"the voice of one crying out in suburbia..."

Cancer For Christmas

2009-12-25T17:15:00.000-05:00

Deliver Detroit: Cancer For Christmas

It is easy, at least for me, to blog about stuff that is academic or pointing out what is wrong in the world. It is much harder to write when it is an issue that hits close to home. My brother James writes a very real, very honest post today about his mom who was just diagnosed with cancer. Stop over and give it a read. Join me in praying for James, that the Lord our God would lift him up in this time. Join me in praying for his mom for healing, both of body and heart.

A great deal on Ussher

2009-12-25T17:01:00.002-05:00

If you think Ussher is an R&B singer, you can't spell and are at the wrong blog. Solid Ground Christian books is offering Bishop James Ussher's A Body of Divinity at the low price of $14.95. It lists for $26.60 at Amazon, so this is a pretty great deal on this 500 page classic.

The real meaning of Christmas

2009-12-25T05:00:00.001-05:00

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. (Gal 4:4-5)

The Incarnate Son of God, who became flesh and dwelt among us, came at the appointed time to fulfill the Law and the prophets, to not just be a babe in a manger but to be a sacrifice for sins. He came not to live but to die, to satisfy the justice of God demanded by the Law and making propitiation for the sins of His elect sheep. The image of Christmas is not merely of a manger or figures in a creche but rather of a lonely cross where He would suffer and die. Without the cross, there is no Christmas. Praise God for His Son who left behind a perfect and glorious fellowship with the Father to live a life of poverty so that we may someday enjoy that same fellowship! Thank God for the redeeming sacrifice and the undeserved adoption that we who know Him and are known by Him enjoy.

The sinking of the Danny F II

2009-12-24T10:11:00.003-05:00

A few days ago I read an article about a ship, the Danny F II, sinking near Tripoli. 11 crew members died (at last count) and also the cargo was lost. The cargo in question was livestock, some 28,000 cattle and sheep traveling from Uruguay to Syria, a trip of over 5000 nautical miles. I am sure the sharks near Tripoli had a great meal!

So what? Perhaps the least interesting story I have ever linked to? Here is the so what and what came to mind when I read the article.

According to the Bible, Noah's ark was pretty big:

This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. (Gen 6:15)

A cubit is about a foot and a half, so the ark was 450 feet long and 75 feet wide. The Danny F II was 665 feet long and 92 feet wide. Keep in mind that the ark had minimal living quarters and no engines or electronics. The Danny F II had a crew of 77 and was built to travel thousands of nautical mile so it carries a ton of fuel along with the crew and livestick. So very similar in size when you consider just the cargo capacity.

Lots of skeptics scoff at the flood account. How would you get all of those animals on one ship. But here is a modern ship made to sail around the world (thousands of nautical miles), not merely floating, and it had a cargo of 28,000 sheep and cattle. When you think about how many different species the ark would have carried, especially how few land animals are really big, is it all that inconceivable that you could carry a pair of each and seven pairs of the clean animals? So next time someone scoffs about the ark, just think of livestock carriers we have today and try to imagine 10,000 sheep and 18,000 cattle on one ship. Doesn't seem that far-fetched at all, does it?

Circumcison and baptism

2009-12-23T11:00:00.005-05:00

I wanted to direct you to an excellent study of circumcision and baptism over at The Gospel in Real Life. Very clear and concise, good stuff that you should check out. It seems that there is a linkage many people draw between physical, Old Covenant circumcision and New Covenant baptism that needs to be looked at. Check it out!

What is up with the spam?

2009-12-22T18:19:00.000-05:00

Is anybody else getting tons of spam comments?

Ron French reprint

2009-12-21T19:00:00.000-05:00

The Lansing State Journal reprinted Ron French's unbalanced editorial suggesting that homeschool kids in Michigan are at risk from their parents because the state of Michigan isn't watching them closely enough (see here for my original post). No sign of course of the HSLDA's rebuttal of his article. Also, one of the LSJ's bloggers John Schneider has jumped into the fray with a blog post about homeschooling. The level of discourse you see from both the article and the blog post provides plenty of reasons to homeschool your children!

We are living a lie

2009-12-21T15:50:00.001-05:00

(Angry blog rant warning)

We have it all backwards

As Christians we are called to be the church, to live as the church distinct from the world and to go out into the world to proclaim Christ.

Instead what we have is most Christians living in the world, as the world. Rather than being distinct from the world, we are virtually indistinguishable from the world. In place of going out to proclaim Christ to the world, we occasionally come out of the world to go to church and hear someone else proclaim Christ to us.

Do you see where I am going with this? Instead of “in the world but not of the world”, we are mostly of the world and occasionally we come out of the world to be the church. Even when we do that, what passes for the church is often little more than a charade, a rude facsimile of what the church should look like.

Is it any wonder there is no Spirit, no power in the church? The church is an afterthought, an add-on to the week. Even the most devout among us are only marginally less worldly than the most devout atheist. When we do make it to church, we get a mostly empty religious ceremony that doesn’t even bear a superficial resemblance to the church that the Apostle’s knew. In many ways the visible church has replaced the Jewish leadership as the promoter and defender of religious ritualism and woe to the Christian who questions the system.

We have embraced the world’s social contract of security and complacency. In trading persecution and the reviling of the world for creature comforts, we think we have won something. We think we have the “best of both worlds”. We are living a lie. We miss the best of what it means to be the church and we get a full measure of the worst of what it means to live in the world.

We live our lives by and large to earn and consume. Then we raise our kids to do the same thing, hoping that they earn more and consume more than we do and thus have a “better life”. Where is the sacrifice, where is the service, where is real ministry? Where is the sort of properly expressed joy in the church like we see here….

…and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ. (Acts 5: 40-42, emphasis added)

They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name of Jesus! Where are their cries of “Persecution!”? Why are they not getting on the phone with their lawyers or holding rallies? Why didn’t Peter’s agent get him booked on ‘Larry King Live’? How did they respond to being beaten and suffering reproach for the name of Christ? They went from house to house preaching Christ and even went to the temple, the most visible sign of Jewish religion, and did not cease to preach Jesus as the Christ.

We live our lives in safe cocoons, worried about what others will say especially what other believers will say. Just go along, keep your head down, be content living in the world. It is your vocation after all. Is it really your “vocation” or your calling, is that really how you are called to exercise your spiritual gifts: go to work to pay for stuff and go to church on Sunday to fulfill your religious obligation?

What is God calling you to do? If the answer doesn’t include persecution, suffering, bearing the cross daily I think you are looking in the wrong place for the answer to that question.

(Angry blog rant ends. Actually scratch that. Just getting started.)

The first Christian in Australia

2009-12-20T13:38:00.004-05:00

The Bible refers to Christians as "saints" in a whole bunch of places. For example:

Paul, called by the will of God to be an apostle of Christ Jesus, and our brother Sosthenes, To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (1Co 1:1-3)

Now it turns out that there haven't been any Christians in Australia until now:

Australian Woman to Become Country's First Saint

Pope Benedict XVI has approved the second miracle needed for an Australian woman to be declared the country's first saint.

Benedict approved a decree saying that a miracle occurred thanks to the intercession of Mother Mary Mackillop, who helped spread Roman Catholicism across the Australian outback in the late 1800s and is known for her pioneering work among the needy.

Mackillop died in 1909 and was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1995.

That is kind of surprising. I would have assumed there were lots of Christians in Australia. To find that the first one was discovered this year and is a woman who has been dead for 100 years was a shock. Anyways, congrats to Australia for its first Christian!

Was He serious?

2009-12-19T18:00:00.000-05:00

A portion of this Scripture was my "scripture of the day". Really got me thinking....

And he said to his disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat, nor about your body, what you will put on. For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. Consider the ravens: they neither sow nor reap, they have neither storehouse nor barn, and yet God feeds them. Of how much more value are you than the birds! And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? If then you are not able to do as small a thing as that, why are you anxious about the rest? Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass, which is alive in the field today, and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, how much more will he clothe you, O you of little faith! And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you. "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. "Stay dressed for action and keep your lamps burning, and be like men who are waiting for their master to come home from the wedding feast, so that they may open the door to him at once when he comes and knocks. Blessed are those servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. Truly, I say to you, he will dress himself for service and have them recline at table, and he will come and serve them. If he comes in the second watch, or in the third, and finds them awake, blessed are those servants! But know this, that if the master of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect." (Luk 12:22-40)

Think about that for a second. Actually, don't think about that for a second, think about that for a lifetime. Was that just hyperbole or is Jesus serious here?

The irony of this story appearing in the DETROIT News is lost on him

2009-12-19T09:30:00.004-05:00

In one of the most ignorant hit pieces to grace the pages of a major newspaper in a long time, Detroit News writer Ron French makes the case that because of a couple of issues of overt child abuse, homeschool kids are in danger in their own homes from their parents and that the state needs the authority to monitor homeschooled kids. His article Lax home-school laws put kids at risk links a few isolated cases of child abuse, which is already illegal, to homeschooling which is perfectly legal in the state of Michigan. Because homeschooled kids are not in the public school system where the teachers can allegedly spot and report abuse, they are in danger.

Michigan has one of the most lenient home school laws in the nation, giving tens of thousands of families the freedom to teach their children in the manner they want without government interference. But timid and sporadic enforcement of the law's minimal requirements has been exploited by some unscrupulous parents hiding abuse or educational neglect.

Because the state is barred from collecting any data on home school students, it's impossible to know how many parents may be abusing the law or how well those students are doing academically. But at least two deaths can be traced to parents pulling their children from public schools to squelch abuse complaints, authorities say. In both cases, parents claimed they were home schooling their children despite having no books or educational materials in their homes.

Others have used home schooling as an excuse to keep children at home to care for younger siblings or ailing parents, without providing any educational materials.

Just what can be done in such cases -- and who can do it -- is so unclear that some officials call a false claim of home schooling a "get-out-of-jail-free card."

"As long as home schooling is as lax as it is," said Charlotte Smith, a state Office of Children's Ombudsman intake officer, "it's an avenue for parents to hide abuse."

"At least two deaths". When you only have two deaths that can be linked in any way to homeschooling, using "at least two deaths" is a cheap way of implying that their may be countless kids killed in their homes by evil homeschooling parents. So based on two incidents, incidents that have only an ancillary relation to homeschooling, Mr. French wants the state of Michigan to have greater control and oversight of homeschooling. This editorial is typical stuff from those who think that the state, not parents, knows what is best for kids.

The tragic irony of this is that Mr. French, writing in Detroit, thinks that kids are safer going to a public school because of the increased "oversight". Tell that to the seven kids shot on June 30 in front of a Detroit Public School:

Gunmen in a green minivan opened fire on a group of teenagers waiting at a bus stop near a Detroit school on Tuesday, wounding seven including two who were in critical condition, authorities said.

Tell me again, where are kids "safest" if that is the concern? That is just one of the many incidents of school violence in the Detroit schools. Not to mention the report on education in his own paper that sported this headline: Detroit parents want DPS teachers, officials jailed over low test scores. Might I suggest that the problem with education in Michigan, whether in results or safety, is not found in "lax" homeschooling laws but in the public school system. My kids are getting a good education and are very unlikely to get shot in front of my house. Detroit kids have the worst math scores in the country. He wants to give the same people who give us results like that more control over education in Michigan? Public school teachers have a hard enough time trying to teach kids math and English, I think it is insane to add to that "child abuse spotter".

Mr. French, writing for the Detroit News, ought to focus his energy on the shooting gallery that we call the Detroit Public School system. Leave the parents of Michigan who choose to educate their kids at home instead of turning them over to the state alone. We aren't the problem.

The Homeschool Legal Defense Association wrote an excellent rebuttal to Mr. French, you can read it here.

Here I stand

2009-12-18T22:10:00.000-05:00

It has been a theologically tumultuous couple of years or so for me. One only need look back at my posts from a few years ago and compare them to my current posts to see that I have had some radical changes in my thinking. From the topics I post about to the blogs I link to, my focus has changed quite a bit. I decided that given the seismic changes to some of my positions and the occasional misrepresentation of those positions (some in jest and some not) it is necessary to clarify where I stand. Please note that I have turned off the comments for this post. This is not a post designed for conversation but for clarification. I might at some point do some follow-up posts to flesh some of this out but by and large I have addressed these questions in the past in greater detail. This overview is necessarily incomplete in that I am unable to address every single issue and some issues I am still working out, so I reserve the right to modify and clarify these stances as needed.

So here is what I believe, my “statement of faith” if you will. This is unfortuunately a very long post but I am not going to break it up because I plan to link to this post in the sidebar to hopefully avoid accusations and mischaracterizations in the future.

First and foremost, I hold the sixty-six books of the Bible as authoritative, inerrant, clear and sufficient. Interpreted properly (Scripture interpreting Scripture, the New Testament interpreting the Old Testament) the Bible provides all that we need to know in this life about God. It is not exhaustive in the information it reveals about God but it is sufficient. We should reject any so-called revelation or any traditions that run contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Likewise we need to recognize that the Scriptures are authoritative in the life of the individual Christian as well as in the life and outworking of the church. In other words it is all we need to know in faith and practice, for how we are saved and how we should live. While commentaries, creeds, confessions, etc. are useful tools in aiding our study, they are merely tools and not inspired nor authoritative. Where disputes arise among Christians, they should be settled by Scripture not by dueling confessions or by trump cards like “Well Calvin taught …”. Pragmatism has no place where Scripture has spoken. Where so-called “science” or “philosophy” contradicts Scripture, it is Scripture that I stand upon. As such, I recognize as literal the miraculous events of the Old and New Testament and hold to literal interpretations of doctrines like the six days of creation, the death and resurrection of Christ, the virgin birth and a literal, conscious hell for the unbeliever. The Bible and the Bible alone is my source for authoritative teachings and everything else bows before the God breathed Scriptures.

I believe that in the Bible we see the revelation of God whereby God created man in His own image but that in spite of the perfect fellowship Adam enjoyed, he willfully sinned against God and was cast out of the Garden. Adam is the representative head of all mankind and thus all successive generations of men were inherently sinful and lost, under the condemnation of a just and holy God. Throughout the Old Testament we see two things happening, the Jews failing to keep the law and God promising in prophecy, types and shadows the coming of a Messiah, His own Son. In due time Jesus Christ who is fully God became flesh and dwelt among us, He lived a perfect and sinless life and in doing so fulfilled the law. I believe that He died on a cross on Calvary, was buried and rose again the third day and having fulfilled His purpose and having made propitiation for the sins of His sheep, He has ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of God until the appointed time when the dead will rise and all will stand before the Judgment Seat. I am in complete agreement with the historic ecumenical creeds, the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, as statements of the faith which, although not authoritative in any sense, do provide a basis for common understanding among Christian brothers.

I believe in and hold firmly to the “Five Solas”: Sola Fide-Sola Gratia-Solus Christus-Sola Scriptura-Soli Deo Gloria

Those five phrases roughly translate into: salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone revealed under the authority of the Scriptures alone for the Glory of God alone. That is eminently Biblical and foundational to the faith. We may disagree on the details of how that works but the essence is the same. I would also suggest that anyone who disagrees with the essence of those “Five Solas” is preaching another Gospel. That is a serious charge but if you declare that we are saved to any extent by our own works, if you accept extra-Biblical revelation or tradition as authoritative, you are preaching “another Gospel” and I stand with Paul in declaring that anathema (Gal 1: 8-9). That is not to say that there are not Christians who have a misunderstanding of the Gospel. Paul refers to those in Galatia being led astray by the false preachers as “brothers”. In those cases, it is the responsibility of the Christian to show the one in error “the way of God more accurately” in the same way that Aquila and Priscilla taught Apollos in Acts 18: 24-28. For those who are preaching “another Gospel” though, it would become an issue to break fellowship with.

I also hold firmly and unapologetically to the “Five Points of Calvinism” as expressed in the acrostic TULIP: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Preservation of the Saints. Calvinism is not about Calvin and would be just as true (although called something else!) if Calvin had never lived. In holding to these Five Points I do not exalt Calvin above other men nor do I find Calvin’s flaws to reflect upon the validity of Calvinism. Even as I find the Five Points to be an accurate system to help explain the Biblical doctrines of grace, I don’t see these “Five Points” as issues to divide over. I would not break fellowship with a brother who doesn’t agree with limited atonement. I would certainly open the Word and talk to him about it, but this is not an issue to break fellowship over. The “Five Solas” and the “Five Points of Calvinism” are critical issues in that they speak to the grand story of redemption and how a just and holy God redeemed a remnant of lost humanity. This is an area where I walk in lockstep with many of my brothers and they are truths that need to be taught more, not less, in the church. It is because I see the value and truth of the Five Solas and the Five Points of Calvinism that I am involved in Reformation Societies and why I attend conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology.

Where I find myself at odds with many of my brothers is in how our salvation is lived out in the gathered church. In many ways I would be described as a “radical” in the sense that I don’t see any room for pragmatism or compromise or tradition in the gathering of the church. Like the Biblically orthodox majority of Anabaptists, I seek a return to the more primitive expression of the church. This may be more properly described as a Restoration rather than a Reformation. The Roman Catholic church was not and is not an institution that can be “reformed” because it is fundamentally flawed at its core. It has never been a Gospel organization and as such can never be reformed because it was never orthodox in the first place. We should turn to the 1st century, not the 16th, when seeking to fix what ails the church today. The best teachers on the church are not Luther and Calvin but Christ and Paul.

While I appreciate much of what was accomplished in the Reformation, specifically the denial of the Mass as heretical, the recovery of the authority of the Scriptures and the reaffirmation of justification being by faith alone, I am not seeking a return to the 16th century Protestantism. I find myself in agreement with the assessment of the early Anabaptist leaders who referred to the great Reformers like Luther and Zwingli as “half-way men”, men who we on the right track but who didn’t follow through. Much was corrected but far too much was retained.

This is not merely a dispute over infant baptism. It is no secret that I find no Scriptural basis for infant baptism and that I think it is an erroneous practice that misunderstands the purpose of baptism and misapplies it to those who not only have not but cannot exhibit the requisite repentance to be baptized. Infant baptism is a traditional practice that is a leftover from Rome and one that should have been eliminated during the Reformation but was not. Because of the long tradition and the emotional nature of infant baptism, it has been retained hundreds of years after the church broke free from the grip of Rome. Infant baptism applies the sign of covenant membership upon those who cannot possibly have demonstrated that they are indeed part of the Christian community. Having said that, infant baptism is just one of many areas where I see the Reformation as incomplete.

I believe that the entire system of clericalism, like infant baptism, is likewise a holdover from Rome. While not without its attractiveness to humans, by and large the division of the Body of Christ into professional clergy and passive laity has crippled the Body and left most Christians in a state of perpetual spiritual infancy. The practical result of a professional, separate clergy has been generations of general apathy, passivity and ignorance among the laity and overburdening, distance and pride among the clergy. I believe that the Scriptures paint a far different picture, one where all members of the Body minister to one another. I don’t see room for professional clergy, distinguished from the laity by office and education , being supported by the giving of that same laity. Ministers who are employees of a local organization have a necessarily different set of motivations from those who serve voluntarily. Paul found his reward in preaching the Gospel free of charge (1 Cor 9:18) and likewise we should not “hire” elders nor pay them a regular salary. Elders of all stripes should support themselves like Paul, by the labor of their own hands and not from the giving plate. Where elders are in need, the church should support them. That might include monetary support but it is no different from any other believer who should be ministered to by the church. We should recognize elders from within the local gathering, not by hiring men from outside of the local gathering.

On the church. I stand firmly on the doctrine that the church consists of all God’s elect, all who ever have, are now and ever will be regenerated and come to faith in Christ through God’s sovereign choice. There can be no unbelievers in the church by the very nature of the church. I reject the idea that the church is the fount of salvation in the sense of the Westminster Confession which declares in an echo of Roman Catholic teachings that outside of the visible church “there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF Ch. 25, II). This teaching is an affront to the Word of God since we see no example of this anywhere in Scripture. On the day of Pentecost, where was the visible gathering of the church? Where was it when Cornelius and his household were saved? Where was it when the Ethiopian eunuch was saved? Where was it when the penitent thief on the cross was saved? The teaching that says “This organization is the true church and that one is not and therefore you cannot be saved outside of this organization” is more akin to mormonism than it is to the New Testament.

I also hold that the New Testament example of the church is the model we should base our practice upon, rather than the leftover traditions of Rome. The visible expression of the church is a voluntary association, one that cannot be coerced or inherited. That visible gathering is not an organization or a hierarchy and by its nature stands apart from the world while proclaiming to the world the risen Christ. The notion of Christendom, that the church and the state can exist in partnership is an abomination that led to Rome and the state churches of Europe. Formal church “membership” is foreign to the New Testament church.

I recognize and cherish that God has set aside men as elders to lead the church through service. Christians should submit to one another and should recognize as elders men who exhibit the signs of maturity and service we see described in the New Testament. Elders/pastors do serve an important purpose in the church, specifically to serve and instruct others with the goal of bringing all Christians to a maturity in the faith (Eph 4:11-16). That doesn’t mean that the elders should always teach because how then would others grow and how would the whole body be edified as we see in 1 Corinthians 14? Elders are a gift to the entire Body, men who have achieved a maturity in the faith and exhibited by their lives that maturity. They have no authority outside of that granted them in Scripture and are not rulers in the church.

On the “Sacraments”. Neither baptism nor the Lord’s Supper are functions of the clergy as is commonly accepted by most of the church. There is simply no Scriptural command or example to limit the act of baptism or the “officiating” of the Supper to a specially ordained man or class of men. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward change, an act of obedience in response to being born-again. It is not to be applied to infants or to children who have parroted back a rote prayer, nor should it be withheld from one who makes a credible profession of faith in Christ. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial meal. Note the word I use is “ meal”. The degeneration of the Lord’s Supper into a somber ritual, infrequently held and consisting of tiny scraps of bread or sips of grape juice misses the nature of the Supper as a memorial to Christ and a prefiguring of the Wedding Supper of the Lamb to come. The early church devoted themselves to the breaking of bread (Acts 2:42) and did so daily, not once a quarter or even only every Sunday (Acts 2:46). We likewise should break bread together as the Body of Christ far more frequently than we do.

We read from Paul on the pages of Holy Writ that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim 6:10). Our Savior likewise had some less than complimentary things to say about the desire for wealth (see Matt 19:16-24, Mark 4:19, Luke 6:24, Luke 12: 13-21, etc, etc, etc). We see that truth lived out all around us, every day. Unfortunately we see this also demonstrated on a regular basis within the church. Few things divide the gathered church more than money and few things segregate Christians from one another while simultaneously associating us with the unbelieving world like money. The Church far too often resembles the unbelieving world around us more than the gathered, redeemed sheep of Christ. The early church saw the love of money and possessions to be of no value but instead sold what they had and laid it at the feet of the apostles such that there were none among them who went without. The reward of the believer is in the life to come. We should neither seek nor desire riches and wealth in this life. Christianity is not a branch of capitalism nor is it a type of socialism. It is something else entirely. The gathered Body should deal honestly with the world but we should deal in a distinctly counter-cultural way with one another. Our relationship to one another is a testimony to an unbelieving world and one that in the church in the West often looks little different from the rest of the world.

Money is but one of the ways in which the distinction between the church and the world has been blurred. The church must be separate and distinct from the world. Where believers try to mix the world and the church, it is the church that is changed and not the world. If the church resembles the world, the witness of the church is damaged. It is little wonder that so much about the gathered church is appealing to the world because it is indistinguishable from the world. If the unregenerate world can look on the church without revulsion and disdain, something is wrong. It is not the goal of the church to be appealing to the world but to present a contrast to the world. When we adopt the world’s methods and values, we lose the distinctiveness of the church which again is a testimony to and an indictment of the unbelieving world. Merely avoiding the “wrong” kinds of movies is merely scratching the surface of what it means to be unstained from the world (James 1:27). I contend that in the ways that truly matter, most of the church and I include myself in this condemnation live in a manner that is virtually indistinguishable from my unsaved neighbors.

I do hold to some of the traditional views regarding the gathering of the church, not because they are traditional but because they are Biblical. I think it is vital that Christians gather in community, although I would reject the traditional notion that this can be accomplished by a couple of carefully orchestrated meetings for a few hours each week. I also do not see Sunday mornings are some sort of divinely ordained time to meet. I reject the teaching that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath. I would likewise hold to the idea of equality before Christ but with roles that are specifically ordained by God for the two genders. I think that radical egalitarianism in the operation of the Body is without Scriptural support and that in fact the opposite is true. Men and women, equal in Christ but different in calling, have specific roles that are ordained by God and gifted into the individual by God. Men are called to leadership in the home, family and the gathered church. Just as the first woman Eve was created as a helper suitable for Adam, so also are women in a similar role today. Women are not permitted to teach or exercise authority over men. I also believe that Scripture is explicitly clear that wives are to cover their heads as a symbol of authority when praying or prophesying. That is not to say women have no role, just that their role as keepers of the home and rearing children is different than that of men by design. Because we have by and large abandoned this God ordained pattern in deed if not in creed, we have women seeking to be in authority over men, men who fail to lead in the church and home, as well as children who are confused and raised by strangers instead of their mothers. Often this is a result of women seeking to “fill in the gap” where men have failed. The solution to men failing to lead in the home and the church is not to have women violate Scripture to take their places but instead to call Christian men to repent of their failure to lead.

I believe in a roughly amillenial view of eschatology. I reject dispensationalism as a system, especially where it wrongly divides the people of God into Israel and the church. Jesus Christ, having inaugurated His Kingom and reigning in heaven at the right hand of the Father, is preparing for the culmination at the Last Judgment when the dead are raised, the righteous in Christ to eternal life and those outside of Christ to eternal damnation. I think it is dangerous to try to use a wooden literalism to interpret the visions of John in his revelation. Where John is seeing images and visions we should recognize and interpret them as such instead of trying to force interpretations on the text. Excessive certitude about the end-times is dangerous and divisive and ultimately unproductive. We know the basic truth that Jesus will return, He will judge all mankind and until that time we are to live together as the church and declare Christ to the lost. That is enough to keep us busy without trying to identify the anti-Christ.

I hold that the New Covenant, the covenant in Christ for the believer, is exactly what it says it is in Jeremiah 31: 31-34 “a new covenant…not like the covenant I made with their fathers…”. Hebrews 8:13 tells us that with the coming of the New Covenant, the Old is made obsolete (speaking specifically in reference to Jeremiah 31: 31-34). We have a new and better covenant with better promises and a better mediator. We should not seek to return to the promises of the Old (i.e. the land) nor should we seek to carry on the practices of the Old (i.e. applying baptism like circumcision to infants).

I believe that the family is central to the life of the church. Families should worship together when the church gathers and the gathering of the church should welcome families of believers. Just as men are to lead in the church, they are also called to lead in the family. The family is the primary means of educating children. It is not the place of the church to educate children and it certainly is not the place of the state. The children of Christians need to be taught from their youth by their parents and that solemn task is not one that can be subcontracted to a "youth pastor" or "children's church".

I also reject most modern exhibitions of signs and wonders as nothing less than charlatanism. Speaking in tongues, prophetic revelation and miraculous healings would fall into this category. That is not to say that God is unable to heal people, He can and does. God has spoken finally and authoritatively in His Son (Heb 1: 1-2) and no longer reveals new revelations. Again, that is not to limit God but it is to say that the exhibitions of the so-called sign gifts we see today are the work of shysters and deceivers and neither take on the form nor fulfill the purpose of the sign gifts in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit certainly still works for the regeneration, edification, sanctification and preservation of believers today. If He was not at work, there wouldn’t be a saved person on earth.

As I stated at the beginning, this is just an attempt to lay out where I stand for those who stumble across my blog and are trying to figure out where I am coming from. Also as mentioned, most of what you see above has been addressed in far greater detail in a blog posting at some other time. I would welcome questions via email if you need clarification.

A quick thought on teaching

2009-12-17T17:00:00.000-05:00

It is absolutely essential to have solid, Biblical teaching in the gathering of the church but it is not sufficient to merely have solid, Biblical teaching in the gathering of the church.

More on multi-site churches

2009-12-17T09:38:00.002-05:00

If you saw USA Today this morning, the cover featured a story on “multi-site churches”: Multi-site churches: A new variety of religious experience. Specifically it referenced Tim Keller who is driven all over New York City to preach the same message to different groups. The article is an interesting read and the tone is reflective of the pastor-centric, sermon focused model. This makes all the sense in the world if you think the primary focus of the gathering of the church is to hear a sermon and sing a few songs. The “brand” becomes important whether you are Tim Keller (hip, urban, orthodox) or John Piper (passionate, reformed, energetic). Satellite churches implicitly say that what comes out of their pulpit is better than whatever comes out of another pulpit. Why listen to a mediocre pastor when you can get a great pastor, either live or via video conferencing?

Again, at the risk of repeating myself, why even have a pastor at all? When you have instant access to the video sermons of men like John Piper and if the purpose of the gathering of the church is to hear a sermon and do some music, why bother hiring someone? Even if you pay Piper a nominal fee it would be cheaper than hiring a pastor and supporting him and his family.

Is there a personal touch missing? Some people say yes, like this person quoted in the article:

"I do miss having a pastor at the door shaking hands in the 'check-out line,' " says Lauren Green, drawn to join Redeemer by Keller's preaching. "But I realize that model of a personal relationship with a particular pastor is probably gone."

If that is your idea of a “personal relationship with a particular pastor”, I think you can do without it. Maybe the A/V guy can be the one you shake hands with and instead of saying “Great sermon” you can shake his hand and say “Great broadcast”.

I think the most disturbing thing for me was a line near the end of the article:

Now, Keller frets as he pushes Redeemer toward a $20 million plan for six more sites in the next 10 years.

Think about that number. $20,000,000 to replicate Redeemer in six more sites. I get that Keller is an amazing speaker. I also appreciate that he is highly orthodox, so the message people are getting is a solid one. I have to question whether this is in any way a reflection, in spirit or in fact, of the purpose of the gathering of the church we see in the New Testament. Take the video aspect out of it because that didn’t exist in the first century (and also keep in mind that Christ came, died and rose again and established the church at a specific time and place that did not have this. If he wanted a video-linked church, why wouldn’t He have come in 2010?). Is it proper to have huge churches full of people who don’t know each other and could probably walk past each other on Monday on the street without realizing they were in the same service on Sunday morning? Is it seemly to raise and spend tens of millions of dollars to set up satellite sites?

Satellite churches seem to be the wave of the future. I can really see it in more rural areas. In many areas, you can’t find the flavor of church you are looking for but why bother when you can just watch the broadcast from a satellite location?

To borrow from Alan’s concept…

And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting set up satellite churches in every town so that they could get the same sermon from Paul every Sunday they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed. (Acts 14: 23 remix)

Don’t fear persecution

2009-12-16T17:00:00.000-05:00

Read another interesting article today, this one in the Wall Street Journal. Written by Luke Goodrich, the Deputy National Litigation Director for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, it discusses a recent court case that shows the stark reality of religious life in Europe.

Europe is rapidly heading toward a militant secularism. Some may cheer and applaud when European nations ban headscarves but as the article demonstrates, the day is not far away when overt displays of Christianity are going be put under similar pressure. The European Court of Human Rights just overrode an Italian law that would put a crucifix in all Italian classrooms. The reasoning was more broadly based and evidenced a barely masked hostility toward religious expression, to the point that religious expression itself is antithetical to civilization.

The common theme in these cases is that the Court views religious expression as a threat to a free, democratic society. In the Turkish Muslim case, the Court justified the headscarf ban on the ground that it was necessary to protect the public order and the freedom of others. Specifically, allowing a student to wear a headscarf would threaten Turkey's commitment to secularism, make other students uncomfortable, and undermine the principle of gender equality. The same arguments (minus gender equality) justified the French ban on the Sikh keski.

Similarly, in the Italian crucifix case, the Court rejected the notion, advanced by Italy, that the crucifix was a symbol of Italian history, identity, and culture and thus furthered the principles of equality, liberty, and tolerance. Rather, in the Court's view, the presence of a crucifix in a state classroom would be "disturbing" to atheists and religious minorities.

There was a time when I would have been outraged by this and written a scathing blog post denouncing those European secularists. Not so much anymore. I am not at all interested in seeing crucifixes in public schools, in Italy or in America. As the article mentions, it is seen as a symbol of cultural heritage. The cross is most assuredly not a symbol of culture and history, it is a symbol of Christ (although having a corpus on the crucifix doesn’t properly reflect the Risen Lord). Why would you put a cross that is supposed to memorialize our Savior in a place where kids are taught the dogma of secularism and evolution?

The danger of “putting prayer back in schools” or Ten Commandment monuments on courthouses or using the language of “One Nation Under God” is that these all devolve into cultural heritage issues. The Ten Commandments are not just an ancient framework for Western laws and civilization but are the revealed Law of God, given to His people. Fighting over monuments at courthouses or crosses on public land is energy wasted. Not one person is going to be saved because there is a cross in a park or a crèche at the White House or the words “One Nation Under God” on our currency. In truth, the opposite may be true. People get lulled into a false sense of religiosity because they live in a religious nation. Little wonder that so many people self-identify as Christians when by all indications they are nothing but religious Americans with a veneer of cultural Christianity.

If I may be even more cynical, these sorts of religiously charged issues strike me as far more about pushing buttons for political gain than about any semblance of “Judeo-Christian values”. The values espoused by Christ are not triumphalism or even patriotism. They are sacrifice, humility, perseverance and even embracing persecution, being counter-cultural instead trying to conquer the culture. I am as politically conservative as anyone but I also see that for many politicians religion is a tool to gain and retain power.

If Europe and even America wants to make it more costly to be disciple of Christ, to enact a real cost for those who name the Name of Jesus, I say go for it. Let us winnow out the false professors and the religious and make them make a stand instead of sitting in comfort in church on Sunday morning. The church does not flourish where life is easy and religion doubly so. It grows best under persecution, it flourishes with the blood of martyrs. Bring on persecution because that is when you will really see revival, real revival that doesn’t happen in a tent on schedule. Persecution is not a curse to be feared, it is a blessing.

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets. (Luke 6: 22-23)

Who pastors the pastors?

2009-12-16T13:00:00.002-05:00

Very interesting article in Christianity Today (and I don’t day that very often) dealing with the topic of pastoral suffering, When the Pastor Suffers. Pastors are not different than any other Christian in that they suffer health issues, depression, frustration, sin and other maladies. In many cases, it is actually worse for the pastor because the expectations are so high. The article looks at John Piper, diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2006 and Matt Chandler who just had surgery to remove a mass from his frontal lobe.

What I found missing is the question of where the vocational minister turns when his own life inevitably hits a road bump. If a congregant is struggling, they can go to the pastor for help. If the pastor is struggling, where does he go? Because of their audience, men like Matt Chandler and John Piper have people all over the country fasting and praying for them. What about the pastor of the local Baptist church with 75 members?

This is a very real problem. When someone who is the pastor of a local church needs to be ministered to, who does that? Who can? Few people are equipped to do much ministering because they are not ever expected to. That is what the pastor is for. When pastors struggle, when they are hurt, when they need someone to turn to, where do they go? It can be hard when the congregation puts their pastor on a pedestal and expects perfection from him, his wife and his kids. How is someone supposed to expose their own problems under those circumstances without people looking at him like he is flawed (which he is) or thinking that he is grumbling?

The major problem with men leaving the ministry each year, in my opinion, is that the burden of ministry is so skewed that it leaves virtually the whole burden on one man to the extent that no one is equipped or perhaps even willing to help him when he needs it. The burden, never intended to be carried alone but always intended to be shared among the Body, is more than one man and his family should bear.

So what do you say? Where do pastors go when they need to be ministered to?

Lunatic Alert!

2009-12-15T19:10:00.002-05:00

I will let the first paragraph of Richard Collins essay, Sham homeschools are fostering a radical right wing fifth column, speak for itself.

Until the 1980s homeschooling was a benign activity that effected very few children. After homeschooling became dominated by right wing Christian theocrats, millions of vulnerable children (estimates are suspect because of poor reporting requirements) became virtual prisoners in their own homes, pawns in a scheme to overthrow the United States Government and replace it with a theocracy. The theocrats scheme includes lobbying state legislatures, pressing free exercise of religion cases in the courts and collusion with extreme right wing Republican officials. The result is an almost total lack of oversight by government officials. It will require dedication for the new administration to undo the Bush administration handiwork.

Wow. By the way, he is serious. Really.

United in spite of differences?

2009-12-14T17:36:00.003-05:00

Yes! I like what April had to say over at her blog about unity in the church. As April points out, often "unity" means "agreeing with me" but in the Body we all have differences and where those differences are not Gospel differences, we can and should be in fellowship and unity.

Unity is not uniformity!

(now if I can just get her to abandon that baby dribbling...)

More on authority or accusations of the lack thereof

2009-12-14T12:30:00.001-05:00

In the prior post, I wrote:

Is that proper? Is it Biblical? What is the mark of a man called to lead? More to the point, what do we view as the marks of a man called to lead? I am afraid that it may be based on many things that may make sense to us from a traditional and pragmatic standpoint more than from a Biblical standpoint. Being a good preacher, a good manager/organizer, having the proper experience and education. All well and good for a business person, but the picture we get in the Bible is a bit different.

So what is the picture of leaders that we get in the Bible ?

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10: 42-45, emphasis added)

Service is the focus of what Christ calls greatness. That is counter-cultural but isn't that kind of the whole point of Christian ministry? One of the final acts of Christ before He was turned over to Pilate was to wash the disciples feet.

When he had washed their feet and put on his outer garments and resumed his place, he said to them, “Do you understand what I have done to you? You call me Teacher and Lord, and you are right, for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you. Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them. (John 16: 12-17)

Before the beginning of His Passion, Christ spent some of His last hours in humble servitude to the disciples. Why? What was His purpose? It was in large part to show us what sort of men led in the early church and what sort of men we should recognize as our leaders and submit to in His Body.

In the traditional church, we recognize as leaders those men who hold leadership positions. Is that who we should be led by? In other words, should we submit to men simply because of the office they hold in a local church organization? Is that how we should identify those who should lead and those we should follow?

The Bible gives us plenty of direction here. The entire ministry of Jesus was teaching and serving. He did not merely walk around teaching, although as the Son of God that would certainly have been His prerogative. Instead, Jesus was constantly serving, not counting earthly glories and honors of any value. First and foremost, those who we should honor and respect, and yes even submit to, are those who are servants.

What else do we glean from the Scriptures?

Now I urge you, brothers —you know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints— be subject to such as these, and to every fellow worker and laborer. I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence, for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. Give recognition to such men. (1 Cor 16: 15-18 )

So Paul tells us to recognize and be subject to Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus. Why? Because they held titles or offices? Because they had advanced degrees? Nope. The “devoted themselves to the service of the saints”. Now that might include teaching, the text doesn’t say. But the next line describes Stephanas as a “fellow worker and laborer”. Those are the men we should recognize, honor and be subject to, men who devote themselves to service and labor. They didn’t seem to rule or lead from a position of authority, they were fellow workers and laborers. Someone in the ditch next to me with a shovel is a fellow worker and laborer.

Furthermore, in 1 Peter 5, Peter exhorts those who are younger to be subject to the elders.

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” (1 Peter 5:5)

Why is this important? It is not a stretch to make the point that while youth is often accompanied by zeal, it is also often a zeal coupled with recklessness and immaturity. This is bolstered in 1 Timothy, chapter 3:

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil. (1 Tim 3: 1-7, emphasis added)

An elder must be a mature brother, not a recent convert. Along with that we see a number of other characteristics like maturity, soberness, gentleness, not driven by money. They must manage their marriage and their family well in order to serve the church. (I would add as an editorial comment here that ministry for many men places a crushing burden on their families. It seems inconsistent to me that we read something like that and then perpetuate a system that places an inordinate amount of the burden of service on one man at the expense of his family.)

So leaders must be mature in the faith. They must also live a life that is one others should emulate. See the above passage in 1 Timothy 3. Our leaders should lead their household well, be hospitable, not money driven. Able to teach and self-controlled. We often read "able to teach" as if that is the primary indicator of a man's "calling" to be an elder but the bigger picture is that we follow those who have a life that is one we should desire to mimic. See also Hebrews 13:7…

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)

I had never really focused on that verse until I was looking at Hebrews 13:17, the proof-text of submission to leaders in the church. We are supposed to imitate the lives of those who are our leaders. Like the old saying goes, lead by example. We should examine their lives and seek to be like them, to emulate and imitate them. That is a far cry from leading by dictating. See also 2 Thess 3:7-9 and 3 John 1:11.

Let me wrap it together. The men who should lead and the men we should follow are those who live lives worthy of imitation through their service.

So how are we to gauge this? How do we see these qualities in a man? I would argue that we cannot unless we live in community with them. How can you possibly recognize a man who lives a life worthy of imitation unless you know them, know their wife and their family, spend time with them? Being an elder is not a job so why do we treat calling pastors like it is? The process for "calling" a pastor is very similar to the process of filling a job in corporate America. You post the position, listing qualities and credentials desired. Then you narrow down your candidates through a “pastor search committee”. What follows are interviews and “candidating”, which basically means hearing a guy preach a few times to see if you like listening to him. What you typically see is that the church will hire a man from outside of your congregation to come into the local body and lead it ( I would be curious to see how many pastors come from their own congregations). Instead of training up men, young and old alike, to lead through service and maturity in the faith, we perpetuate a system that keeps most men in the church in blissful spiritual infancy and hire men armed with a seminary degree. The practical ramification is that many pastors "learn on the job" and either sink or swim. Instead of discipling men and recognizing them as elders, we hire men based on extra-Biblical qualifications and see if they can make it. As the statistics show, many of them don't and get fired (as if an elder is someone you can/should hire or fire) and many more trudge along in frustration. The turnover rate among pastors is staggering and no one wants to have an honest conversation about it. I think that if you recognize men who are leaders because of the praiseworthy lives they live instead of hiring men and hoping they will exhibit those qualities, we would see far less turnover. It is not fair, it is not realistic and I would suggest it is not Biblical to bring men in from outside of the community to lead it instead of recognizing as leaders men within the community.

I am sounding like a broken record here but there are a number of men who I respect and heed their counsel and frankly none of them has ever been “my pastor” in the sense that we were joined in a formal membership covenant with a local body. I would go so far as to say that in the churches where we were formal “members”, the men who were pastors were either men who didn’t know me well enough to offer any sort of substantive counsel or are men who I wouldn’t trust the counsel from anyway regardless of the degrees they held or the offices they occupied or the books on their shelves.

I don’t mean to imply that men who are pastors are irrelevant. I am saying that whether someone is a “pastor” is not the determining factor of whether we should follow their leadership. Some men who are vocational pastors, like Josh Gelatt, demonstrate that they are men we should respect and recognize, not because of the title they hold but because of the life that they live. It is also true that there are many men (and I put myself in this category back when I held that office) that carry the title of "pastor" but lack any sort of heart for people. I am far more concerned about the heart of a man, how he lives out the Christian life, his relationship with his wife and family and other Christians than I am in seeing what title he holds or what his job is (in the church or out). I would respect Josh as a leader whether or not he was a vocational pastor, as I respect other men who are not and likely never will be vocational ministers. Conversely, and this may sound harsh, there are a lot of men who are not living lives that we should imitate that are employed as pastors and regardless of their title or office, those men are not leaders.

We absolutely should recognize men who are mature, who are wise, who are experienced, who are well versed in the Scripture, men who love and serve the Body of Christ. Show me a man who loves God and serves the Body, a man who by his life is a man who I want to be like, a man who labors among the people, not above the people, a man who has as the focus of his ministry Christ and not himself and his honor and I will show you a man who should be followed. If you truly love the local Body of Christ, you will serve everyone in that local gathering whether or not it is your job and whether or not you get paid for it. If you are a vocational minister, ask yourself a question: if they local church you are in had to stop paying you for economic reasons, would you keep ministering there or would you go somewhere else? Would you become a tentmaker like Paul or would you pack up and seek greener pastures? What does your answer say to you?

Ultimately, authority is not about control and leadership as the world defines it. The signs of leadership we have in the church are love, self-sacrifice, service, humility. Without those qualities, all of your degrees and titles don’t mean a thing. Being “Reverend” so and so and having M.Div. after you name is the least important quality of a leader in the church.

I think you might have the order backwwards here

2009-12-13T18:50:00.004-05:00

Ah, some wise counsel from "Presiding Bishop" Katharine Jefferts Schori....

The Episcopal Church should respond with "prayer and discernment" to the recent election of a lesbian priest as an assistant bishop of the Los Angeles diocese, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said Saturday.

Instead of worrying about how to "respond", I think maybe you should have engaged in prayer and discernment (and perhaps some reading of the Scriptures. Just saying.) before you elected a lesbian as "assistant Bishop".

Scripture as we live it (according to Alan)

2009-12-13T14:00:00.000-05:00

From Alan Knox's Scripture As We Live It series

You [elders] yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me until you could afford to pay us a salary. In all things I have shown you that by working hard ~~in this way~~ in prayer and the study of Scripture we must ~~help the weak and~~ remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed for others to give than to receive.’ (Acts 20:34-35 re-mix)

More thoughts on TBN, MacArthur and money

2009-12-13T11:00:00.001-05:00

I think Dave Black made a very valid point regarding the frenzy in the blogosphere over MacArthur's post about TBN (somebody please help Dr. Black format his blog so that we can link directly to his posts!):

I see it's "go after the prosperity preachers" week. I'm all for it -- if the purpose is to bring greater civility, clarity, and theological precision to the discussion. But there is a bit of a problem here. You see, we evangelicals have never found it easy to superimpose morality on others without coming across as a wee bit arrogant. There's nothing that ecstatifies us quite like burning witches and excoriating fools. Sure, the Reverend Ike types are building their empires off the hard-earned (and foolishly donated) money of the average, gullible evangelical. But they're not the only ones. Goodness, didn't anybody read that report about what the Christian CEOs of the largest NGOs are making?

I'm not saying that confrontation is wrong. I'm just saying that every honest Christian struggles with materialism -- the temptation to use our relationship with God to get more of this or that, whether it be physical healing or money in the bank. In fact, Jesus' apostles were remarkably materialistic. The age in which they lived was just as decadent as ours -- phallic worship, astrology, pleasure-seeking, and the grossest forms of materialism. The disciples followed Jesus for some good reasons and for some bad reasons -- like the hope of getting a business advantage (by sitting on His right hand!).

I could mention other things -- for instance, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are clear that Christian leaders are to be free from the desire for sordid gain. But mostly I just want to say this: If we're going to point the finger at the money-grubbing health-and-wealth preachers out there and their so-called prosperity gospel -- and there are plenty of them to go around -- our own lives had better be free of materialism and the love of money.

I don't think "ecstatifies " is a word. But I digress. We certainly are in full "torches and pitchforks" mode. While the vile "gospel" preached by TBN and other deserves the indignation and vocal correction by John MacArthur, John Piper and others, I think Dr. Black makes an important point here. There is plenty of materialism and love of money in the most orthodox of churches and in many a pious Christian. That is not to minimize at all the damnable heresy of the prosperity preachers, on TBN and elsewhere, who tell the lost and elect alike that the cross is not enough, that we get to use God as our ATM with prayer as the pin number, that if we contribute enough God is required to bless us with money and heal our aches and pains. I stand by every word I said and agree with everything MacArthur said. I also have to say that we have plenty of issues with money and materialism in the church and if I may go a step further, the way we exalt and obsess about money in the church makes the job of these prosperity preachers far easier.

How have we denied ourselves, really sacrificed? The prosperity Gospel makes so much sense in America because it is what we see week to week. Not just in $130 million religious campuses or in megachurches. I am talking about the local church that spends tons of money to replace carpet that might be ugly but works, adding video effects to make the "worship" more meaningful, spending tons of money on staff and denominational bureaucracy. Granted it is not mixed in with the Gospel but when we justify frankly frivolous and/or pride driven giving and spending in the local church, we need to pay attention to our own materialistic hearts and attitudes and ask what role that plays in the spread of prosperity preaching.

Van encased in ice=church at home today

2009-12-13T09:27:00.003-05:00

No way I am dragging my eight kids out onto ice encrusted streets in a fifteen passenger van. So we are staying home. I plan on doing a more lengthy devotional with the kids, some readings like the Ten Commandments or something, baking and breaking some bread and observing the Lord's Supper.

WHAT!

In a house?! With no clergy present?! How...how...how primitive!

Yes it is. Thank you!

What does God want?

2009-12-12T11:26:00.001-05:00

Just musing online....

Does God want anything? Based on what you hear all the time in American cultural Christianity, the answer is an unqualified "yes"! Listen to "Christian radio" for example. God wants this and God wants that. I have to question if God "wants" anything, at least in the way that we want stuff. I want a Ferrari. I desire a huge TV to play my X-Box on. I want my kids to grow up, marry other Christians, have big families, live near us and live to a ripe old age. God doesn't want in that way. What God desires, He does. If He desires a sinner be saved, that sinner is saved. If He desires a heart to be changed, He changes it. Can there be anything that God "wants" that He does not cause to come to pass, in His way and His time?

Is there anything God wants that does not come to pass?

On authority or the lack thereof

2009-12-11T23:00:00.000-05:00

I wrote last month:

I think the solution to radical individualism is not authority. The antithesis of individuality is community, not hierarchy. We don’t overcome individuality by elevating certain individuals to rule over the others but rather through selfless service and ministry to one another. It is only when the whole Body ministers and serves one another that individuality is overcome.

That brings us to the mantra of “submission to authority”. That seems to be the solution proposed in many circles to the problem of individualism in the church, i.e. submit to the men in charge of the local church. It is the "Ninth Mark of a Healthy Church Member" for crying out loud!

Going a step further, it is generally considered an “either or” proposition. Either you accept authority as it is traditionally configured or you don't accept leadership and authority at all. It is just a given that the model of authority we see in the local church is the way it is supposed to be, without question. I have been accused and I have seen similar accusations thrown that about essentially assert that questioning the traditional systems of church government is tantamount to rejection of authority, sort of a Christian anarchy. I reject that dichotomy as false on its face.

I have no issue with what the Bible says about authority. The Word of God is authoritative (2 Tim 3:16). Christ is the head of the church (Eph 5: 23-24) and all authority on heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt 28:18). We should submit to those in civil authority (Rom 13:1). We also see places where Christ gives authority to cast out unclean spirits to His apostles (Mark 6:7, Luke 10: 19). We do see a passage in Hebrews that speaks of submitting to leaders, Hebrews 13:7:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:17)

So that seems pretty straight forward. Hang on though. Who are these “leaders”? These leaders are spoken of earlier in this chapter in verse 7:

Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. (Heb 13:7)

So our “leaders” are identified as those who spoke (past tense?) to us the Word of God. I would expect that for most Christians the guys in leadership at their local church are not the ones who preached the Gospel to them when they were converted. In my case it was Rev. Sheldon Hale at First Baptist Church in Walton, Kentucky. So does that mean that I should only submit to him? That is kind of hard since he is no longer at First Baptist Church in Walton and I haven't been there in years. My point is that we read “leaders” and apply that to “pastors” in the local church. Also, how do they lead? We are to "consider the outcome of their way of life" and we are to "imitate their faith". They lead us by example as well as by teaching and we are to imitate them. This fits neatly with Ephesians 4: 11-16 where we see the goal of leadership in the church is not to be a permanent division but helping others to achieve the same level of maturity as those more mature in the faith. The goal of leadership in the church is not leadership itself but leading others to maturity in the faith (see Preaching Yourself Out Of A Job). Now I may be wrong about the interpretation of Hebrews 13 but I don't think it is as cut-and-dried as it is made out to be.

Hebrews 13 is hardly the only place we read about submitting in the Bible. In various other places we are to submit to one another (Eph 5:21). We are to submit to God (James 4:7). Wives are to submit to their husbands (Eph 5:22-24), children are to submit to their parents (Eph 6:1) and slaves to their masters (Eph 6: 5-8). We are to be “subject to” those who are serving the church and to all who are “fellow workers and laborers” (1 Cor 16: 15-18), That is a lot of submitting going on. Is that a defense of the traditional idea of submitting to local church leaders? Eh. The “support” for submission to local church authorities seems pretty flimsy in spite of centuries of tradition.

Again, I am not questioning authority per se. I just question whether we express the Biblical concept of authority properly in the local church. In traditional parlance, those having authority in the church are the leaders of the local body, who have authority over us based on our “membership” in that local body and by virtue of their “calling”. “Calling” is church speak for someone being selected based on a vote or appointment by an ecclesial authority. So what this boils down to is that we are supposed to submit to authorities, which typically means the men who have been elected, by whatever criteria, in the local church. The relative merit of one local assembly as opposed to another comes down to the men elected to lead that assembly.

Is that proper? Is it Biblical? Is that what the Bible means by “those in authority”? An authority based on what? A seminary degree, a solid work history as a pastor and a “calling” after a few interviews and sample sermons? I think an enormous leap has been made here. This begs the question: what are the marks of a man called to lead? More to the point, what do we view as the marks of a man called to lead? I am afraid that it may be based on many things that may make sense to us from a traditional and pragmatic standpoint more than from a Biblical standpoint. Being a good preacher, a good manager/organizer, having the proper experience and education, etc are all well and good but the picture we get in the Bible is a bit more complex and counter-intuitive. More on that in the next post.