started inviting other adults from the church to tell their stories. The Waiting Room is now a multigenerational storytelling time when we together seek for God, experiencing something good together through trying to find meaning and purpose inside our stories.”

“Man, that’s cool” is all I can muster in response. Pausing, I add, “I bet that has changed your own sense of your job.”

“One hundred eighty degrees,” J quickly responds. “It actually felt like an amazing liberation. In the hospital waiting room, I quit being the lead counselor of fun and trying to build a successful youth group. So it’s kind of amazing that we now have the Waiting Room every week. It reminds me of what I’m called to, of how God came to me and put one vocation to death, giving me the amazing joy of another. So the waiting room was not only the place where I buried J the lead counselor of fun, but the Waiting Room was also where I was given a new youth ministry life, a new vocation.”

“What’d that look like?” I ask.

“I found myself spending more time with adults, coaching them in storytelling. I started learning about storytelling, both its mechanics and its theological importance. I started reading more, looking for stories, aware that the stories that connect us to something bigger often start in loss that’s shared, leading to joy. I found myself spending more free time just being with young people, listening more than talking. Rested more than exhausted. I found myself in spiritual direction, being kids’ and adults’ spiritual director. Someone who set the table and invited the whole congregation into reflecting and probing for God’s work in our lives.”

We pause again. An odd, potentially tangential question comes to my mind. “What about Nikki? What happened to her?”

J’s eyes grow wide. Then she shoots back, “Oh, that’s crazy. She started showing up like every week. I couldn’t believe it. When it was regular youth group that was about fun, she wanted nothing to do with it. But once the Waiting Room started, she’d show up early.”

“Did you ever ask her why?”

“I did, mainly because I was worried that she felt weird about people talking about her mom’s story. And then because we invited both Bernard and Kathy to come to one of those early Waiting Rooms so we could talk deeper about what they experienced. So I asked Nikki if this was all OK, or if it felt weird.”

“What did she say?”

“She said it felt weird but good.”

by Dr. Andrew Root

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 16, Session 4: God's Promises Sustain His People

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 16, Session 3: God's Protection Sustains His People

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 16, Session 2: God's Authority Sustains His People

Read More
Gospel Project Resources Guest User Gospel Project Resources Guest User

Unit 16, Session 1: God's Presence Sustains His People

Read More
Youth Group Phil Goodwin Youth Group Phil Goodwin

Summer 2020 Youth Group

Youth group is back and here are the details for the next six weeks…

When: Starting Thursday, July 16 through August 20 at 7:30pm until 8:00pm. We will have 30-ish minutes of teaching and discussion with students.

Where: We will meet at Northbridge, socially distanced, outside under the tent(s).

What: We are studying the book of Philippians. You can download a student guide here. There will not be an organized social activity or snacks.

Please bring:

  • your Bible,

  • a notebook or printout of the student guide,

  • a pencil/pen for notes, and

  • a chair or blanket to sit on.

NB-Students-Stack-C.jpg
Read More