Pastors’ Conference

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

I just spent the past week at the Calvary Chapel Pastor’s Conference in Costa Mesa, CA. 

Even though the church I lead is called White Fields, I was ordained in Calvary Chapel and have many good relationships there, and very much respect for the core values and aspirations of the movement.

One of the best things about these conferences is the fellowship with other pastors – having so many people together who are doing the same work, facing the same issues and working for the same things for the same reasons is rare, and very refreshing.

I remember one leader I worked with who used to discribe these kinds of meetings as being like Gilgal: the place in the book of Joshua that was the home base of the people of Israel during the time they were moving out to take conquest of the land which God had promised to give them, but which they had to go out and take by faith, but with much work.

This leader would say: This is our Gilgal. We go out into the fight, steping out in faith, obeying God, fighting to take hold of territory – and we come back here, after our defeats, after our victories, to worship, to encourage each other, to share stories from the field of what we experienced: to celebrate victories, to lick each others wounds – and then we go out again.

I’ve always considered that a great analogy of these kinds of gatherings, and that is certainly what this conference was like for me. I’m feeling blessed and refreshed and excited to get back to the work that God has called me to in Colorado.

Tomorrow we will begin the drive back to Colorado from Southern California… Pray for us… 18 hours, to make it there for church on Sunday… 

My Thoughts on the Supreme Court Ruling on Gay Marriage

Published on by nickcady5 Comments

I have been hesitant to write anything about the SCOTUS ruling which disallowed States to ban gay marriage, simply because I have seen how social media has been so consumed by it, and it is clearly an issue which people have made a dividing line, which greatly saddens me. My initial feeling was that it is a lose-lose to write anything on the issue for these reasons, but I keep returning to the idea that I should share some thoughts, since the purpose of this blog is to give a pastor’s voice on happenings in society.

So here are some thoughts:

I’m not surprised by the decision. It didn’t happen overnight. This is the culmination of things which have been in the works for a long time. The debate is basically between identity and practice. For some time now in our society, there has been a movement pushing to see homosexuality as an identity which a person is inherently given, and therefore not to act on it would be to betray who they fundamentally are. The Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t say that homosexuality is a person’s fundamental identity, but that it is a practice – but not who a person is. A person may have inclinations towards certain behavior, but that doesn’t mean that they must act on those inclinations at risk of betraying who they are – rather every person must choose to deny certain inclinations and act on others, and the Bible says that homosexuality is a behavior which should be denied – not an identity which defines who a person is.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a change in the cultural climate – where now homosexuality is to be celebrated and anyone who doesn’t celebrate it will be marginalized. Whereas historically in America, for the most part churches and religious organizations have been regarded in a positive light, that is less and less the case, as they are increasingly being portrayed as “hate” groups, unless they are willing to compromise convictions held for thousands of years. This change of climate is something American Christians are not used to, although it does exist in other places in the world – namely Canada and France.

The biggest implication for churches will not be in the realm of officiating or hosting homosexual marriages. See this article for more details on that.  The biggest implication in the long term for churches will be in the area of tax exempt status. Just this past week, Time published an article in which the author stated that “Now’s the time to end tax exemptions for religious institutions”. The author references a 1983 court ruling from a case involving Bob Jones University, which stated that a school could lose tax-exempt status if its policies violated “fundamental national public policy,” and states that in light of the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, this might now be applied to religious organizations.
That prospect seems daunting to many Christians, and I personally wouldn’t like to see that happen – but I do keep in mind that the early Christians had no money, no tax exemptions, they were considered an illegal religion for hundreds of years and were considered radical in their statement that Jesus was the only way to heaven.  And yet, the message of the Gospel changed lives and brought about love and new life, whether it was legal or illegal, preached in a tax exempt mega-church or an underground meeting.
You may not agree with the direction things are changing, but we can have confidence both historically and eschatologically of the victory of Jesus and the ultimate need of every person in the world for the Good News of the Gospel to give them new life.

The Age of Technique

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

I have been reading Timothy Keller's new book: Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Skepticism. Much of the material is familiar to me from lectures I've heard him give, but I am still very much enjoying reading it, and it is presented very well.

Here's one quote from the book which caught my attention:

Our era has been called the “age of technique.” No civilized society has put more emphasis on results, skills, and charisma— or less emphasis on character, reflection, and depth. This is a major reason why so many of the most successful ministers have a moral failure or lapse.

I think he's hit the nail on the head. Oh, that our society as a whole would care more about depth of character than simply pragmatic results – and that especially we who are Christians would be more focused on godly character than we often are.

Farewell to Elisabeth Elliot

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

One of the first books I read as a missionary was the diary of Jim Elliot – missionary to Ecuador who was martyred by the people he went to tell about Jesus.

The diary of Jim Elliot details his thoughts and dreams, his hopes and prayers, as he went to Wheaton college,  went as a missionary to Ecuador, met and married his wife, Elisabeth, and then embarked on a journey to share the Gospel with the unreached Auca indians – an endeavor which ended in both tragedy and glory: tragedy because Jim and his missionary companions were murdered, but glory because after their deaths, the wives of the slain men continued to reach out to the Auca’s, forgave them for what they had done, and ultimately did lead them to Christ.

The reason Jim Elliot’s diary was available for me to read was because of the work of his wife: Elisabeth Elliot, who made it available to the world. Additionally, Elisabeth Elliot wrote two books about their missionary work in Ecuador – one titled Through Gates of Splendor, which has been called one of the most influential books of the Twentieth Century.

Elisabeth Elliot went on to write many other books and became a prominent advocate for world missions.

Yesterday she entered through those Gates of Splendor herself at the age of 88 and was reunited with Jim in the presence of the God she loved and served her whole life.

Here’s more about Elisabeth Elliot from Christianity Today. Oh that God would give us more people like her! Oh that God would give us the kind of hearts for Him that she and Jim had.

Jim Elliot’s famous quote – brought to the world through the work and advocacy of Elisabeth Elliot:

He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose.

Here’s a photo of that quote in Jim Elliot’s own handwriting:

Jim Elliot’s diary

Thoughts on “Unbroken” and the Power of the Gospel

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

On my recent road trip to Minnesota, my friend lent me an audio book of Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience and Redemption.

I listened to about half of the book while driving, and when I got home I purchased a copy of it because I wanted to know how it ended. I had heard that Louie Zamperini had became a Christian, and was curious to hear how that would be depicted in the book. I had also heard that the movie about the book hadn’t been such a big box office hit as was expected, partly because of the brutality of the depiction of Zamperini’s time as a POW in Japan.

I found the book incredible, and was moved to tears at the account of Zamperini’s conversion and how his heart and his life were transformed by the Gospel. It seemed that everything that had happened until that point – all of the brutality, all of the providence – had been building up to the radical redemption that God worked in his life.

Zamp became a man who was so changed by the Gospel that he was willing to forgive his abusers and was set free from addiction to love his family and work to see other broken people redeemed.

The title of the book has an intentional dual meaning: He was unbroken in the sense that he had survived intensely trying and difficult experiences – and he was un-broken in the sense that his brokenness was healed and he was restored by the power of the Gospel.

I’m not sure if I want to see the movie now after having read the book… I can’t imagine how they could fit into a relatively short film all of the aspects of Zamperini’s life and conversion that were so important to the story.

Here is a quote from the book I found particularly insightful from the period of Louie’s brokenness, before he received the Gospel:

The paradox of vengefulness is that it makes men dependent on those who have harmed them, believing that their release from pain will come only from making their tormentors suffer. In seeking [his tormentor]’s death, Louie had chained himself once again to his tyrant.

All he had left was his alcohol and his resentment, the emotion that, Jean Améry would write, “nails every one of us onto the cross of his ruined past”.

What is Baptism with Fire?

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

This past Sunday I was out of town, officiating the wedding of some friends in Minnesota. It was my first time in Minnesota, and it was really nice! I can see the appeal of the lakes.

So this past Sunday I was out of town, but the week before that I preached a message titled “Baptism by Fire” in which I taught about the events of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit came upon the church in fulfillment of the promises of not only Jesus, but also of God from even the Old Testament. I made reference to the words of John the Baptist, who said that he baptized with water unto repentance, but that one (Jesus) was coming after him who would baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire, and I talked about how the fulfillment of that is found in Pentecost, when the believers were baptized with the Holy Spirit, and as a sign of them each individually receiving this baptism, tongues of fire rested on each of their heads.

Afterwards, someone asked me a great question: Whether the baptism with fire that John the Baptist was talking about was a description of the baptism with the Holy Spirit (like I had taught), or if John was speaking of the fire of judgment – because in the very next verse, John the Baptist says: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” (Matthew 3:12)

Here was my response:

I am familiar with that interpretation you mention, and I think it’s entirely possible given the context of what John was talking about — which is promise of the Messiah and a warning of judgement. In this interpretation, the assumption is that Jesus is saying: he will baptize some people with the Holy Spirit and other people he will baptize with fire — i.e. the same fire of judgment that he refers to in the following verse (vs 12).

Is that what John meant by those words? I agree with you (and many Bible interpreters) that it is quite possible that this is what he meant.

The other main interpretation about this, is that the “fire” is a reference to the Holy Spirit and the purpose of the tongues of fire on Pentecost was that they were a sign that these words of John were now being fulfilled. This is the line of thinking that I took in my sermon. Here’s more on that from the Holman Bible Dictionary:

Fire is one of the physical manifestations of God’s presence. This is illustrated several times in the Bible: the making of the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 15:17 ), the appearance in the burning bush (Exodus 3:2), God leading the Israelites by a pillar of fire by night (Exodus 13:21-22; Exodus 14:24; Numbers 9:15-16; Numbers 14:14; etc.), His appearance on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:18; Exodus 24:17; Deuteronomy 4:11-36; Deuteronomy 5:4-26; etc.), and others (1Kings 18:24,1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2Chronicles 7:1,2 Chronicles 7:3 ).

Fire was used symbolically in Israel’s worship to represent God’s constant presence with Israel (Leviticus 6:12-13 ). God’s presence as fire represented both judgment and purification (the words purify and purge come from the Greek word for fire). To be in God’s presence is to be in the presence of absolute holiness where no sin or unrighteousness can stand. To be in the presence of God is to have the overwhelming sense of one’s uncleanness and the overwhelming desire to be clean (see Isaiah 6:1-6 ). God is able to judge and destroy the sin and purify the repentant sinner.

To be baptized with the Holy Spirit has a wider application than this; but when the Holy Spirit is coupled with fire, the particular aspect of the Holy Spirit’s work as described here is in view.

One thing I would add to this excerpt is that fire is a cleansing agent, and one of the roles of the Holy Spirit as he indwells us is sanctification, e.g. Rom 8:13.

This is one of the difficulties of Bible interpretation — to figure out what exactly was meant by a particular word or phrase in its context. In this case, both options are theologically sound and contextually possible, so it’s kind of a win-win. I’m glad to have the chance to explain a little more about the fire aspect and what the significance of it might be.

Did Judas Go To Hell?

Published on by nickcady2 Comments

In teaching through the Book of Acts on Sunday mornings at White Fields I recently taught the section in Acts 1 where it talks about how Judas committed suicide after betraying Jesus.

Afterwards someone wrote a question:

Did Judas go to hell?  Is suicide a deal breaker? Judas knew that what he did was wrong, so is it possible that he will go to heaven?

It is hard for us to say with certainty about anyone’s eternal destiny; that is something which ultimately is only known by God. However, we do have good reason to assume that Judas did go to hell based on two things that Jesus said:

Matthew 26:20-25. At the Last Supper Jesus told his disciples that one of them would betray him, and then he says: “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born”. The implication is that it would be better for a person not to have been born than to go to hell.In John 17, Jesus prays to the Father about and for the disciples and he says in Vs 12: “While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction”

Based on these 2 verses I think we can assume that Judas did go to hell.

However, did he go to hell because he committed suicide? No, that wasn’t why. The reason Judas went to hell is because, rather than repenting of his sin and seeking and receiving forgiveness and restoration from Jesus, he chose to end his life. This reminds us that feeling bad about your sin is not the same as repenting of your sin and receiving forgiveness.

Interestingly, Judas is not the only one of Jesus’ disciples who betrayed him. Peter also betrayed him, and several other disciples “scattered” when Jesus was arrested. Peter and Judas are an interesting contrast: Peter returns and is restored, whereas Judas goes off and kills himself. Peter betrayed Jesus but then was forgiven and restored; Judas did not return to Jesus, and therefore missed the opportunity for grace and forgiveness and restoration.

Jesus’ words about the lostness of Judas should be seen in regard to his foreknowledge that Judas would not return to repent and receive forgiveness and restoration.

To the point about suicide: It has been taught in certain Christian groups that suicide is an unforgivable sin. This has been based 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 which says: “Do you not know that you are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you? If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him.”   This is one of those instances where it helps to know other languages, if not even the original language. Because when you read this in the original (or in other languages which differentiate between you (singular) and you (plural), it becomes immediately clear from the context as well, that this is not talking about suicide at all, but what Paul is talking about is the church!  In other words:  You all are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  — the context of 1 Corinthians chapter 3 is that Paul is talking about people who cause division in the church!   He says that the Church — the Christ-ordained gathering of the people of God — is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, and whoever destroys the church, through division, will be judged by God!

In other words – 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 is not talking about suicide but it is speaking to those who cause division in the church. Is suicide an unforgivable sin? I don’t see why we should believe it is. That being said, I would not encourage anyone to test God on this.  The message of the Gospel is new life and restoration in Jesus Christ from any and all forms of despair, and the hope of eternal live and joy for those who persevere.

Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner and the Quest for a New Start

Published on by nickcady1 Comment

In the wake of the Vanity Fair cover of a 65 year old Bruce Jenner who has changed his gender and his name to “Caitlyn”, social media has been full of people responding on both sides of the issue. Many are bemoaning where our culture has come to, others celebrating this as progress.

  
To me the most insightful response has been one posted by a friend and a reader of this blog. This friend pointed out that Jenner stated his desire for a new start. Jenner’s son has been quoted as saying that he hopes Caitlyn will be a better father than Bruce was. Others on social media have been commenting on the significance of the name “Caitlyn” – with a C rather than a K: that it is an intentional departure and separation on Jenner’s part from the Kardashians and their names which all begin with K.

It seems clear that, as Jenner has stated, he wants a new start – a new life. He wants to be a new person.
But isn’t that what all of us truly desire deep down in our heart of hearts?

Jenner has experienced success that many people only dream of, but yet he feels such a deep dissatisfaction with himself that he has now undertaken the greatest transformation medically possible. What does this show us if not to confirm the great theological truth that all people have a deep (and correct) sense that something is fundamentally wrong with them. 

Bruce Jenner is not the first person to have a sex change opperation, and surely many others have done it for many of the same reasons: they desire the most extreme form of a new life that modern medicine can manufacture. However, history has shown that people who have gotten these opperations tend to greatly regret it, with a huge and disturbing percentage of them restorting to suicide.

Jenner has been called a “hero” for coming out. When I look at him what I see is a desperately sad and depressed individual who happens to have the money to do whatever he wants – in this case buy himself a “new life”. I’m sure the “new car smell” will wear off with time, the media will move on, and then Jenner will be left with: himself/herself, and the root issue will not have been dealt with. 

Jenner has only affected the surface; he has not actually become a “new person” – as is his desire. There is only one way to truely become new – so new in fact that you need a new name. That happened to many people in history: Jacob became Israel. Simon became Peter. Saul became Paul. They were all truly transformed, not on the outside, but on the inside. That’s what all of us really need and ultimately desire.

How to Truly Live

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

The final paragraph of CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity is incredible.  He’s speaking on the issue of how to truly live, and his point is that selfishness is not actually in our best self-interest.

Check it out:

The principle runs through all life from top to bottom. Give up yourself, and you will find your real self. Lose your life and you will save it. Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and the death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find him, and with him everything else thrown in.

Narrative Theology in an Animated Video

Published on by nickcadyLeave a comment

One of my favorite approaches to the Bible is that of Narrative Theology: a way of looking at the Bible focused on the grand story that the Bible tells.

These guys doing The Bible Project put together this great video, which uses this approach. Check this video out; I think it’s awesome!

They have a bunch of other videos on their YouTube page which are worth watching too.