Leaders Tell the Truth

Leaders are involved in one of the most morally significant callings on earth, and nothing the leader touches is without moral meaning and importance. While the leader shares the same basic moral requirements as everyone else, there are certain virtues that the leader simply cannot do without.

In making us in his image, God created human beings as moral creatures. Our minds are constantly in a moral mode of thinking and reasoning. Our consciences demand attention, and we are continually observing others around us for moral signals.

Our Creator gave us laws, principles, precepts, and commandments that guide us, convict us, and protect us. Christian leaders know to be thankful for the common morality that is revealed in nature and has been recognized in some form in virtually every civilization and culture. We are also thankful for the specific moral instruction given to us in the Bible through the commandments and statutes and laws that frame our Christian moral knowledge.

Furthermore, we must recognize the importance of the moral order represented by the government, which, after all, was also given to us by our Creator in order that we might live in societies of order and peace. If these structures of law and morality did not exist, leadership would be impossible.

But laws and commandments are not enough. Leadership requires the possession and cultivation of certain moral virtues that allow leadership to happen. If the leader does not demonstrate these essential virtues, disaster is certain. Consider these people who have changed the moral landscape of modern life. When you hear the name Richard Nixon, the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that he became the first (and so far, only) president of the United States who had to resign from office. When you hear of Enron, the first thing we all remember is the spectacular failure and collapse of a major American corporation, at least in part because of fraudulent valuations.  Continue at Al Mohler

Four Reasons my Family Trick-or-Treats

Tomorrow night my children will hit our cul-de-sac, knocking on neighbor’s doors, and looking for candy. One will be dressed as a lady bug, and the other will probably be crying because she is not matching her sister.

I recognize that the issue of Halloween and the celebration thereof is a gray area. Because it was not a holiday celebrated in the first century, the Bible does not expressly say one way or the other if children in Christian families should be free to frolic dressed as Pterygota.

Yet the Bible does give us some principles that do apply. The first is that you should not violate your conscience. So if participation in these kind of festivities causes you to associate door knockers with worldly delights sprinkled with the demonic, then I’d stop reading right about now. 


The Bible also tells us a few other principles that apply. Namely that dates are not sacred, and that a particular day cannot reasonably be associated with either demonic practices or godly practices (Col 2:16; Rom 14:5). We are bound to days only insomuch as our conscience binds us, and we should strive to bring our consciences into conformity with Scripture.

But I also understand that the whole issue of days and holidays in the NT are in the context of when to worship, and not when to beg for candy. So let me explain below why I choose to participate in my family’s quest for Reese’s:   Continue at Jesse Johnson

Ten Principles for Church Singing (Part 2)

 (Go here for Part 1)

6. We should strive for excellence in the musicality and the poetry of the songs we sing.

I’m not for a moment suggesting elitism. A tine has to be relatively simple for hundreds or thousands of people to sing it at the same time.  But we can still insist on undistracting excellence (to use Piper’s phrase). We want the cross to be the stumbling block, not our poor musicianship or faltering powerpoint.

While I believe a wide variety of styles can be used in worship, I am not a musical relativist.  Some songs are better than others. Some styles work better than others. And when it comes to lyrics, we should avoid obvious sloppiness like using thee and you in the same song or heaping up trite cliches. I heard a song on the radio a couple weeks ago whose chorus had something about a fragrant rose in the early spring and an eagle soaring to spread its wings. If your church sings this on Sunday, love your worship leader all the same. But if you’re the worship leader picking this song, try for something with a little more artistry, something that doesn’t sound like it came from a random page in your inspirational pocket calendar. Keep Reading...

Free to Get Sloshed? Some Principles Are in Order

I've come across an argument trying to justify getting drunk in front of other members of the church that goes along these lines, "Christian liberty permits me to indulge my love for alcohol even in front of people. I don't need to know the state of their consciences. It's their fault if their faith is too weak to recognize my freedom."

Well, the ff. by Sinclair Ferguson, taken from his book, "In Christ Alone," addresses this most grievous argument (found this from one of Ligonier Ministries' FB notes):

It was years ago now, but I still remember the discussion. I was making my way out of our church building some time after the morning service had ended, and was surprised to find a small group of people still engaged in vigorous conversation. One of them turned and said to me, 'Can Christians eat black pudding?'

To the uninitiated in the mysteries of Scottish haute cuisine, it should perhaps be said that black pudding is not haggis! It is a sausage made of blood and suet, sometimes with flour or meal.

It seems a trivial question. Why the vigorous debate? Because, of course, of the Old Testament’s regulations about eating blood (Lev. 17:10ff).

Although (as far as I am aware) no theological dictionary contains an entry under B for 'The Black Pudding Controversy,' this unusual discussion raised some most basic hermeneutical and theological issues: Continue Reading>>>

Pragmatism vs. Principle