This isn’t an attempt to answer every question about Irresistible Grace, though. Not even close. So much ink has been spilled on this subject that it would easily take a book just to communicate everything that I’ve learned about Irresistible Grace, let alone all the smart people out there who’ve actually labored over it and written multiple books. And I haven’t even read their books (except 2 anti-Calvinism books), so they may have made much better arguments than I’m making. But as an exercise for myself and for whomever happens to be reading, I’d like to go through what the Bible says about Irresistible Grace in some detail in a single passage. And the pillar passage for this doctrine is John 6. I’d encourage you to go read or re-read it, because familiarity with it is key to following along.

To help things, I’ve included some of the files that I was working with when I went through the passage. I’m a Greekless graphic designer, so I don’t study with sweet Bible software like Logos. I use Photoshop. And I start highlighting and color-coding things…. making notes in different layer sets and all that. Having a text that has nice typography helps, too. So let that be a lesson to you: You don’t have to be a scholar. You just need to be able to read, to think, and use what you know. If you can learn Greek, do it. But you’d be surprised what you can discover without it. So here are the files:

In John 6, Jesus has just fed the 5,000 and the 5,000 have tried to make him king by force, so he runs away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee. But the 5,000 are persistent and chase him down at Capernaum. They’re selfishly clinging on, trying to get Jesus to do a repeat miraculous feeding. Every day. For the rest of their lives. “Give us this bread always.” Jesus’ response is to launch into a teaching about who can and cannot follow him. He concludes with some of the most offensive language (to religious Jews) he ever uses, clearly trying to drive away those who are clinging on for more bread, but not the bread of life.

So far, so good. Calvinists and non-Calvinists would agree up to this point. But non-Calvinists have two different readings on how this chapter unfolds.

Non-Clavinist Reading: Take 1

The first reading attempts to make a division in the types of people Jesus is talking to. According to non-Calvinists, the division is between those who do not believe, those who do believe, and those who are really committed disciples. Verse 27 is where the division begins. These 5,000 “disciples” are wanting to follow Jesus for the wrong reasons. So he begins to weed them out by telling them that they need to labor to be true disciples (which is how non-Calvinists would interpret “food that endures to eternal life”—it’s the food (rewards) of true discipleship). Then, when Jesus identifies the work of a true disciple that they should be doing, he begins with belief. “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” Therefore, Jesus is telling them that the first work they need to do is to believe. Without that, he can’t go on to the other works that they should do. Then he spends most of the rest of the passage trying to (1) get them to believe and (2) understand that they can’t be one of his earthly disciples unless God has chosen them. To support that, throughout the passage references to “come to me” are taken to mean “come to be one of Jesus’ earthly, walking-around-Galilee disciples.” So “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” means that only those whom the Father draws will end up being Jesus’ earthly disciples. Interestingly, non-Calvinists who take this interpretation also insist that inclusion in this group of earthly disciples does not mean inclusion as a believer. Which is clearly reflective of Judas. He was chosen as a disciple, but he was not a believer.

There are a lot of problems with this interpretation. Let me begin with a simple observation: Why would John spend so much time belaboring a point that people years and years ago (for him, when he wrote the Gospel of John) couldn’t be Jesus’ immediate disciples unless they were drawn by God? Why, in a book trying to demonstrate that Jesus is God Almighty, would he spend one of the longest conversations in the book trying to show that “You know, 40 years ago, not just anyone was allowed to be Jesus’ disciple.” It’s rather silly.

But on to the text…

The first significant objection comes in verse 35, where Jesus seems to equate “comes to me” and “believes in me.” If that’s true, then we can read the “comes to me” verses like this: “All that the Father gives me will [believe in] me, and whoever [believes in] me I will never cast out.” And in verse 44 “No one can [believe in] me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” If these can be read as “believe in me,” then they’re both clearly about salvation. And therefore drawing is a special sovereign act (irresistible grace) that ensures believing and resurrection. The non-Calvinist interpretation must make a distinction between “comes to me” and “believes in me” because, “comes to me” is clearly linked with a sovereign act. The trouble is, that distinction is not textually warranted. On the contrary, there is much textual warrant for taking “comes to me” and “believes in me” to be the same thing:

1. The context of verses 27-34 is belief. Belief is the work the Father wants. (Saying “belief is just the first thing the Father wants” is an argument from silence.) Jesus is saying, “You believed in the manna the Father sent? Believe in the True manna that he sends now. The True manna is a person that gives eternal life. I am the bread of life [I am that person—the True manna]; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. Belief is the labor. I am the one to labor for [believe in]. Believing in me, like believing in the manna, means you don’t hunger because you eat me.” (see the parallel to eating flesh and drinking blood later in the passage)
2. Some non-Calvinists get hung up on the word “labor” when it’s used so closely to salvation. They argue that Jesus could not have been talking about laboring for eternal life because that would be works-based salvation. But compare this language to how Jesus talks to other people. In response to the rich young ruler’s desire to have eternal life, Jesus tells him to sell all he has and give to the poor. When Zaccheus tells Jesus that he’s giving back the money he stole with interest, Jesus tells him that salvation has come to his house. Was Jesus confused about justification by faith? Or did he know what people’s hurdles were to believing? Wasn’t he trying to get them to empty their hands in order to receive himself? Zaccheus did it. The rich young ruler did not. Here in John 6, the crowd won’t let go of their desire for bread in order to receive the bread of life. Jesus, just as he does in other encounters, hones in on that as the way of salvation for them. Give up what you’re craving and have me. It’s the way he always argues. Don’t labor for bread that perishes. Labor for the bread that endures to eternal life. Not rewards, but Me.
3. Jewish writing makes constant use of parallelisms. It’s not odd at all that Jesus would be stating the same thing in two different ways. In fact, a few verses later, he’ll make another parallelism but in terms of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Non-Calvinists have no objection to treating “eating” and “drinking” as the same activities in those verses. So why the distinction in verse 35?
4. Throughout the passage, “believe on me,” “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” and “comes to me” all have the same result, that is, “eternal life,” “I will raise him up on the last day,” “live forever,” etc. There doesn’t seem to be any textual distinction made between them. (If you’re looking at the Color Parallels file, notice how blues and oranges are always followed by a green.)
5. Theologically, “comes to me” is tied inexorably with eternal security and resurrection. “Whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” “No one can come to me unless the Father… draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” Therefore, “comes to me” cannot mean merely being an earthly disciple since, according to these sentence structures, everyone who comes will be resurrected. And Judas will not be resurrected because although he was an earthly disciple he didn’t believe (cf. v.64).

6. John’s writing style isn’t linear like Paul’s. He doesn’t move from one thought exactly through to the next. Rather, he moves in something like progressive circles where he makes a statement and then begins another statement with a similar structure but with one old piece of information [from his last statement] and one new piece of information. In doing this, it’s almost like he’s trying out different ways of looking at the same thing, all while progressing a basic argument. (e.g., I John 1:5-2:6)

   John’s circle progression in verses 35-40 should be very clear. Verse 35 is like a theme announcing eternal life for those who come to him and believe. And then John/Jesus goes through circles to show how he came up with verse 35. He says “You don’t believe. But all that the Father gives will come and I will never cast them out. Because (v.38) that’s my Father’s will.” Then he circles back. “And that will of my Father? It’s for me to lose no one he gives to me, but rather to give them eternal life.” Then he circles back again. “The will of my Father is that the person who looks on the Son and believes in him is the one to whom I give eternal life.”

   So what’s the effect of the progression? Jesus has proved verse 35: that you are to come to the bread and believe in it for eternal life. And in the circles he has fleshed out all kinds of information about the process: that the process is begun by the Father’s giving, and giving ensures coming, and Jesus keeps the one who comes, and he finishes the process by raising from the dead the one who came. And coming to Jesus is looking on the Son and believing.

7. The internal hermeneutic of verses 64-65 destroys the idea that “comes to me” can mean anything but belief. Jesus tells his disciples that the reason he told them that “no one can come to me unless the Father draws him” is because of Judas’ and the crowd’s unbelief. It’s non-sensical to say “no one can be my earthly disciple unless the Father draws him and that explains why Judas doesn’t believe.” It doesn’t explain anything. But “no one can believe in me unless the Father draws him” does explain a Judas. It does explain a man who can live, sleep, and eat with Christ, seeing all his miracles and hearing all his preaching for three years, giving up houses and friends and lands and comfort just to be a disciple. And yet he still does not believe in Christ. Not only does “unless it is granted to him by the Father” explain Judas’ unbelief, I think it’s the only thing that could.

Non-Calvinist Reading: Take 2

There’s one remaining objection from the non-Calvinist camp. It’s basically from those who agree that “comes to me” means belief, but believe that, according to John 12:32, “draws” is a more general call: No one can come unless the Father draws, and the Father draws everyone. A couple objections to this idea:

1. This argument falls by the same internal hermeneutic of John 6:64-65. Once again, if God draws everyone, then saying that “the reason Judas doesn’t believe is because everyone can believe” is non-sensical. The only option that has explanatory power is that no one can come unless the Father draws. And Judas has not come because he has not been drawn. Therefore not everyone comes because not everyone is drawn.
2. Like links in a chain, “draws” is inexorably linked to being given eternal life. “No one can come to me unless the Father… draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.” So “draws” cannot mean a general call to salvation. It has to mean a specific call that absolutely results in a person’s salvation.
3. A couple hermeneutical principles come into play here. Firstly, “immediate context takes precedence over more remote contexts.” So whatever John 12 means, it’s 6 chapters later and Jesus may be speaking about something different. Secondly, “never use unclear Scripture to interpret clear Scripture. Always use the clear to interpret the unclear.” Whatever John 12:32 means, it’s an isolated verse dealing with this topic. John 6 contains over 30 verses dealing with the topic. So John 6 is almost assuredly the clearer passage than John 12 for this immediate discussion.

4. John 12:32 is seated within a context: the Jews are all going after Christ because he raised Lazarus from the dead (v.10). The Pharisees even say, prophetically, that “the whole world is going after” Jesus (v.19). In the very next verse, even Greeks approach Jesus’ disciples and want to meet Jesus. Philip has no idea what to make of it, so he tells Andrew. Andrew has no idea, so he and Philip go tell Jesus. Jesus then begins his answer to Philip and Andrew which continues and broadens all the way through verse 36. He basically tells them that his hour has come. That’s why they’re even beginning to see Greeks coming to find out about Jesus. And he gives them a heads up: “When I am lifted up, I will draw all to myself.” In the context of Jesus answering Philip and Andrew about why Gentiles were seeking him, it seems clear that “all” means “all peoples.” He’s saying that salvation is about to be blown wide open to all nations. God’s covenant is about to broaden to all people groups.

   The trouble is, of course, that “all” has no referent in the Greek. It just says “all.” Not “all peoples” or “all individuals.” So there’s no immediate way, textually, to solve who he’s talking about in that verse. So the warrant has to come from the surrounding context. And the context indicates that Jesus is explaining why so many Jews and now Greeks—”the whole world”!—are coming to him. Especially after the clarity of John 6, that’s the only explanation that fits here.

5. The term “draw” doesn’t mean “coax.” We tend to think of “draw” as a soft word where one thing is coaxing, encouraging, or suggesting that another thing come along. But the way it’s used in Greek is exactly the way we use it in English. Draw water. Draw a sword. Draw a blanket over you. In every case, it’s a superior force acting on a force that has no sufficient power to resist. The water might be heavy, but it is pulled out of the well nonetheless. The blanket may have friction, but there’s no question it will be dragged into place. That’s why some commentators suggest that the word “draw” be rendered more correctly as “dragged”. “Draw,” to our modern ears, doesn’t connote the effectiveness of the one who draws. So be sure you’re reading the word “drawn” with the proper sense: the thing drawn is grabbed and pulled and does not retain the sufficient ability to resist. So No man can come to me unless the Father [drags] him. And I will raise him up on the last day.

“I don’t like this. And I’m tired of reading this anyway.”

So what’s the point? What does all of this mean and why does it matter? Well, if you believe that you are ultimately self-determining in your salvation… that God issues a general call to salvation to everyone and then it’s up to you to choose… and that your choosing for Christ and your neighbor’s unbelief boils down to a difference between some obedience or faith or SOMEthing that originates in you that’s different from him (God looked into the future and saw that you would believe, etc.)… then this passage isn’t going to fit with what you believe. Because this passage is clearly stating that you cannot come to God unless you are drawn. And that drawing work isn’t granted to everyone.

“But that’s not fair!” you might be thinking. “How can God dangle salvation in front of people and then not let them have it?”

Firstly, God’s not dangling anything. “Dangling” implies that God is holding something out to the unsaved that they actually want. But the Scripture makes it plain that no one seeks after God. So God’s holding something out, yes. But no one wants it.

Secondly, be careful that you’re not just giving lip service to the fact that God owes no one anything but hell. I cannot stress this point enough. God would be absolutely just to send everyone to hell with no chance of repentance and no “life and breath and everything else”. And no one could cry That’s not fair! So until you can get to the point where your mouth is stopped and you realize all the world’s guilt before God… until you raise no objection to the thought of God casting everyone in to hell, then I’m not sure you’re ready for the good news of His grace in saving particular people. Because if the grace of salvation to anyone is owed, then it’s not grace. God owes us hell. Anything above that is, in some sense, injustice. An injustice for which God had to vindicate himself (“because he had passed over former sins”) by sending his Son to die. God had to justify himself for not killing all mankind immediately, let alone giving them life and breath and any chance for repentance.

So when God holds out salvation to a world of people hell-bent on not accepting his offer, who are we to cry Foul if he reaches out and draws people back from the brink of hell and compels them (however) to accept his offer? Is that unfair? Yes, it is. But the only sense in which it’s unfair is that everyone should be let go to fall into hell. That’s what everyone deserves. Trust me. You don’t want fair. Grace is better. Fair means God lets everyone run all the way right into hell without his gracious interruption. Don’t let your eye be evil because God is good.

This doctrine of Irresistible Grace (which is just theological shorthand for what we’ve seen in John 6 about God’s drawing) can be something that you choke on because this vision of God is foreign to you. It’s not the God you grew up with. It’s a tough swallow because it doesn’t seem loving.

But this doctrine can also be a source of immense joy and stability. Because, when Israel accuses God of not loving them (Malachi 1:2-3), God’s answer to them is: How can you possibly doubt my love? Esau had equal claim on my love and I rejected him and chose you. How can you possibly doubt? There is a sense in which love is defined not just by what we might do for the beloved, but by what we will not do for those who are not beloved. Love is, at least partially, defined by its exclusivity.

It’s like we have two eyes. One sees how God loves through what he has done for us. The other sees God’s love through what God is unwilling to do for those he has not chosen. And if we delight in seeing with the eye of what God does for us, but we reject seeing with the eye of what God will not do—even trying to gouge out that eye in others—then we miss at least half of God’s communicated love for us. That’s what Malachi 1:2-3 is saying. In a sense, since God’s rejection of Esau is his defense of his love for Jacob (see the verses that follow in Malachi where God elaborates on his destruction of Esau), there is a sense in which we understand God’s love best in the light of his rejection of others.

Please remember: God does not send anyone to hell who does not belong there. No one can accuse God of injustice or unfairness. The thing to be astounded by is not that God would reject Esau, but that God would choose Jacob. Both should have been rejected. “It’s of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed.” Irresistible Grace is a doctrine about God being merciful to all—eternally merciful to some—while all deserve eternal damnation.

Again, sermons in bold were most helpful to me and x2, x3, etc. indicates the number of times I listened to a sermon or series. Every sermon here I would recommend (even if I don’t agree with the Amillenial ones) as helpful. The sermons I thought were complete bunk didn’t make the list.

Thabiti Anyabwile

• The Church of Worship

Jerram Barrs

• Apologetics & Outreach – 26 lectures (link is to the podcast of all 26)

Jim Berg

• Maintaining a Clear Conscience
• Knowing God – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• My Hope is in the Lord (x2)
• The Wrath of God Against Sin

Pat Berg

• Musings Toward a Thoroughly Biblical Philosophy of Dress (Sorry, no link. Under copyright.)

D.A. Carson

• Revelation – 15 of 27 lectures (link is to the first lecture… change the lecture part number in the URL to access the other 26)
• The Scholar as Pastor
• Expositional Preaching Q/A
• Hard Texts in Hebrews – 3 messages (part 1, part 2, part 3)
• Christ’s Incarnation

Matt Chandler

• Preaching the Gospel to the De-Churched
• Gravity: The Weight of Pastoring and the Knowledge of Christ
• A Shepherd and His Unregenerate Sheep

Andy Davis

• Cultivating Biblical Meditation and Prayer

Mark Dever

• Preaching from the Old Testament – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• Evangelism, Pastors & Churches – 4 messages (link is to series page)
• Biblical Theology
• Expositional Preaching
• American Church History: Civil War to the Present
• Plurality of Elders
• The Need for Evangelism
• The Pastor and Evangelism
• The Church and Evangelism
• How Jonathan Edwards Got Fired, and Why It’s Important for Us Today

Kevin DeYoung

• Just Do Something
• Christ’s Life

Mark Driscoll

• How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words
• The Gospel We Preach: A Message for Leaders – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• Ministry Idolatry

Sinclair Ferguson

• The Tongue, the Bridle, and the Blessing
• Christ’s Resurrection

Wayne Grudem

• Keep Your Heart With All Vigilance (x2)

Brian Habig

• Shadows of Christ: Sacred Time – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)

Joshua Harris

• Out of Focus – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• Christ’s Preeminence

Craig Hartman

• Through Jewish Eyes – 12 messages (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) (you’ll need to play these in iTunes… they’re in AAC format)

Dave Harvey

• The Surgeon, the Scalpel, and the Saint in Sin – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• The Caller and the Summons: Exploring the Call to Ministry – 2 messages + Q/A (part 1, part 2, part 3)

Phillip Johnson

• The Coming Intellectual Breakthrough – 1 message + Q/A (part 1, Q/A)

Bob Kaulfin

• The Real “Worship Wars”
• Why Do We Sing?
• God, Music, and Me – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• The Future of Worship

Tim Keller

• The Christian in the Creative Age (under copyright, sorry)
• Led By the Spirit (x3) (sorry, under copyright)
• The Prodigal God – 7 messages (link is to Andy Nasseli’s blog where he has all the links)
• A Broken Spirit (x2)

Grant Layman & C.J. Mahaney

• Parents, Teens, and Reasonable Expectations – 5 messages (link is to series page)

Jeff Louie

• The Church of the Living God: Crucial Issues in the Gospel and Community

Marty Machowski & Mike Bradshaw

• Training Children to Worship God

C.J. Mahaney

• Application: Preserving Our Future
• Do Not Love the World
• Sovereign Grace – 2 messages (link is to series page)
• Christ Our Mediator

Carolyn McCulley

• Radical Womanhood – 3 messages (part 1, part 2, part 3)

Al Mohler

• The Nature of True Beauty – 1 message + Q/A (part 1, part 2)
• Christian Morality and Public Law, Part 1 – 1 message + Q/A (part 1, part 2)
• Christian Morality and Public Law, Part 2 – 1 message + Q/A (part 1, part 2)

Iain Murray

• Jonathan Edwards: The Life, the Man, and the Legacy

Michael Oh

• Missions as Fasting

J.I. Packer

• The Glory of God and the Reviving of Religion

John Piper

• If My Words Abide in You (x3)
• Battling Unbelief – 12 messages (link is to series page)
• The Inner Essence of Worship (x3)
• How to Use the Law Fruitfully to Bear Fruit for God (x2)
• I Will Not be a Velvet-Mouthed Preacher!: George Whitefield
• God is the Gospel – 3 messages (part 1, part 2, part 3)
• Songs That Shape the Heart and Mind
• The Supremacy of Christ in Christian Learning
• How Not to Blaspheme God in the Pulpit
• Reaching Our Culture With the Gospel – 2 messages (x2) (part 1, part 2)
• The Echo and Insufficiency of Hell – 2 messages (x2) (part 1, part 2)
• Boasting Only in the Cross
• 2009 Pastor’s Conference Q/A
• Future Grace: It’s Purifying Power – 6 messages (link is to first sermon; others are in that page’s sidebar)
• Men at War: Pursuing an Undistracted Passion for God – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• Adoption: The Heart of the Gospel
• Imparting a Passion: A Challenge to Youth Workers
• Wheaton Alumni Symposium: Challenges in Evangelicalism in the Last 40 Years
• You are God’s Midwife in the New Birth of Others
• A God-Entranced Vision of All Things: Why We Need Jonathan Edwards 300 Years Later
• A Divine and Supernatural Light Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God
• The Pastor as Scholar (x2)
• Feed the Flame of God’s Gift: Unashamed Courage in the Gospel (x2)
• God’s Word Has Not Fallen: Romans 9-11 – 4 messages + Q/A (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, Q/A, )
• Quest: Joy, Found: Christ! (x2)
• How I Distinguish Between the True and False Gospels (x2)
• Jesus Christ and the Rescue of Joy – 2 messages (part 1, part 2)
• Remember the Rich Young Man (x2)
• Let the Nations Be Glad – 2 messages (part 1, part 2
• Why Expositional Preaching is Particularly Glorifying to God
• Flesh Tank and Peashooter Regulations
• Faith: The Link Between God’s Love for Us and Ours for Others
• Can You Begin By the Spirit But Be Completed by the Flesh?
• The Spirit-Led are the Sons of God
• If You Believed Moses, You Would Have Believed Me, for He Wrote of Me
• The Love of Human Praise as the Root of Unbelief
• The God of Worship
• The Heart of Worship
• Skeptical Grumbling and Sovereign Grace
• They Will All be Taught of God
• It is the Spirit That Gives Life

Noel Piper

• Sarah Edwards: Jonathan’s Home and Haven

Jeff Purswell

• Last But Not Least: Amillenialism – 2 messages (link is to series page)
• Eldership and the Call to Character
• The Call to Prepare
• The Leaders of Worship

Philip Ryken

• Justification by Faith and Union with Christ

Sam Storms

• Joy’s Eternal Increase: Edwards on the Beauty of Heaven

Derek W.H. Thomas

• Theological Foundations – 24 lectures (link is to podcast with all 24)

Paul Tripp

• War of Words: Getting to the Heart for God’s Sake

Don Whitney

• Pursuing a Passion for God Through Spiritual Disciplines

Paul Zimmer

• Passion and Proximity: A Powerful Soulwinning Combination
• Desire and Distraction: Establishing a Spiritual Momentum

In order of when I read them, with asterisked books being my favorites for the year…

1. Designing the Obvious: A Common Sense Approach to Web Application Design by Robert J. Hoekman

   Hoekman’s books basically point up a simple interface design principle: Design it so that the user interaction is obvious. As Steve Krug said, don’t make the user think.

2. Death of the Grown-Up: How America’s Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization by Diana West

   Diana West makes a convincing argument that our unwillingness to make moral judgments and unwillingness to become grown ups who are willing to take flak for what’s right is bringing down western civilization. This is happening not just by the adults in society being less and less productive (especially of stable families) but because we’re also capitulating to Islam all the while knowing that Islam demands that everything come under Shariah law. As one critic said (and West agreed with him), she’s arguing that “multiculturalism is immature.” It’s a convincing book, but left me feeling pretty empty. I just can’t walk down the Republican path of being a militant agitator against political opponents. The weapons of my warfare are not fleshly (earthly, human). So I raise my family, witness to neighbors and co-workers, etc. I tend to worry about other methods of fighting.

3. Mission: Black List #1: The Inside Story of the Search for Saddam Hussein—As Told by the Soldier Who Masterminded His Capture by Eric Maddox

   Eric Maddox was an Army interrogator in Iraq immediately after the shock and awe campaign. The story of his slow, painstaking uncovering of the network of Saddam’s supporters is a fascinating read.

4. Designing the Moment: Web Interface Design Concepts in Action by Robert J. Hoekman

   This is basically the same book as Designing the Obvious, although with a slightly tighter focus. Read this one or the other one, but not both.

5. The Joy of Fearing God by Jerry Bridges

   Jerry Bridges unpacks the concept of fearing God and how it’s as much of a New Testament concept as an Old Testament one. A good book.

6. Young, Restless, and Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists by Colin Hansen

   A look at the New Calvinist movement from someone who’s in the movement and has access to its leaders (John Piper, Mark Dever, Al Mohler, etc.). A pretty fair book.

7. John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace by Jonathan Aitken

   A fascinating account of the life of John Newton from the perspective of his religious development. It’s amazing to realize that after John Newton’s famous tempest “conversion”, he went right back to being a slave ship captain, raping black women, etc. It took him about 10 years of serious religious practice before he was what most of us would think looked like a genuine Christian. It’s as much a category-shaking peek into what different ages have considered acceptable practices as it is a look at God’s amazing grace to someone who fought against Him so much.

8. Leading With a Limp: Take Advantage of Your Most Powerful Weakness by Dan B. Allender

   A book mainly about accepting chaos and weakness in leadership. I’m still not sure I was ready to “receive” this book. It talked about so many things I’m not sure I have categories for. I think I’ll need to go back and re-read it in another year or two.

9. This Momentary Marriage by John Piper

   A good book about the importance of marriage as a reflection of the reality of Christ and the Church. It can really help set your thinking straight about what marriage is for: as nice as it may be, or as painful as it may be, the ultimate purpose is to image-forth a spiritual reality. That’s what gives marriage its significance.

10. The Brenner Assignment: The Untold Story of the Most Daring Spy Mission of WWII by Patrick K. O’Donnell

    I don’t know that this was the most daring mission, but it certainly was a fun read. Actually spy missions function nothing like you see in a movie. The ops team doesn’t sneak in, blow up something, and then have a running firefight back to the waiting chopper. It’s so much more unbelievable, messy, and… human… than that.

11. Why Johnny Can’t Preach by T. David Gordon

    I reviewed this book a few months ago. His basic premise (which I’d agree with) is that most preachers are good administrators, leaders, orators, etc. but are rarely good preachers. They don’t know how to exegete texts but instead preach their own moralistic ideas. This stems from years of preachers learning how to understand a text from watching TV, reading shallow literature, etc. Preachers would be better served learning how to study poetry, where extremely careful attention to exact word usage and literary structure would give them some tools to properly exegete God’s Word.

12. Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Gregory Koukl

    This is a really good book for learning to orient yourself in any apologetics conversation. Koukl does a good job of showing how two simple questions can help you refocus nearly any conversation back to where it needs to be rather than trying to mount a running defense of every point of Christian doctrine.

13. * Sex, Romance, and the Glory of God by C.J. Mahaney

    I read this one every year at my own behest and my wife’s request. It’s just a great, great book for learning to romance your wife (which, I’m man enough to admit, doesn’t come naturally to me).

14. * The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller

    This is an excellent book about the prodigal son parable. Keller does a superb job of showing how modern people can basically be divided into younger-brother lostness (licentiousness, free-living) and elder-brother lostness (law-keeping, religious). He shows how legalism is a far more dangerous sin than libertinism, something which “preaches” very well to post-moderns.

15. * The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan

    Quite possibly my favorite book this year. This book introduced me to the underbelly of the agriculture industry and also introduced me to one of my new heroes: Joel Salatin. Joel is a Bob Jones University grad who has been working on his family farm in Virginia all of his life, dedicating himself to sustainable, efficient, organic agriculture. He’s a fundamentalist tree-hugger, basically. He runs Polyface Farm where he “grows grass”—he uses chickens, pigs, turkeys, and cows in careful rotation to turn the land into an herbivore’s paradise, thereby healing the land and making it unbelievably productive. Michael Pollan’s book spent a lot of time reporting on Polyface Farm and I absolutely couldn’t put the book down during that section. Joel is also featured strongly in the documentary Food, Inc., which I’d also highly recommend.

16. How to Grow More Vegetables by John Jeavons

    Explains the Bio-Intensive method of farming. Bio-intensive farming is an organic farming method involving closely-spaced plantings, heavy composting, raised double-dug beds, crop rotation, open-polinated seeds, and calorie-farming. Bio-Intensive is the method popularized by Parisian growers around the 1880-1900s. They could grow unbelievable amounts of food—year round—on tiny plots of land in the middle of Paris. John Jeavons has devoted his life to quantifying this method and conducting research to determine the science behind the success.

17. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism by Timothy Keller

    This is the 21st-Century’s Mere Christianity. Keller spends almost all his time among New York’s young elite, so he knows the current arguments against Christianity and where those arguments are leading. He also knows the best ways to approach genuinely postmodern people. Although his defense of the possibility of God and belief was helpful, I found his defense of Christianity specifically especially insightful.

18. Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do to Stop it by Ken Hamm & Brit Beemer

    Ken Hamm commissioned a survey of 1,000 conservative Christian church dropouts and attempted to quantify why they had left church and exactly when they’d checked out (mentally) from what they were being taught. His findings indicate that most people leaving the church are doing so mentally by the time they finish grade school. Although his survey contains some interesting findings and his recommendations include some helpful ideas, I think his conclusions are too skewed by his own involvement in Creationist apologetics. I’m sure he’s involved in Creationist apologetics because he sees it as the best field to be involved in, but I think he puts too much faith in what those apologetics can do to restore the faith of kids in the church. A much better and more robust understanding of the roadmap for the Church would be a book I’m almost finished, Total Church, by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, where the emphasis is on preaching the Gospel Word (especially in missions), and Christians living in genuine community.

19. * The Self-Sufficient Life and How to Live it by John Seymour

    John Seymour spent his life traveling around the world, living and studying with communities of people living apart from industrial life. He spent much of his time in Ireland on his own small-holding putting his self-sufficiency philosophies into practice.

20. The Winter Harvest Handbook by Eliot Coleman

    Eliot Coleman lives on the chilly coast of Maine and yet still manages to get exceptional winter harvests from unheated greenhouses using organic techniques. His book is a treasure trove of ideas for using inexpensive greenhouses to produce more crops year-round—especially during winter.

21. The Bible (ESV) by God

    I did the Back-to-the-Bible chronological daily readings this year and I would heartily recommend it to everyone. You can download the daily audio-podcast and listen on your iPod. It’s great.

The basic issue is that American Funds invests heavily in companies that are the major business partners and suppliers of genocidal governments like Sudan and North Korea. The proposal is to divest American Funds of any holdings with strong or direct links to these types of genocidal practices.

Unfortunately, American Funds’ board is unanimously against the proposal because they think it’s in their and their shareholders’ best interests to, well, make more money instead of being ethical. I’ve been trying to find a gracious way of putting it, but I don’t see much way around it. I don’t buy the slippery slope argument that “if we divest of a company that is the major supplier of fuel or weapons to a genocidal government, then where do you stop?” Please. To balk at stopping support for genocide because you’re afraid down the road someone might ask you to not support something you genuinely believe in is like saying “if they make a law against selling firearms to known criminals, they might one day take away my hunting rifle.” It’s saying, “We’d prefer to live in High Profit Land and pretend discernment can never be exercised because we might have to involve our consciences in what we’re doing instead of just our accounting degrees.”

I own a fair amount of AmFunds mutual fund stock. And I voted for Question 8 against their recommendation. But I was very distressed to see how they worded the question on the ballot. “To consider a proposal submitted by shareholders of certain funds, all as more fully described in the proxy statement.” Does that tell you the proposal is about “genocide-free investing”? Come on. Not only is AmFunds’s board totally against Question 8, they’re actively obfuscating the issue for the common shareholder.

Please, American Funds, I’ll take the lower profits in exchange for saving lives. I don’t want the money made at the end of a trail that starts with rape and murder. If you won’t be ethical, I can’t continue to invest with you.

If you do own AmFunds stock, be sure to vote FOR question 8 on your ballot. The shareholder meeting is November 24th, but the board is free to choose against the shareholders after the meeting, so putting pressure on American Funds is perfectly valid year-round. So in that spirit, whether you own AmFunds shares or not, you can send an email to them letting them know what you think. To send emails, click here if you own American Funds shares. Click here if you don’t.

For more information on ethical investing, visit www.ethicalinvesting.com.

So, of course, I have a new add to my Amazon wishlist.

* I find it absolutely hilarious that I know someone with his own Wikipedia entry.

Johnny Can’t Preach = Johnny Can’t Read

Gordon’s critique of poor exegesis forms the backbone of his criticism of preaching. It also shows the self-conscious titling of the book to reflect the landmark ’60s book, Why Johnny Can’t Read. Why Johnny Can’t Read explained that because “Johnny” (Johnny Q. Public’s son) is no longer consuming textual content but is listening to radio and watching TV, he is losing his abilities to read and think clearly. Gordon thinks this is still the case and contends that preachers, just like Johnny, have lost (or never gained) the ability to read and think clearly. And since they can’t read texts critically, they are therefore unable to read the Scripture critically—that is, with an eye for exactly how the passage was constructed, where the author is going and where he’s come from, the logical connections between each word, each sentence, each paragraph, etc. Most preachers read for a general wash of the content but have no idea how to bore down into the structure of a given passage. They have this deficiency because they get most of their information by watching TV or surfing the internet. And even the ones who do read read only for content wash—they just want to know what happened in this newspaper or history book or how they should file their taxes or change a spark plug. They never learn to read for the structure of an author’s thought and the precision of his language. They are therefore ill-equipped to unpack the structure of a biblical author’s thought.

A tangentially related issue, and one Gordon treats at length, is the epidemic of non-Christological preaching (where the person, character, and work of Christ are the main point of every sermon). His critique—in my opinion—is some of the most powerful stuff in the book. Rather than rephrase what he said, I’ll just quote him:

Such Christological preaching feeds the soul and builds fatih. Faith is not built by preaching introspectively (constantly challenging people to question whether they have faith); faith is not built by preaching moralistically (which has exactly the opposite effect of focusing attention on the self rather than on Christ, in whom our faith is placed); faith is not built by joining the culture wars and taking potshots at what is wrong with our culture. Faith is built by careful, thorough exposition of the person, character, and work of Christ.

I believe that as people’s confidence in Christ grows, they do, ordinarily and inevitably, bear fruit that accords with faith. Thus, there is no need for some trade-off here, or some alleged dichotomy suggesting that we need to preach morality if we are to have morality. No; preach Christ, and you will have morality. Fill the sails of your hearers’ souls with the wind of confidence in the Redeemer, and they will trust him as their Sanctifier, and long to see his fruit in their lives. Fill their minds and imaginations with a vision of the loveliness and perfection of Christ in his person and the flock will long to be like him. Impress upon their weak and wavering hearts the utter competence of the mediation of the One who ever lives to make intercession for them, and they will long to serve and comfort others, even as Christ has served and comforted them.

…the dominant theme [Luther] heard again and again was “do this; don’t do that.” Then go and listen to the typical sermon in the typical evangelical or Reformed church, and ask what Luther would think if he were present. Luther would think he was still in Rome. Perhaps somewhere in the sermon is some mention of Christ; perhaps at the end as an obligatory comment, “And of course we couldn’t do this apart from the grace of God in Christ”—but such a lame comment cannot rescue an essentially moralistic sermon and make it redemptive. One cannot expend thirty-eight minutes describing the difference between right and wrong, and then rescue the sermon in the final two minutes. Not only is the hearer already numb by now, overwhelmed and overcome by the recognition that his life is out of accord with God’s wishes, but he has grown weary by the message, and hardly even notices when the minister pulls Christ, like a rabbit out of a magician’s hat, from the black hole of the moralistic sermon at the last minute.

Gordon’s remedies are two-fold:

1. Make poetry analysis an integral part of your mental exercise.
   It’ll sharpen your mind to read for careful thought structure rather than just general content wash.
2. Bring your sermons away from moralism and congregational introspection and bring them to gaze at the marvelous completed work of Christ.
   Let Christ be the object of your sermon and the people won’t need week after week of condemnation about how they’re not good enough Christians. Christ is our righteousness. Preach that and you won’t have to worry about morality.

I highly, highly recommend this book.

But they, like everyone with a great idea, need investors. Venture capitalists. People willing to take a small chance in the hopes of getting superb returns. They need you.

So who is this good-hearted braniac with an idea whose time has come? It’s your local farmer. And his idea is called a CSA.

Before you think that CSA sounds like CDO and visions arise of a world doomed to recession by collapsing farmer’s markets, let me explain what a CSA is.

CSA stands for Community Supported Agriculture. Let me cover those words in reverse order:

• Agriculture – We’re talking food here. Good food. And lots of it. Organic tomatoes, watermelon, bok choi, raspberries, spinach, cucumbers, peas, chard, carrots, potatoes… more than you could probably name. You get a box of produce every week full of freshly picked, organic, sustainably grown fruit and vegetables. Some CSAs even have an option for getting periodic shares of beef or pork or eggs.
• Supported – Of course, this isn’t free. You’re buying a “share” of the farmer’s crop which he divides up every week. Payment is done up front so the farmer has the money when he needs it: at the beginning (for planting, fertilizing, etc.) Then CSA participants share some of the risk in case a certain crop fails or there’s a drought and the apples are really small.
• Community – Why would you want to share risk when you can just go to the grocery store? Well this is where “community” comes in. A CSA is strictly a local operation. You’re trying to support a local farmer that will grow food in an accountable, sustainable, organic way. And then you reduce the carbon footprint of your food by having it only travel 5-10 miles before it gets to your plate. You’re also developing a relationship with a local farm, getting to see where your food comes from, and putting your grocery money entirely back into your local economy.

Okay, so what’s this cost? Well, a typical 15-week share will run you about $400. That’s around $25 per week for, well, more fruit and vegetables than you can probably eat. Let me show you a picture of this week’s share from our CSA, Dillwood Farms:

Serious veggies, no? And all hand-picked that day just for me. And I even get to go out in the fields and pick a few more if I need a few extra. At Dillwood Farms the farmer showed Emily and me around and let Benjamin pull some radishes and carrots out of the ground. They even let me go over there and do some hoeing and learn from the master gardener and then take home as much produce as I want. It’s wonderful.

So how would you get involved in a CSA? Well, you can Google “CSA” and “farm” plus your hometown. Or you can go to localharvest.org and search their database of Farms and CSAs.

Farmers should still be taking orders for summer crop shares, so join up soon!

This is, of course, an oversimplification. But I think it’s good as a thumb for your musical rule of thumb.