Standing on the Rock

Godwin's Law

2010-07-14T12:58:00.002-04:00

I learned something interesting today: I learned about Godwin's Law. Nearly twenty years ago Mike Godwin observed that, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” That is, inevitably someone in a heated debate is going to call their opponent an emotionally laden name. I had never heard this before and found it most interesting.

I also immediately thought of a corollary when thinking of religious blogging since that is where I spend a lot of my blogging time. I think within very conservative circles that the corollary would be, "As an online religious discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving legalism or Pharisees approaches 1.”

There is also a special corner of the blogosphere where self-identified fundamentalists hang out and it has it's own corollary: "As an online discussion among fundamentalism grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Neo-evangelicals approaches 1.”

I Love Historical Fiction Except When I Hate It

2010-04-17T12:07:00.002-04:00

I love history. The story of the past is fascinating, compelling, gripping, engaging and seemingly endless. How did people live, what did they eat, how did they think about their world? These are the questions that history tries to answer. Right next to history in my interest is historical fiction. Books like Johnny Tremain, Red Badge of Courage, Ben Hur, and Master and Commander bring to life historical events more or less accurately by narrating the historical facts through fictional characters. The thing that separates these two genres is that one purports to give the facts of the event and one sets out to fictionalize around the facts of the event.

In our present age we seem to like to confuse so many things. I recently read a book that alleged to be a historical account of the the War Between the States. As I got into the book I noted that hardly a page was turned where the words, "perhaps, seemingly, supposedly, possibly, maybe or conceivabl" were not used. This "history" book had a lot of reading between the lines, secondary and tertiary sources and speculation. It was not history in any objective sense; it was historical fiction. Don't get me wrong–it was a great read and a compelling story and it may even be a true account of the events. But it was not history. It should not be presented as history nor should it be read as history.

Unfortunately the same thing seems to be happening with Church History. People are writing and reading books that appear to be factual, historical accounts of the followers of Jesus Christ. The problem is that they are fanciful. They rely on hearsay, supposition and fallacies to prove the authors point of view. That point of view may be correct, compelling, verifiable, and true but if it not shown to be that from the primary sources then it must not be portrayed as historical. The first time that I can remember reading something like this was a book I was loaned called "Are Baptists Calvinists." The author proceded by abused logic and selective use of sources to "prove" that baptists are and always have been soteriologically in the reformed camp and to paint all opponents as false baptists and Pelagians! I am sure there is a bizarro twin book that "proves" that baptists have never been calvinistic and that all who disagree with it's author are false christians and hyper-calvinists!

Even further afield are the writings of people like Dan Brown and William Young who claim to be christians and yet deny cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. I think that they use the expression, "I am a christian," the same way I say, "I am a ninja." I am not really sure what it means but it is cool and I want it to be true so I say it!

The New Testament gives warnings about believing and passing on these kinds of fables. 1 Timothy 1:4 and 4:7 and 1 Peter 1:16 along with other passages tell us that christians are to give the truth of the gospel without mixing in unsubstantiated stories and embellishments. Pastors and church leaders need to be careful that what they teach and preach is accurate, factual and logically valid and all Christians must learn to be discerning, able to search the scriptures like the Bereans of Acts 17. The Gospel is built on facts substantiated by logically consistent proof and reasonable experience just like everything true.

Doctrine & Piety

2010-03-16T10:34:00.003-04:00

The church has struggled with this for 2000 years: which is more important, doctrine or piety? The struggle comes from our innate human tendency to see things as either/or when it should be both/and. I think this is engraved in our DNA. Everyone seems to struggle with this issue. Some certainly struggle less or overcome it easier but I believe that everyone has this. Part of our schooling is to learn the critical thinking skills necessary to recognize when things are either/or and when they must be both/and. The excluded middle certainly is not always in view and we can often commit the fallacy of trying to steer a middle course where none exists. However, it seems just as common as failing to recognize the need to hold two seemingly opposite ideas in tension.

In my religious background of 20th Century American Fundamentalism there has been a significant struggle with the issue of doctrine vs. piety. Anyone who has spent time in fundamentalist circles has heard the old saws: "Churches are dying by [seminary] degrees!" "We don't need to read all that theology--we have the Bible!" "Calvinism [or some other doctrine-you-love-to-hate] kills evangelical fervor!" Of course no one can be completely without doctrine since doctrine is simply "a set of beliefs held and taught" (Oxford American Dictionary). So even the belief that "we don't need doctrine" would be a doctrine! Doctrine is perhaps best thought of as how we think about our religion.

Piety is a recurrent theme in church history as well it should be. Piety is "the quality of being religious or reverent" and often carries with it the ideas of "devotion, piousness, religion, holiness, godliness,saintliness; veneration, reverence, faith, religious duty, spirituality, religious zeal, or fervor." In other words it reflects in large part how we feel about religion or how religion affects our emotions.

As we look through church history we often find movements or periods or denominations in which a dry doctrinaire attitude has pervaded and characterized the people and assemblies. This is never a good thing. For to paraphrase Paul's letter to the Corinthians: if we understand all the mysteries of God and we have no sentiment it is worthless. Yet the solution cannot be boundless piety.

Pietism has often arisen as a reaction to dead orthodoxy and as such it is very good and even necessary. However, those carried away in spirituality often fail to realize that piety can lead to as many problems as lifeless theology. By rejecting as unnecessary the intellectual pursuit of doctrine as derived from the revelation of God, the zealous often fall into the same kinds of error that the church has been rejecting for 2 millennia. Think about this: most christian cults, from the gnostics to the Branch Davidians, start out at least cloaked in pietism. Mormonism was about purifying a corrupt Christianity. The Watchtower society is renowned for their keeping of the moral law. No one is stricter about allowing God to affect their lives than the 7th Day Adventist. But all of these groups have strayed away from orthodoxy. And what of those who would not be considered cults. Within the accepted bounds of orthodoxy those who reject as superfluous the scientific study of scripture and history lay out a course that quickly steers for the rocks of heterodoxy. This is most evident today in many fundamentalists visceral concern about the "evils" of Calvinism. While I am no calvinist, I do know that calvinism is within the bounds of orthodoxy and always has been. But, those who set out to be not just arminian but outright anti-calvinist quickly stray into open theism. This is natural since the only coherent position to take against the reformed emphasis on the sovereignty of God is to posit a "limited sovereignty" that is Open Theism. While no self-avowed fundamentalist would take the label of open theism there are certainly many who sound like Clark Pinnock and his friends.

So, religion is a lot like sailing. You really cannot sail all on one tack. If you want to go anywhere you have to tack back and forth. If you want to sail a fairly straight course close to the wind you often have to tack quite frequently. Some people want to pretend that religion is like a powerboat. The power is doctrine or piety and they want to firewall the engine and point the bow in a direction and go. The reality is that we need correct doctrine. Doctrine that is grounded in the Word of God. Necessarily any doctrine that distinctly departs from the way the church has been reading the Bible for 2000 years is no good teaching. We might arrive at a fuller understanding of the end times than the medieval church had but we cannot derive some kind of idea that Christ is not ever returning since the church has always affirmed the imminent return of Jesus. We also need piety. The biblical teach of the gospel, the good news that God is seeking to correct our dangerous predicament of rebellion against Him by adopting us through the aegis of Christ's perfect life and vicarious death, is something that must move our hearts. God's revelation is not just given to us to address our brains but also to rend our hearts and shake our knees. This is most clearly seen in the Apocalypse of St John when the Lamb is revealed before everyone who has ever lived on the earth. The response is twofold: they bow in perfect pious worship and they verbally affirm the biblical truth that God and the Lamb are who they have revealed themselves to be!

We need to live our lives in expectation of heaven where we will achieve the perfect balance of piety and doctrine.

Evaluating Traditions

2009-11-02T23:21:00.002-05:00

The adage goes, "There are two types of people…" I know, I know, you are sick and tired of hearing this. But there are. "The type who categorize everything and those who don't." Well, categories are often helpful, rarely complete and never universal. With all that in mind let me attempt to give three classifications of religious traditions.

Why do we need an exercise like this? Traditions are both good and bad. They may pressure us to keep doing something which has long since worn out it's usefulness. At the same time they are very beneficial to keep us on track with the past and not allow us to be lured away by the latest "Big Thing" that come along. Every tradition needs to be evaluated periodically and the good ones should be kept while the poor or bad ones should be shelved.

The first type, which I will call Type A, is the best kind of Christian tradition. It is grounded in scripture. It has been affirmed throughout church history and to leave this practice would be absolutely wrong. A clear example of this would be praying in the name of Jesus. This is not just a tradition of men but is enjoined in the Word and has been the practice of the church for 2000 years. Another example that springs to mind is baptism. I went through a stage where I felt that baptism was such an outmoded thing that I began to feel it was not worth the time we take to celebrate it. As I grew and read though I realized that to abandon this ordinance would be disobedience.

The last type, C, is the kind of thing that the Reformation fought against. This is the tradition that has sprung from the mind of men without scriptural warrant and actually undermines the teaching of scripture. Our example here is purgatory. It is a wonderful tale that someone came up with that has no scriptural basis. Further it undermines the Gospel by teaching that people can atone for their own sins by suffering in this intermediate realm. These are the types of traditions that must be removed any time we discover them.

The middle type, B, is the most difficult. These traditions are often good. They may be standards of conduct or choices of entertainment. Sometimes they involve ecclesiology or missiology. The problem is that they are not biblically based nor are they anti-biblical so evaluating this type involves discernment. Often these traditions become a test of fellowship or even a criteria for evaluating others. An example of this would be modes of baptism. I have been a Baptist all my life and I am so because I believe that it is the best representation of what the Bible teaches. But, this cannot become a basis for me to separate from someone who is doing a different mode as long as they are actually baptizing people and discipleing them. Another example that has caused me to look at this subject is the traditions that we have around our worship music. This is a classic example where I can explain why I choose my conservative music and why I feel it is the best. But I have also come to realize that there are many good christian brothers that are honestly seeking to "let the Word of Christ richly indwell" them as they "speak to one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs." These are areas where conflict often arises. I don't appreciate your tradition and you see mine as stupid, or pointless, or legalistic. But this is the exact place that we have opportunity to show unity and love. This is exactly what Paul is addressing in I Corinthians 8 & 9. This tradition gives us room to lay aside our tradition temporarily perhaps to help another. Or even to lay aside our criticism of another's tradition. There may even be times to jettison the tradition all together although I believe this is rarely the first or only choice. An excellent example is the song "In the Garden." I and others find this song sappy, saccharine and sentimental. It has none of the great theology of so many songs and hymns that fill our hymnals. It makes claims (i.e. "the joy that we share…none other has ever known") that seem suspect if not outright untrue. Yet for many brothers and sisters of another generation this song is part of their tradition and it encourages and helps them. So when we have request night at church and some sweet soul requests this vapid song I attempt to sing it for their benefit even though it does no more for me than an offertory of "Chopsticks."

I will not prolong my writing further to delve into how certain traditions cross these lines. I have alluded already to how Baptism is itself a Type A tradition and yet the modes that we use to conduct Baptism can become Type B traditions.

We need traditions. Actually we cannot do without them for a-traditionalism is perforce its own tradition. I think it is safe to say that nearly every local church has some traditions it needs to downplay or divorce. But at the end of the day, we cannot let our good traditions become idols nor can we use them to judge the Lord's true servants.

The Theology of the Death of a Cat.

2009-04-13T20:30:00.002-04:00

I have often laughed at the old joke about Cat vs. Dog Theology. It goes like this: the cat looks at the master and says, "This person loves me and is feeding me and taking care of me. I must be a great god!" A dog looks at the master and says, "This person loves me and is feeding me and taking care of me. He must be a great god!" While I love cats there is some truth to this and modern Christianity is shot through with this feline theology.

On a real note though I have been pondering real Bible Theology as we bade farewell to Hobbes, our cat of 14 years. He was sick and old and senile and today at 4:30 his life came to a quiet end. As I held him in my lap today and tried to imagine life without him in our family I talked with my daughters about what our religion teaches us about this kind of situation. While I am sentimental at the loss of this pet I want to be clear from the beginning that I do not think that Hobbes was any more like me than I am like God. I think that people have souls that will live somewhere forever. However wonderful our pets are they are not eternal beings.

The first thing I thought of was the awfulness of our sin. I feel sorry for animals. They were part of God's perfect creation. They were created "very good," according to Genesis 1. But they became part of a sin cursed world because of our sin (Genesis 3) and along with all the rest of creation they suffer (Romans 8:22). The nice thing about the Bible is that whenever it points to the awfulness of sin it always points toward the redemption of God (e.g. Psalm 51).

This led me to the realization that even the death of the family pet can and indeed should direct our gaze back to the Amazing Grace and Mercy of Almighty God! While we said our farewell's today we thanked God for making animals that can be pets. For allowing us to enjoy the contented purring of a cat asleep on our lap. And for giving us a glimpse of the perfection that creation will resume when Christ comes again to remake the world.

I believe that God created all things for His Own Glory and that includes house cats!

Separation

2008-10-14T07:45:00.002-04:00

I have often said that I thought that separation was not a doctrine but a principle. Many fundamentalists get upset with our evangelical brothers because they do not adhere to this doctrine. Of course once you make something live at the level of doctrine then all you need to do is massage it a little to make it into a fundamental doctrine and then you separate from anyone who doesn't agree with you on it.
It seems that this is what happened thirty years ago. The evangelical world got divided by fundamentalists into themselves and neo-evangelicals. Whoever was not in the fundamentalist camp was de facto a neo-evangelical. Many fundamentalist leaders seem to still be operating under this paradigm. While many young people who have grown up in fundamentalism are enjoying the writings of Piper, MacArthur, Carson, et al., and are being built up by attending T4G, Ligonier, Shepherds or Desiring God, too many older fundamentalists keep on preaching about the evils of neo-evangelicalism and muttering about the wickedness of young fundies who are drinking the cool-aid of the false teachers. Some of that generation just cannot grasp that the ministries of the men in the conservative evangelical circle are resonating with young fundamentalists because of their biblical grounding. And the move by young fundies into that orb was put in motion by a lack of biblical teaching on the very thing, separation, that was supposed to keep us away from these men.
I have been listening to an excellent class from IBC. Taught by Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Seminary, it is really the first time I have heard a fundamentalist leader clearly teach, from the Word of God, a cogent view of separation and how to apply it. I have to run now because he is at the part where he is going to talk about separating not only from foolishness on the left but also goofiness on the right!

Determining Orthodoxy

2008-07-28T07:36:00.002-04:00

How do we determine what is orthodox within the church? Have you ever asked yourself the question? I have been asking it a lot over the last few years. Maybe that is part of the maturing process. I think most of us just accept that what we have believed and been taught all our lives is right. But as we grow and move around the world we run into people with conflicting views of Christianity who believe what they have been taught is correct. So who is right?
The obvious answer is that we have to base all our doctrine on the Word of God: the Bible. Great! No problem. Except that the Bible has been twisted to justify all kinds of crazy things. Now, I believe that the Bible must be twisted to get it to say many things that people want it to say. But, I ask again, how can we know when it is being twisted?
What I am driving at is that when we interpret the Bible without any reference to the history of the Church we run a real risk of twisting it. The Bible is the Word of God to all people of all time everywhere. On one level that means that if a passage is being made to say something to me that it could not have said to someone 400 or 1400 years ago, then that passage is probably being abused.
Let us look at an example. I grew up with conservative music. I came to a conviction in early adulthood where I decided that if I was going to listen to rock/pop/contemporary music that I would listen to secular music but I did not want that kind of music to mix with the Gospel. I look at David's new song and find it hard to see how it could sound just like his old song. But I have to admit that the idea that the church should never use any kind of contemporary music has little historical basis. The heathen Mozart used the same kind of musical structures to write hedonistic opera and to compose the music of great hymns like "Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken." So is my conviction valid? Let's look at another example and then answer that question.
My second example is that of church membership. This has been a big topic at Desiring God for several years. There is a conviction among some Christians that church membership is not biblically required. And it is not to hard to see how their arguments from the Bible are laid out. I would even grant them that the Scriptures do no overtly require church membership. But the Bible implicitly requires membership in a local body of believers and Church history shows that any challenge to that principle has been sporadic and far from mainstream.
So now, back to the question: should I ever hold a conviction that has no historical root? I believe the answer is yes. Our doctrine must be informed by the Word of God and guided by history of the Church. Those are the convictions that we stand on and for which we can and should fight. Convictions like my music conviction often become the things that we fight and separate over and they should not be so. Those are convictions that work in my home and my local church but not much farther afield. I don't think it is hypocritical to hold strongly to beliefs that are not applicable to all Christians. We just have to understand that when we elevate them to the same level as the great doctrines of the faith that we are perilously close to having another gospel (Galatians 1).
Convictions about church membership, inerrancy of scripture and the Trinity are non-negotiable tenets of Christianity. They have been for 2000 years and, if the Lord tarries His return, will continue to be so for another 2000 years. Our views of music, alcohol consumption and the method of the preservation of scripture are recent positions that will probably be outmoded in a relatively short time. They cannot become the basis for how we treat other servants of the Lord.

What has been going on?

2008-06-23T10:03:00.003-04:00

I have several posts that I have been turning over in the ol' noggin. Unfortunately this last week I got caught up in a little discussion over at 9Marks. It has been rather interesting and if you have not yet stopped by I would recommend it. The original article is quite interesting and discussion has hit a real cross-section of the larger debate. I am wondering if I have over-participated. I would welcome any loving feedback on that account!

Also there is an article over at Pulpit Magazine about a subject dear to my heart: leaving a church. I managed to jump (or step) into that one too and we will see where it goes.

Civic Religion in America

2008-06-02T16:57:00.002-04:00

I had the privilege this weekend to attend the graduation ceremony of the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY. A whole weekend to military bands and flag waving is a good thing! The bad thing is that Civic Religion was on full display.

At the graduation ceremony Pete Geren, the Secretary of the Army, spoke. Like all good politicians he invoked God and Country. He quoted Jeremiah and Jefferson. It all sounded so good. The scary thing is that in this country where the Gospel is increasingly hated and the right of Christians to talk about their beliefs is becoming scarce, politicians like Mr. Garen can get applause when they serve up big helpings of the Civic Religion.

So what is Civic Religion. Well, it works like this. There is a God. We don't want to be to specific about his name, his attributes or his will. All we really need to know is that he likes to bless America. We don't really talk about the fact that God's blessing is pretty meaningless if there is no curse around! (I could not help but remember RC Sproul's message at T4G.) That would be bad to talk about God judging our enemies. But we're very sure that he is blessing us.

He is a God of the present. We cannot talk to much about the past beyond hazy "past blessings" because that might sound like he condoned genocide against Indians and other stuff like that that Civic Religion justified in the past. Civic Religion is very much a religion of the present. We also don't want to talk too much about the future other than to assure ourselves that God will keep on blessing us. Our boys and girls in uniform are doing God's work. It's just like that hymn that the Christians sing in church: "As He died to make men holy/Let us die to make men free." See, Civic Religion American style offers up salvation ass a free gift of the USA. All folks need to do is accept this free gift!

As for the afterlife, God loves us and we don't talk to much about it but if we have to talk about death Civic Religion is nearly universalist. Mr. Garen read from a letter of a WWII soldier that stated that he was sure that while his friends had done some bad things that God had taken them to heaven when they died in battle. What a comforting thought to young soldiers! Whatever you do; swearing, fornicating, cheating, stealing; it will all be OK if you die in battle for the USA and you can go straight to heaven. Here is were Civic Religion gets a more than a little hypocritical. We mock Muslims who will die for their religion. We sneer at the idea of paradise and virgins yet we hold out to our own warriors the hope that they can enter into some kind of bliss after death in battle for Freedom!

I still remember vividly going to the funeral of Gary Isaacs, a US Marine who grew up around the corner from me. Gary was killed in action in Panama. At his funeral Dr. Bob Jones Jr. so clearly laid out that while it would be convenient to believe that Gary was in heaven because of his heroic death that the reason we knew Gary was in heaven was because of his repenting of his sins and placing faith in Christ!

American Civic Religion sounds so pleasant and comforting. It has no doctrine, no scripture. It's temples are the quiet fields with their long silent rows of white headstones. It accepts all, Protestant, Catholic, Jew and atheist. It speaks peace to bereaved families and assures politicians that their decisions are without eternal consequence. It is an easy religion to accept since it requires very little beyond a nod of assent and a trickled tear when the bugle plays and the rifles bark over the tomb of a young soldier.

For all it's talk of God and quoting scriptures like John 15:13, Civic Religion is antithetical to Christianity. It is a religion of the Old Deceiver. It belittles the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It negates Jehovah's standard of righteousness. It is not the Old Time Religion of the Pilgrim Fathers and it is not my religion.

I love this country. I believe that God has blessed it in some unique ways. But even that areligious politician, Abraham Lincoln, was savvy enough to realize the dangers of a God harnessed to current political thought when he said, "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." While I value every person who puts on a uniform and fights for freedom and democracy; while I weep for every warrior who falls defending this great country; I cannot help but believe the clear teaching of the Word of God that all who die outside of the righteousness of Christ are lost for eternity and face hell. I was overwhelmed in that while I heard Mr. Geren eloquently give forth the gospel of the Civic Religion that over the course of the weekend I heard a general and 2 chaplains speak clearly the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the lovely pulpit of the Cadet Chapel at West Point pointing young soldiers to the hope of the Cross!

Ungodliness

2008-05-05T09:10:00.002-04:00

We are studying through the book Respectable Sins at our church. It has been an interesting and challenging time. One of the most confrontational issues in the book is Jerry Bridges contention that the root of all our sin problems is ungodliness. Now Romans 1 clearly teaches that mankind's sin problem is rooted in ungodliness but that is not where Christians live! Maybe we best think about what ungodliness means before we get too defensive. Ungodliness is living life with little or no thought of God. Simple. So obviously the mass of people who may "believe in God" but make every decision as though they were god live in a state of ungodliness but not Christians. Well, all the so-called christians who do not believe that calling themselves christian really means that God has anything to say about what they do, I guess they could be considered ungodly in many respects. But what about born-again, bible-believing christians? People who go to "good" churches; read their Bibles; pray; give; and serve. People like that cannot be called ungodly! Living life with little or no thought of God. Why do you go to that good church? Why do you do anything you do? Too many of us answer with things like, "Because I am growing there." So on whom is the focus? Why do you read the Bible? "I want to get something from God today." Now growing and learning from God are certainly prerequisites for godliness, but when our primary motivation is our benefit then we are fundamentally ungodly. I have been confronted with the fact that this is no where so clearly displayed as in the smaller issues of life. When we get a little extra money on the paycheck, what do we do with it? When we have a few extra minutes, what are we thinking about? I asked the class in Sunday School what God and the Gospel has to do with buying groceries and got a lot of blank stares. Most of us have never stopped to ask ourselves that question. But if we believe in the God of the Bible do we not have to believe that He intersects with every aspect of life. Is not compartmentalizing God to a few moment of Bible reading and a Sunday morning service a manifestation of our ungodliness? And the tolerance of large pockets of ungodliness in our lives leads us to struggle with other sins that Christ wants to free us from. Our sins of covetousness grow from a view of money that does not intersect with the Gospel. Our problems with pride grow from a view of ourselves that is incompletely informed by the Word of God. Our struggles with our tongues come from a failure to let the Sovereign God rule in every area of our lives. It all sounds pretty bleak. But the glory of it all is that the same God who sent His Son to justify us sent His Spirit to sanctify us!

Church Constitutions

2008-04-05T13:21:00.002-04:00

Church constitutions are notorious for being poorly written. Most are copies of some older document that are taken and modified by people with no legal or parliamentary experience. That seems to be the way with the whole discipline of parliamentary procedure. It is not a profession. It is a body of quasi-common law that hovers out there. There are a few savants (I would not really classify myself among them at this time!) and a lot of people that dabble and think that they know something about it. There was a time when I fell in love with parliamentary law. I was doing a lot of mock politics in high school and college and I enjoyed the way that procedure allowed a group to discuss matters in an orderly, well-regulated manner. In college I took 3 semesters of Parliamentary Procedure (PP) from one of those true savants I referenced above and went on to complete my Certified Parliamentarian (CP) credentials with the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP). For a time I considered if there might not be a way to earn a living in the field. But then I graduated college and got married. There are very few jobs for parliamentarians and most of those are political patronage posts so I gradually moved away from active involvement in PP and eventually left the AIP and dropped my CP credential.
All that to establish where I am coming from as I talk about church constitutions. I am no longer certified. I am not an expert. But I know enough to know that too many people who think they know a lot know dangerously little. These are often the ones who write, revise and interpret church constitutions. This came up this week when I read an article over at 9Marks written by Greg Gilbert. I interacted with the author some this week and thought I would just write out a few things that I have said to different people in various churches over the last 15 years.
1) Every church should spend some money and have a certified parliamentarian read over their constitution. If you are actively planting churches this is especially vital so you do not transplant poor aspects of your constitution into the fledgling churches or saddle young congregations with your documentary problems. The AIP and the NAP are the two US bodies that certify practitioners of PP in the US. It is also good to have a parliamentarian around with whom you have a relationship. You never know when you might get into something and need advise.
2) Constitutions are often filed and forgotten. Church leadership should routinely read through the document and see how the church is following it or not. If you go to court that document is going to be the standard that the court uses to decide a case. It doesn't matter if you have been doing something for 50 years and no one has ever complained about it. If your documents say "We will do A" and you are doing B you are opening yourself for some disgruntled member to sue you. In this regard many church constitutions have way too much stuff in them. For instance, the document SHOULD have how the church goes about hiring staff. It SHOULD NOT have individual sections about hiring a secretary, a janitor and a pianist. The more you have written the less consistent it will be and the less consistently it will be followed.
3) Constitutions should be frequently (not annually but frequently) revised. We have a view in the US especially of the constitution being an old piece of parchment that is hermetically sealed in a glass case in the National Archives. This sacred document should be messed with as little as possible. Now, while I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the US Constitution, I do not think that that is a reasonable way to view your church constitution. Churches grow and change. This is a fact and not a bad idea. We need to have things that hold us to orthodoxy and arrest any impetus to move away from the Truth of the Bible. At the same time our culture is in constant flux. A constitution that worked for a church off 300 in the 50's is probably not going to work for a church of 900 in the 21st century. It should be thoroughly revised on a fairly consistent basis. Parliamentary authorities (i.e. Robert's Rules of Order or my preference Sturgis Standard Code) have long advised against having a Constitution and Bylaws. In many organizations what is called C&BL is really just one document. I think that most churches should have two separate documents. A constitution should have most of the stuff that really is not going to change like the Confession/Articles of Faith, qualifications for leadership and basic congregational polity. The Bylaws ought to be something that is more easily amended and revised that covers committees, services, business meetings and other matters that need to be spelled out but that might change over time.
Thankfully, most people that get disgruntled with a church just leave. But churches every year do get sued and I believe the difference between losing or having the case thrown out can largely be mitigated by these suggestions. A belief that sincerity and spirituality will protect you from sinful men may leave you with egg on your face if you get sued.

A Funny Thing Happened…

2008-03-17T09:04:00.002-04:00

It is funny how things jump out of passages that you have read a hundred times. Yesterday being palm Sunday we were reading John 12 and I noticed this:

Then a large crowd of the Jews learned He was there. They came not only because of Jesus, but also to see Lazarus the one He had raised from the dead. Therefore the chief priests decided to also kill Lazarus, 11 because he was the reason many of the Jews were deserting them and believing in Jesus. [HCSB]

I nearly laughed out loud! What kind of crazy rationale would lead well-educated men to kill a man that Jesus had recently raised from the dead? In front of a crowd of people Jesus had stood before that rock-hewn tomb and simple said, "Lazarus come out" and he came out apparently still wrapped in the shroud! And now the Sanhedrin is going to give Jesus an opportunity to do it again in front of an even bigger crowd as Jerusalem fills up for passover week.

I thought of Psalm 2: Why are the nations in an uproar / And the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand / And the rulers take counsel together /Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us tear their fetters apart / And cast away their cords from us!" [NIV]

I find it interesting that the disciples of Jesus connected this same passage with this turbulent period in Acts 4:25 ff. And in linking these events they prayed, "And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word!"

May this Holy Week bring all true servants of the King boldness to proclaim His righteous anger against all unrighteousness of mankind and tell of His gracious transference of that anger to His son Jesus for the salvation of all who will simply believe!

Shocker: Antidepressants Don't Work Well!

2008-02-26T07:14:00.003-05:00

That's right! I don't know if you saw the BBC story yet but the news is out. Prozac and other antidepressants don't seem to help many people for whom they are prescribed. I am of course being sarcastic since I see these people every day in the emergency room. They come in still feeling depressed and want more help. I will not even begin to mention people who overdose on their antidepressant medicines.
If all this is surprising to you then consider this. People feel depressed. We give them medicine to increase dopamine or serotonin in the brain. They are still depressed. Or, as this study shows, they feel better simply because they are taking something (aka placebo effect.) Of course, in my opinion, the problem is at step one. Why are these people depressed in the first place? They drink too much; smoke too much; tick off everyone they know; don't hold jobs; don't think of others; etc., etc. You get the picture.
What is the solution to depression. As always, I think the Bible holds the answers. We need to align our lives with the Creator's instructions: to love God and love others. We need to poor our lives into the lives of others. We should live temperately whether dealing with chemical substances, food, or activities. In all this we need to realize that life does not revolve around us! Unfortunately, the religion of Scientism, established in the public mind by the teaching of the Theory of Evolution as incontrovertible fact, tells people that they are randomly combined chemicals that need to strive for their own benefit in the great cosmic struggle for survival. What a depressing idea.

I really need to write a book.

2008-02-24T07:13:00.002-05:00

I had some time to kill yesterday so I wandered into our local Borders. I was rather amazed at some of titles I saw. If this kind of drivel gets published I really need to write a book. I think I could churn out 200 pages of something like Living History by Hillary Clinton. This was billed on the cover as "the phenomenal bestseller"! Really. I am sure she wrote it completely factual and from the motive of inspiring us to clearly remember past events. Oh yeah, she doesn't clearly remember many past events of her own life. See, that is where I come in. I am thinking of writing some kind of Forest Gump autobiography where I forget a lot of actual events in my life but make up some really cool stuff!
My other favorite was this chestnut: You Don't Have To Be Wrong For Me To Be Right. Really, that is a published book! So if I am right about the world being round and you think it is flat that is OK? Well, the book is about faith and religion and so it is not that simple. But I believe in one all-powerful, good, and just God and if you believe in a cosmic dualism like a huge majority of people then we can't both be right.
Well, I will not inflict any more of this on you, dear reader, until my book gets published!

I like Ben Stein

2008-02-22T10:30:00.002-05:00

I am 38 and like most of my peers Ben Stein is the "Bueller,…Bueller, …" guy. I was too young to remember him as a presidential speech writer and old enough to remember him before "Dry eyes…" and "Win Ben Stein's Money." All that to say that over the last 20 years I have really come to like Ben Stein.
There are a lot of smart people in this world. Some of them are insufferable and some are delightful. Ben is the later. I could sit and listen to him talk for hours not because I always agree with him but because he slowly, carefully lays out his thoughts on a matter. If you've never listened to him go over to YouTube and watch some of the videos of interviews with him. Caveat: there is one clip that someone posted to try and undermine this point by showing him getting into a shouting match with a guy (with whom I incidentally agree) who keeps interrupting him.
Now Ben has a new movie coming out. It will probably not get the kind of attention that Michael Moore can get by filming himself blowing his nose because it is not pushing liberal politics. The movie is called "Expelled" and documents the harassment in store for any scientist brazen enough to question the received wisdom: Science is God, the Arbitrator of all Wisdom and Knowledge and the Sole Authority for all of Life. Think of it as kind of the opposite of AlGore's movie. Ergo, don't look for Mr. Stein in Stockholm next year.
The premise is simple, there are legitimate questions about Darwinism but if you ask them you will be more castigated and persecuted than people who questioned the Pope were by the Inquisition. I am tired of people saying things like, "Millions of people have been killed by organized religion." Which I like to counter by simply saying, "Right, since Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot all were adherents of Secular Humanism." I also love being castigated as closed minded for my beliefs by people who have swallowed the Dogmatism of Darwinism without any question and will not open their minds one iota to let you question that.
The best part of the movie is where Ben talks about why the establishment is so virulent in opposition to any dissent. He points out that people who are confident in what they believe are willing to discuss it. Only those who are afraid that their beliefs are not fully rational are reactionary against the questioning of their religion.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed should be shown in every school in America. It probably won't be but I still like Ben Stein.

Consider the Prophet Job

2008-01-09T10:43:00.000-05:00

James tells us to consider the prophet Job.

As I meditate on that today it strikes me that even as christians we so often think of our lives as our own. Our job, our skills, our money, our family, our personality, our luck, our good karma. But what do we have that we do not hold in the providence of God. No doubt Job worked hard, spent wisely and loved his family. But all of this operated within the protection of God. When it pleased God to oppress Job all this was stripped away, but to what benefit for us! While Job suffered and sought for why God was doing this, God mercifully opens to us a window into the operations of the Tempter and greatness of of He who sits enthroned in heaven.

All these things lead to the great prophecy of Job: "I know that my Redeemer is alive…and in my flesh I will see Him!" We must live every day in a way that makes us ready to meet the Risen Christ face to face.

A New Year

2008-01-01T10:31:00.000-05:00

BEING SENSIBLE THAT I AM UNABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT GOD' S HELP, I DO HUMBLY ENTREAT HIM BY HIS GRACE TO ENABLE ME TO KEEP THESE RESOLUTIONS, SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGREEABLE TO HIS WILL, FOR CHRIST' S SAKE. – Jonathan Edwards

I enter this new year most conscious of my need for God's grace. At this time when so many will attempt to "turn over a new leaf," or to "strive harder to better themselves," I desire, by God's help to be "agreeable to His will, for Christ's sake." That will is given to us so clearly: To love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. I am chagrined to have to confess that we so often make God's direction for our lives a matter of hidden mystery when we neglect to do this thing: love those that are near at hand. Or conversely, we pride ourselves on our kindnesses to others when all is merely selfish pride masquerading as piety.

O Lord, grant that I may love You with all my being and clearly show that love to others this year.

Apology: The Revelation of God

2007-11-26T23:18:00.000-05:00

As I elaborated in my last post: I believe that there is one personal, eternally existant, all-powerful creative being and that He is properly to be regarded as God. From there I move to the next major head of apologetics: Has God revealed Himself to us.

By definition, if God actively hid Himself from us then we could never hope to discover anything of Him. His transcendent existence, wisdom, and power would render that a futile enterprise. So, anything that we know of God must be knowledge, at the least, allowed by God. If God has not revealed Himself we cannot be held in anyway responsible to relate to Him. It would be all the same as that He did not exist.

So we ask, “How does God reveal Himself to us?” Many hold that God speaks to people spiritually in many places and many times. The problem with the view appears to be that of all the religious writings extant that speak of the divine, hardly do two agree on any major point. Many things have been written that claim to be the revelation of God to man but few can meet the test of veracity.

So, this leads me to believe that God has revealed Himself to man. For any revelation to be considered true it would have to meet several tests. First, it must be universal. It must address how every man, from first to last, lives and relates to God. Most religious texts fail in this test. The Bible however gives consistent principles of sin and forgiveness throughout its pages. While many have attacked the Bible for inconsistencies, all of these are easily beaten back by careful reading of the entire book.

Second, it must be verifiable. I do not mean that everything it teaches must be testable and verifiable today. But when it speaks of history and science it must be verifiable. The Koran and the Book of Mormon fail on this test for both are blatantly inaccurate historically. The Bible talks about some events that are have not been verified but it speaks of nothing that is historically impossible. As to science many how have been indoctrinated with the tenets of evolution would scoff at my calling the Bible scientifically accurate. I do not have the time, inclination, training or resources to go into a detailed argument here, however, many others have and the argumentation is available. I will simply state here that a God that is worthy of that name would certainly have to have the power to be able to create the world.

In the third place revelation must be knowing and purposeful. That is if God has a man write something that He is revealing, then the man must understand he is being used. The Bible meets this test as it repeated asserts that it is speaking in direct quotation of God. The New Testament takes this farther in making direct statements about all the writings being from God and inspired by Him.

Lastly, there must be consensus. Now let me be clear: the consensus did not create the canon but it does confirm ex post facto the existence of the canon. The consensus of the church has been clear for 2000 years that the book we call the Bible contains all that God has wished to reveal to all men, everywhere, for all time.

Thus I believe that God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. That it contains not all that we need to know about everything but all that God has chosen to reveal to us and certainly “all things that pertain to life and godliness.” I believe that the Bible is not at odds with history, math, medicine, astronomy or any other scientific discipline. I contend that however the canon came to be (and again, this is too lengthy a subject to enter into here), 2000 years of consensus can render us certain that we have all that God intended us to have. A god ao capricious as to hide or impotent as to be unable to accurately transmit and preserve his revelation is no god at all. But God has revealed Himself to us in the Bible–the ultimate standard of truth.

Apology: The Existence of God

2007-10-31T10:52:00.001-04:00

The first subject of any apologist must be the existence of God. For if there is no god, all religion is merely part of the population manipulating another part to some end. If there is no spiritual dimension, no metaphysicial reality then there is only nature: the observable world and religion is simply a vain affectation. Certainly many who hold themselves to be scientific embrace this view.

First, I maintain that there is a metaphysical reality. I hold this view for several reasons. There is a universal acceptance of the spiritual sphere. Not that every person in the world holds this for they do not. Rather that every people group in the world is religious. Perhaps I had best pause and define religious as: of or relating to the worship of or a doctrine concerning a divine being or beings (from the New Oxford American Dictionary.) It is apparent that by this definition even atheism is a religious belief! Every tribe and nation believe in some kind of religion. Spirituality is ubiquitous. Surely if this were merely human invention it would not have been invented everywhere by everyone. Think of how the wheel and alphabet are not ubiquitous. But religion is universal. In contemporary America as we have become more “scientific” (i.e. more convinced that evolution is true and there is no supernatural world) in reality we have become increasingly superstitious. There has never been more belief in angels, demons and ghosts since the middle ages.

Second, if there is a spiritual dimension either it is either inhabited or not. If it is not inhabited by beings (other than whatever spiritual dimension we may possess) then it is of no concern to us. If however it is inhabited then we must be concerned with the beings that live there as they undoubtedly have power to influence our natural world.

Third, what do we can a superhuman being? The New Oxford American Dictionary defines god as: a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes. So if there is a spirit world and it is inhabited at least some of it's inhabitants may properly be called gods according to our understanding. Again, if these beings have no power over nature or human fortunes than they are not gods and we need not concern ourselves with them.

Fourth, the existence of God. If there are 2 or more gods then relating to one or all of them may be problematic. What if we relate to a god who is overpowered or destroyed by another god? What if we worship a god who is capricious or untruthful? What if the gods interfere with each other's revelation of themselves to us? In pluralistic deity there can be no sure relationship with any divine person and hence we are hopeless to discern a right and wrong way to relate to such a reality.

So if there is a metaphysical world inhabited by a being of power that necessitates the existence of God. A God powerful enough to create the world and reveal Himself to us. A God righteous enough to truthfully reveal himself and just enough to rule over and administer the world fairly. Thus I posit the existence of one God against all forms of atheism, naturalism, pantheism, polytheism and dualism.

Apology: An Introduction

2007-10-29T13:12:00.001-04:00

From the New Oxford American Dictionary:

apology noun ( pl. -gies)

1 a regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure.

2 ( an apology for) a very poor or inadequate example of.

3 a reasoned argument or writing in justification of something, typically a theory or religious doctrine.

I trust, dear reader that you understand I do not intend to write in the spirit of the first or second definition but in the third. I have long thought of how to organize this essay and finally have worked up the courage to start writing it down. As always my goal is to see if it sounds as cogent in writing as it does in the echoing recesses of my mind. Undoubtedly it will not if past projects have taught me anything! Equally I am hopeful that this will have some reasonableness about it and that my thinking will be refined by the exercise of setting these things down on paper and the interaction that may follow.

What is it that I will seek to defend here? It is simply this: Christian Orthodoxy. St. Peter tells us, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” So that is what I set out to do: to answer for my Hope. And the measure of my answer is this: that it conforms to the Word of God.

A voice says, “Cry out.“

       And I said, “What shall I cry?“

       “All men are like grass,

       and all their glory is like the flowers of the field.

The grass withers and the flowers fall,

because the breath of the LORD blows on them.

Surely the people are grass.

The grass withers and the flowers fall,

but the word of our God stands forever.”

A Few Thoughts on Christian Missions

2007-10-03T12:06:00.001-04:00

“You haven't been writing much recently, Jon,” you say. “What have you been thinking about?”
OK, I know no one really said that but anyway here it is since I am a blogger and I share what I think regardless of whether anyone cares!
Missions. There has been a fair amount of stuff written in the blogosphere about Christian Missions. No bible-believer doubts the need for some kind of mission to share the gospel. The main thing right now in 2007 is that I think we are working with the wrong paradigm. There is an adage: armies always prepare to fight the last war. I think this is true of missions. We don't even blink at spending $50,000 or more to send an American to live in a foreign country and plant a church. We are unfazed when every fourth year he brings his whole family back to the US and travels to his 60-100 supporting churches. We are unconcerned that there are churches supporting multiple missionaries when they are not honoring their pastor by supporting him financially.
“So,” you ask, “what paradigm should we be using.” The NT one of course! Paul did not try to go to every town in an area. He makes this clear in Colossians 2. He did go to the big population centers and then sent people out from there to plant churches in the hinterlands. So, where are our big populations centers. New York, L.A., Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. If we could do some really effective gospel outreach in these places we could reach the world!
My second thought is that missions is cyclic. There are periods when the focus is outward and there are periods when the focus is inward. For instance: can you name a great missionary from the reformation? No, the focus was on building up the church with a renewed focus on God's Word. From that we get later great missions outreach. My thought here is that the great American missions movement came from a church that was domestically healthy and growing. Is that still the case today? Perhaps we need to focus missions on really building up american churches and sharing the gospel with the growing number of our fellow citizens who have never been to church or heard the gospel.
American missions has historically done a huge work in evangelizing the whole world. We have sent missionaries to every nation and translated the Bible into hundreds of languages. But the now the church is failing to reach our own Jerusalem. A huge majority of those in evangelical churches will never give the gospel message to anyone. Yet we hold fast to the idea that we, as Americans, have shouldered the burden of world evangelism and the idea that we should deviate from that in any way is unquestioned. Until now.

Church Membership Revisited

2007-09-11T11:28:00.000-04:00

In the past month while I have been too crazy busy to write, the blogosphere has been alive with the Grudem-Piper discussion of church membership and baptism. So, I figure I can plunge in in the wake of the other million-plus bloggers!
The issue, I think, has been very much clouded by references to the universal body of Christ and the doors of heaven, etc. Let us ask this question: Are there people who claim to be Christians and are not? The New Testament makes clear that there are. And there are even church leaders who are wolves in sheep's clothing. So how do we mark out those who are not real? This has traditionally been done by confession. The course of church history has been the refinement (note: not the invention) of these confessional points. But with the postmodern rejection of propositional truth we have arrived at the idea that these confessions are moot.
Today there are many people (i.e. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, et. al.) who call themselves Roman Catholic but do not agree with the Pope's position on human reproduction. The problem is that to be a member of their catholic church you have to believe what the church teaches or you are a heretic. And the church teaches that the pope is infallible. Ergo, if you believe that abortion is OK then you are a heretic in the eyes of Rome. The problem is that the Roman church has lost all it fire to tell people that kind of thing. Not to mention they have lost the moral ground to talk to others about their morals.
But confessions are important. The history of modern american evangelicalism was the confession of the truth of the gospel against modernism's refutation of inspiration, inerrancy and miracles. So there has to be a confession of some absolute truth by a person before they can be considered to be a christian.
Also, early in church history we see a division of the visible church over cultural and interpretational issues. Let us not forget that the Roman and Greek churches were greatly divided hundreds of years before the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicated each other. But until that open divide the differences did not hinder the churches from fellowship and agreement on the major doctrines: Trinitarianism, Christology, Pneumenology, etc. The protestant reformers could not even come to an equitable understanding about the eucharist!
Personally, I have recently joined a baptist church after 12+ years in a bible church. I am not particularly ready to have the baptist distinctives tattooed on my arm! But I also believe that God Sovereignly led us to a baptist church so I don't fight against them. If God had placed us in a town where the only bible-preaching church was a Wesleyan Brethren assembly I would not be trying to convert them all to the doctrines of grace! So why would a presbyterian want to join a baptist church and not be baptized?
What if it was the other ordinance? If you visited a church that practiced closed communion, would you insist that they allow you to participate because you believe in open communion? I think most would think it quite rude and uncharitable. Why would a divergent stance on baptism be any different?
Let us call it what it is: consumerism. People want what THEY want and they have a RIGHT to have it! I believe the Bible teaches that God is providentially ruling the world. Any church that is doctrinally sound that God places me in deserves my commitment and submission. If they are some place theologically that I am not then I need to submit to that. That means, if I were a preby and was sprinkled either as an adult believer or as a child, I would submit to submersive believer's baptism. Remember, part of submitting to Christ is submitting to the authorities God has placed in our lives. It is where the tire of divine sovereignty meets the road.

Bob Bixby's Thoughts on the Emerging Middle

2007-08-07T12:46:00.000-04:00

Bob Bixby has a very interesting article over at Pensées (see the right sidebar). It is one of the best articles I have read in a while. I wanted to respond at some length so I decided to make my own post instead of taking up too much of his comment thread.

Abstract of “The Emerging Middle”
There is a new circle forming in the middle ground between fundamentalism and evangelicalism. This circle is made up of men who are uncomfortable with the fringe elements of their respective circles. This terra media is the historic ground of all true evangelicals and fundamentalists. Within this pale are men like Bauder and Dever, MacArthur and Doran. The old taxonomy of evangelicals and fundamentalists is flawed and obscured by the fringe loonies and will be done away with as more good men move into the emerging middle.
The emerging middle will triumph for several reasons.
1) The revival of “calvinish” doctrine over the Finney-esque methodology.
2) The failure of the old taxonomies to differentiate between good men in the movements and the fringe elements.
3) The liberation of pastors from “presentism”. Presentism is projecting the values, goals, and methods of the present on the past. Presentism has forced fundamentalism into the post-50's mold of separtism while there was previously a strong brand of non-conformist fundamentalism.
4) The waning power of institutionalism. Pastors and churches are less and less drawn by institutional loyalty.
5) The blessing of God on sound doctrine and practice. All movements eventually fail but the truth of God marches on.

Points of Agreement
I agree with Pastor Bixby that there are good things in both movements. I heard a pastor say recently that he was NOT an evangelical. He was very proud of this fact. He was also proud to be KJVO so there you have it. But I am evangelical. And I want to be more evangelical. By that I mean that I want to be about the gospel. Many of my recent posts are my musings about how the gospel should be infecting different areas of my life. It always concerns me when people don't want to be labeled fundamentalists. All true christians should be concerned about the truth of the doctrines once delivered to the saints. Indisputably there are goofy people within both these movements. So good men who want to please God and share the gospel of Jesus Christ with the world should be able to identify the good and bad and associate with what is good in both these movements.
I concur with Bob that this growing ground of commonality will eventually become its own movement and will move beyond the old labels. I hope that good men will rally around truth and dispense with the foolishness that goes on at the extremes of both left and right. I think that this will take place for four of the five reasons he lists. Namely reasons 2-5.
The failure of past definitions is apparent. I grew up in a fundamentalism where if your where not fundamentalist it was highly suspect if you were even saved. While I would not agree with everything that John MacArthur has done, I have heard his ministry disparaged by fundamentalist leaders while it is apparent from his writings that he has made tremendous contribution to the cause of defending sound doctrine and building churches that stand for the gospel.
Bob's bringing up David Beale's explanation of presentism is masterful. I have struggled with this for years. I have often viewed this as a matter where one must choose when to be a Puritan and when to be a Pilgrim. Remember that the puritans where historically those who stayed in the established Church of England and strove to keep it scriptural. The pilgrims where those from among the puritans that felt that they must leave and establish churches outside of the established church. Which were right? They both were! Early fundamentalism understood this. Men like “Fightin' Bob” Schuler stayed in the denominations and fought for truth just like Piper and Dever do today. Many of the early fundamentalists came to believe that they could no longer stay in the denominations, that the battle was lost and they needed to separate and be independent or start new associations like GARBC. Unfortunately at some point fundamentalism stopped being either/or and became exclusively separatist. I think this opened the door to sectarianism. No longer was it about emphasizing doctrinal unity over denominational distinctive but rather lining up with others who agree with you in your definition of what is important. We need to get back to being citizens of the Kingdom and not worry so much about who belongs to our little principality, earldom or county.
Institutionalism goes hand in hand with the last point. As fundamentalism became more separatist and then sectarian the institutions became a handy way to keep track of with whom you could play and with whom you would be polluted. I remember so vividly a dear christian friend saying he didn't feel like he fit in at our church because he had not gone to BJU. I never want anyone to feel like a second-class citizen in any church of mine because of where they were educated, what version of God's Word they read or what kind of music they prefer.
The continuation of sound doctrine is the story of church history. As my dad says, there have always been men who were fundamentalist and there always will be men who hold the position that doctrine is important and worth fighting for whatever they are choose to be called.

Points of Disagreement.
I disagree with Pastor Bixby's first reason for success. While I would certainly subscribe to his definition of “calvinish” since I am a little uncomfortable trying to fit myself into the full mold of calvinism. However, I think that he falls into the trap of presentism here. The fact is that the furtherance of the gospel in the last 400 years has never been completely owned by either arminians or calvinists. I would further posit that the greatest gains where seen when good men from both leanings came together for the sake of the gospel. Think of the Wesley/Whitfield revival and also of the early fundamentalism to illustrate this point.
My second point of contention is the characterisation of BJU as arminian. The founder was a Methodist and so he was certainly arminian in his leanings yet he was also not afraid to preach about the truth of a sovereign God and His grace. It is hard to swallow this too since Ian Paisley (indisputably a full Five-Pointer if there ever was one!) has been a close friend and frequent guest of four generations of Jones presidents. The only calvinists that got in trouble in my 30 years of recollection where some people who were manifestly and unabashedly hyper-calvinist.
One of the problems with institutionalism is that pastors have run out to suck up to institutional officers. I remember a case (that I do not think is unique) where a pastor brought a dispute to Bob Jones III. In the same vein why would someone hold a conference and invite Stephen Jones to preach on how to pastor? Dr. Jones is certainly well trained and a gifted preacher but perhaps not the most qualified to speak to men in the trenches of pulpit ministry. But this has gone on for years and happens in evangelicalism too. I think that a man like Dr. Jones can certainly encourage pastors in their ministry and I am sure he has ever put himself forth as an expert in pastoring any more than Kevin Bauder or other such administrators would. There is still the danger of a shift to a different kind of institution: the conference. Conferences are a wonderful way for men in ministry to be ministered too and encouraged. At the same time there is a risk of being swept along with every wind that blows through these conferences. I was listening to the Whetstone Conference recently at Pastor Bixby's advice and thought that Dr. Minnick did a great job in saying that there were men who had good things to say but do not have the same sensibilities that we have in fundamentalism. I think that is a great balance point. But the same is true with each movement not every fundamentalist is all right. We need to listen to all men who are concerned to give the whole council of God and weigh everything they say with Berean nobility.

Conclusion
Pastor Bixby has done a good job of summarizing the current situatution in what I think of as broader evangelicalism. He has made a prediction that good men in the middle will come together to stand for the gospel and fight for the fundamentals. He posits that this is the historic position of both these great movements. And, he points us to the fact that God is building a kingdom that cannot fail to succeed! All Glory to Him who reigns on High!

What kind of judgment do we face?

2007-07-22T08:18:00.001-04:00

Next time you get a speeding ticket try this: show up with your records of charitable giving. Bring your friends, neighbors, co-workers, children, spouse, et aliud with you to testify to how good you are in various aspects of your life. I really think it will work! Oh, Oh, here is another one: deny the authority, legitimacy, or existence of the court. There is a couple in New Hampshire that was recently in a standoff with the feds after being convicted of not paying taxes because they denied the existence of the law that required them to pay the taxes. And there were the dinosaur people in Florida that are in jail now for the same plan.
Really now, who would be dumb enough to try that? Yet that is exactly the plan that many people have in mind to do at the final judgement. Among other places Paul confronts this in his letter to the Colossians and Laodiceans when he says, “For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality.”
We all understand this, right. If you speed or steal or murder, it really doesn't matter what else that person has done that is good, they are guilty. We often bridle to hear that some rich person gets off with a light sentence for DUI or tax evasion or some other infraction of the law because they have the ability to hire some great attorney for $500 an hour. Yet we instinctively feel that God is going to use this same kind of standard in his court.
We must remember that one of the great teachings of the entire Bible, Old and New Testaments is that God is the righteous judge. One day He will have every person stand before Him and He will judge them based on the wrong that they have committed and He will do it without partiality, without respect for different persons/stations in life or favoritism.
The good news is that we all have equal opportunity and access to hire for ourselves the greatest Advocate ever! Who could ever be a better person than the Son of God? What better person than one who never, ever even thought about transgressing any of God's righteous standards? And, the news gets even better! There is no retainer, no fee, no quid pro quo! All there is, is to ask Him to represent you at that tribunal.
That is the Good News. We can all have the lawyer that will get us off because He has already paid the penalty for our violation of God's law, for our unthankfulness and He can assure us of a good verdict! This is the message that we need to share with our friends and neighbors.

Do you Belive In Magic?

2007-07-13T12:36:00.001-04:00

Two thoughts before I get into this one.

One: Yes, I cannot help but think of that old song that someone (?M&Ms?) used for a commercial back in the 70's or 80's. A quick Google informs me that it was sung by a group with the inspired name of The Lovin' Spoonful.

Two: Yes, I heard that an obscure movie about some guy named Harry did come out this week. I have been thinking about this post for a least a month.

Magic is one of those words that is pretty nebulous. It can mean a lot of things in a lot of different contexts. While some would object to using it in any Christian kind of sense it is in the KJV (you may find it as “magik”) so it must be alright. Also, a lot of people have problems (understandably) with Hogwart's Magic but are not bothered by Aslan's or Gandalf's magic. If you are oblivious to the references in the previous sentences then you probably ought to stop reading now.

I am not particularly taken with Potter but one thing I do like is that all the magic spells are just good ol' Latin! And some of my favorite magical phrases are found in my Latin Bible. But, I get ahead of myself. What I am talking about here is the power of words. The kind of words that when you hear them your heart leaps or your hair stands up. Phrases that conjure up so much more than the sum of the words. I want to share a few of my favorites and I would love to hear some of yours. Yes, you, O Silent Reader. I am attempting to draw you into clicking that little link that says “comment” and typing a few little words. …Please?

Ecce homo! Of course these are the words of Pontius Pilatus and they indicate the first vestige of the sufferings of Christ and are a small token of what is to follow. This phrase is also powerful because where so many saw a mere man, some were starting to see much more and the whole point of the story is that this is no mere man being crucified!

“I Am” This is perhaps the pre-eminent example. First we see it in the story of Moses. Then when they came to arrest Jesus. What a power to make those wicked men step back by the mere speaking of the to be verb!

“But God…” A common occurrence in the New Testament this phrase always catches my breath. We often see it in the midst of a contrast between our natural condition and God's natural grace and mercy.

Lord Jesus Christ. What a great truth is contained in these three little words. The divinity, the humanity and the mission are combined in this name. The whole gospel really is represented here. That God would become man and die to redeem sinners is all encapsulated in that title for the savior!

Those are my four favorites so tell me about yours!

The Gospel and Good Discipline

2007-07-10T12:58:00.000-04:00

Many good churches are bringing back church discipline. There is a renewed teaching and understanding of the proper balance between confrontation and restoration. The Gospel is central to this balance. We must be confronted anew by the death of Christ because of sin and His resurrection to assure us of our new life in the Kingdom of God. Church discipline exists to call back erring brethren who are straying so that they can renew their life in Christ. It also exists to keep the church pure so that the Gospel message may be clearly heard in the world.
But there is another kind of discipline. Within the church members must hold each other accountable to live according to God's holiness. But between churches there is also a need for accountability. It cannot function exactly like discipline within the church but it still needs to exist. Think with me: a pastor is getting carried away with some fad. It is a fad that tends to blur and downplay the message of salvation. His fellow pastor friends see this trend and confront him. If he does not listen to them they cannot really call him up on disciple but they might end up separating from him. This separation should not be motivated by spite (“He didn't listen to me!”) or a false piety (“I just cannot be around someone like that.”) but by the Gospel. The desire to exert all our influence to bring that person back to the clear preaching of the good news of the Kingdom.
I believe much of the abuse of separation in Fundamentalism has been the failure to keep the Gospel as the central theme of separation. To maintain contact with those in evangelicalism who were really carrying out ministry in a manner that obscured the Gospel. We must separate from those who are not upholding the truth of scripture but we must leave the door open enough that we can continually call out to them with the Gospel, remind them of the need to stand and clearly proclaim the Good News and show by our love that the repentance and faith are at work to change our hearts.

364

2007-07-03T16:47:00.000-04:00

Last July 4 was hot in Woodruff, SC. I slept in since I did not have to go to work. Also I was worn out from a late night party at Tom Williams house the night before! About mid morning I was reading some blog articles. I wanted to comment on one but I needed to have a blogger.com account. So I signed up for an account which meant I needed to have a blog name. Once I had a blog I figured I would post something on it. And that is how Standing on the Rock got started.

This is post number 37. I have tremendously enjoyed the exercise of writing. At the time I started I was midway through a professional writing course that I subsequently finished with an A. One of my main goals was to continue writing to refine the lessons I learned in the class. I feel that I have accomplished that goal. I also wanted to get feedback from trusted friends on my writing. In that goal I have not succeeded. I have only seen a handful of comments from a fraction of the readers of this blog. I do have several friends who faithfully read the blog and email me or personally tell me their thoughts on the articles. I would like to see more online feedback however. So that will be a goal for the coming year.

I never set out to compete with Tim Challies, SharperIron, or the Pyros but I do look in on Site Meter from time to time to make sure that terrorists are not monitoring my words. It has been amazing to see that people in Australia, New Zealand, Portugal, Ireland and all over the US have stopped by. I hope that one thing I wrote might have an impact on some of these visitors.

So, being nostalgic and historic, this post marks the end of one year of blogging. We will have to see what the year ahead holds!

The Gospel of Grace & Truth

2007-06-20T14:21:00.000-04:00

I have been studying in Colossians since my pastor is preaching through the book. Paul says something in the first chapter that jumps out at me. He says, “…since the first day that you heard and understood the grace of God in truth….” This is in the midst of a passage where he is talking about the Colossians accepting “the word of truth, the gospel which came to you.” So he links the gospel with two key elements: grace and truth. What is the link?

I think the tie-in here is that we are saved by grace and truth. It is the truth about our standing in Adam that drives us to seek by grace to stand instead in Christ. It is the grace of God giving us redemption and forgiveness of sins instead of damnation that drives us to share the truth with others.

As we grow in sanctification and the gospel becomes more and more central in our lives, truth and grace should increasingly be characteristic of our actions. How can we tell others of the God of Truth and His infallible, inerrant word if we are people who are not truthful? How can we freely avail ourselves of God's matchless grace and not be willing in turn to forgive even our enemies and be gracious to those who abuse us?

The gospel must be central to all we do: how we behave and how we relate to those around us. And that gospel that should be core to our existence should be seen by those around us in grace and truth oozing out of our lives.

Doctrine, Wisdom, Conviction

2007-06-13T13:11:00.000-04:00

There has been a lot of furor over Joe Zichterman's departure from fundamentalism and his embracing the emergent conversation. If you have not already read Dan Miller's article “Why Do They Leave Fundamentalism?” then you really should. Dan was a classmate of mine in college and his reasoning ability has been refined over the years to be very good.

In the article Dan ends up largely discussing the issue of music. If you are a Fundamentalist and you have not wrestled with music then one wonders where you have been for the last 30 years. The fact is that there are modes of worship that we are comfortable and familiar with and there are modes that we feel are not best. Music a key area where this happens.

Dan shares his personal testimony of how he ended up,for a brief time, in a church that was not fundamental. He found that while much of what they did was what he thought of as worldly and unwise that it came from a heart that was redeemed and that was striving to worship God.

This is the key. We have too often forgotten as Fundamentalists what the fundamentals are. The fundamentals do not include liturgical styles, music, specific translations, ordinance modalities and soteriologies, to name a few. Now, these things are all informed by our view of scripture, creation, atonement and escatology, and well they should be. However, we must be careful to not take our views of wisdom and conviction issues and artificially make them into doctrinal issues. Our common sense is often not so common as we would like to imagine.

This actually does come back around to my soap box du juor: the Centrality of the Gospel. We must embrace as brothers all those who are repenting of sin and trusting in Christ alone for salvation. It is incumbent upon us to treat as fellow-citizens all who are looking for the Kingdom of God. And we may not behave arrogantly toward others who are fellow bond-servants of Christ.

Doctrine is important. We are commanded to pray for wisdom. Our convictions should be informed by the Word and cultivated by the Spirit. But we must be careful not to confound the three or we cease to be Fundamentalists and become simply Donatist sectarians.

The Hypocrisy of Paedobaptism

2007-06-05T18:22:00.000-04:00

This is just a little thought that has been brewing for a while. There seems to be a real hypocrisy in many Baptist churches. They would turn red and blustery at the evils of paedobaptism. Many Baptists could hardly say the word without spitting! But then they will turn around and baptize little Bobby or Suzy who prayed to “ask Jesus to come into my heart” last week after a sermon on hell. Now before you start quothing “let the little children come…,” I must quickly say that I am in no way opposed to little children being led to the Lord. What I am saying however, is that if we are going to practice believer's baptism should we not have a clear definition of what that is.

My definition of a believer is, “one who has repented of sin and believed in Christ alone for salvation from the wrath of God.” This requires not just a prayer and an altar trip but some time to show that it is real repentance and faith. This is one reason why the early church often made converts wait years to be baptized.

I think everyone knows some child, born into a church-going family who made an early profession of faith and was baptized only to go astray as a teenager and end up as an adult who has no interest in church. How hard would it be to allow such a child to grow and mature and defer their baptism until the age of say, sixteen. Would it really be so bad to examine teenagers and ask if they are really showing a life characterized by a love of God and love for others?

Is there not a fundamental hypocrisy in standing on the doctrine of believer's baptism and then baptizing those who have been given no time to show that they truly are believers.

The Centrality of the Gospel

2007-05-27T08:35:00.000-04:00

Well, our move is over and we are getting settled in here in Maine. I thought I might try blogging again!

I have been pondering the centrality of the Gospel. This is one of those things that I think we lose sight of sometimes. While there are many important things, personal holiness, right doctrine, God-honoring worship, et cetera, we must view all these through the lens of the Gospel.

I was thinking of the issue of personal holiness this morning. I am afraid that many of us have made that a central issue in our lives. Now, please do not mistake what I am saying. It is very, very important. But it is important because it puts emphasis on the Gospel. When our neighbors see us living holy lives they ought to be able to see from their interaction with us that it is the Gospel that empowers sinful men to be good. But when holiness is the main thing then we become "good people." The problem with being good is that the worldling already believes that most people are good and that God will not punish people who are basically, on balance, at the end of the day, good. But the message of the Bible is that All are wicked and the only good in life is God! The only hope we have to offer is that the righteousness of Christ can change our innately warped nature and make it into a new man.

If we do not keep this Gospel focus in the forefront of our minds we run a real risk of being in the place of the Pharisee of Luke 18:9-14. I would much rather be the publican in this parable!

Appologetics: The Law of Large Numbers

2007-04-23T07:44:00.000-04:00

In continuation of my last post I want to discuss another issue that came up recently in an argument with an atheist. When confronted with the idea that Ockham's Razor works much better for the theory of creation than for that of evolution, he turned to the Law of Large Numbers. This is a common tactic. Obviously that probability of life happening randomly is very small. Actually the probability is zero. And the probability of it happening over and over is even smaller. P(A∩B)=P(A)*P(B). That is the probability of A and B happening is the product of their individual probability. Remember, that when you multiply 2 fractions (i.e. very small number; less than one; approaching zero) you get an even smaller number. So, the laws of probability say that there is even less chance of having 2 highly improbable events occur. Now, the evolutionist grants all this ("The probability is zero but we are here…") and then trots out the Law of Large Numbers to argue that in an infinite amount of time anything could happen. Here are my 2 responses.
Remember, that when you multiply 2 fractions (i.e. very small number; less than one; approaching zero) you get an even smaller number. So, the laws of probability say that there is even less chance of having 2 highly improbable events occur. Now, the evolutionist grants all this ("The probability is zero but we are here…") and then trots out the Law of Large Numbers to argue that in an infinite amount of time anything could happen. Here are my 2 responses.

First, this kind of reasoning means that any kind of miracle could happen, right? I mean, if a random electric shock could make a protoplasm coalesce into a living single-celled organism then is it any less likely that some how the Sun could stand still for Joshua for a few hours? Or that a virgin could conceive a child? Or that a man could come back to life? Basically, the naturalistic philosopher wants to reserve this kind of magic for his own presuppositions!

Second, this is not what the Law of Large Numbers really says anyway. Without being too technical the Law of Large Numbers throws out outliers instead of proving their existence as the evolutionist is trying to use it to do. Let us examine a common example of the Law. There are 2 sides of a coin. So naturally we know that the chances of getting either a "heads" or a "tails" is 50% on any coin toss. As we toss multiple times we expect to see about half-in-half of the two sides. But if we actually start tossing we may see 7 of 10 heads and 3/10 tails. Is our probability wrong? No, the Law of Large Numbers says that while at low sampling we may see this kind of aberrancy, that as the numbers get large these numbers are going to converge on the expected 50-50. So, while we may see 70% heads on 10 tosses, the chance of seeing that 70% on 10,000 tosses is effectively zero. When you start talking about millions you just won't see anything outside of ±0.01%.

So if you get into a debate with an evolutionist who just cannot except miracles and creation here is some ammo to refute them as we stand ready to give an answer of what we believe.

April 17 & thoughts of appologetics

2007-04-17T07:32:00.000-04:00

Well, friends this blog has gone from deep thoughts on life to a bulletin board. But fear not, I do not plan on staying like this. I have been busy with philosophical pursuits like pressure washing and painting. I have hardly had time to skim through the 100+ blog articles a day that I normally consume let alone post.

One quick thought that I have been turning over: I was in a discussion the other day with an atheist. He tried to use Ockham's Razor. (Aside: if you never saw the movie Contact the venerable razor plays a prominent part in this movie about faith and science.) I realized a key point. Ockham's Razor says that when choosing between 2 viable options the simplest answer is the most likely. This really works to the advantage of the Bible since it is much simpler to believe that an all-powerful God spoke and the kosmos came into being. But the real crux is that the naturalist/rationalist/evolutionist cannot use the razor! He has presuppositionaly disposed of the idea of God and thus is not using it to distinguish to options but to ratify the one he already believes to be true! I pointed this out to my pointy-headed friend and he moved on to the Law of Large numbers. More on that next time.

Easter Paean

2007-04-09T08:02:00.000-04:00

Christ is arisen
Joy to Thee, mortal!
Out from His prison,
Forth from its portal!
Christ is not sleeping,
Seek Him no longer;
Strong was His keeping,
Jesus was stronger.

Christ is arisen,
Seek Him not here,
Lonely His prison,
Empty his beir;
Vain His entombing,
Spices and lawn,
Vain the perfuming,
Jesus is gone!

Christ is arisen,
Joy to thee, Mortal!
Out of His prison,
Forth from its portal!
Christ is not sleeping,
Seek Him no longer;
Strong was His keeping,
Jesus was stronger!

Christ is arisen,
Joy to thee, Mortal!
Empty His prison,
Broken His portal!
Rising He giveth
His shroud to the sod;
Risen, He liveth,
And liveth to God!

This is the song that I woke up singing on Easter morning. I wanted to share it with you.

I also decided to find out where it came from since Goethe is not often ranked with Watts and Wesley! It actually comes from the play Faustus and below is the original. Thankfully Gordon Young not only wrote a beautiful score for this piece but formed it into a great presentation of the Easter story. It is very difficult to sing not because of the music but because it is so powerful in the comparisons that it makes.

Chorus of Angels.
Christ is arisen!
Joy to mortality,
Whom earth's carnality,
Creeping fatality,
Held as in prison!
Chorus of Women.
Rare spices we carried
And laid on His breast;
We tenderly buried
Him whom we loved best;
Cloths and bands round Him,
Spotless we wound Him o'er;
Ah! and we've found Him,
Christ, here no more.
Chorus of Angels.
Christ is ascended!
Blessed the loving one
Who endured, moving one,
Trials improving one,
Till they were ended!
Chorus of Disciples.
Though He, victorious,
From the grave's prison,
Living and glorious,
Nobly has risen,
Though He, in bliss of birth,
Creative Joy is near,
Ah! on the breast of earth
We are to suffer here.
He left His very Own
Pining for Him we miss;
Ah! we bemoan,
Master, Thy bliss!
Chorus of Angels.
Christ is arisen
Out of Corruption's womb!
Burst bonds that prison,
Joy over the tomb!
Actively pleading Him,
Showing love, heeding Him,
Brotherly feeding Him,
Preaching, far speeding Him,
Rapture succeeding Him,
To you the Master's near,
To you is here!

Good Friday

2007-04-05T14:34:00.000-04:00

Holy Week is quickly passing. All around people are enjoying spring break and spring. I hope you have been thinking about what we celebrate this week. Christians should really make this time into something that stands out. Is not the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ the very heart of the Gospel?
In that vein I am looking forward to Good Friday. We started celebrating this special day about 10 years ago at our church. It is one of the highlights of my year. Some have questioned why or if we should celebrate or commemorate Christ's death. My answer is that while, "Christ rose for our salvation," it is also necessary to remember that, "Christ died for our sins." I think there is also a parallel between celebrating Christmas as bigger than Easter. Christmas is meaningless without Easter. And the resurrection is meaningless without the cross. Imagine if Christ had drowned in the sea or at the foot of a cliff or been stoned. He could have risen from the dead and it would not be at all the same as His death on the cross and resurrection 3 days later.
The counterpoint of a bright Easter morning is the darkness of the night when we take time to think about what Christ did on the cross; when we take communion; when we sing a hymn as those eleven friends did on that night long ago.
I hope that even if your church does not observe Good Friday that you will set aside some time this week to meditate on the awful, horrific, bloody sacrifice that Jesus Christ willingly made to fulfill His Father's will.

Current thoughts

2007-03-30T22:46:00.000-04:00

Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel, and afterward receive me to glory.
Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.
My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. Psalm 73:24-26

We are in the midst of a very large change in our lives. We are relocating to the Bangor, ME area and are facing a new job, new church, new house, new weather! I have taken this passage from the Psalms as my encouragement during this time.

I look forward to getting settled and getting back to my writing. I have very limited time to even read blogs these days. I have watched with interest the renewed firestorm of the Pyromaniacs and the Charismatics. Also, Bob Bixby has an excellent post about Fundamentalism and blogging. Beyond that I am just waiting for the Apple iPhone to come out!

Note from the Road

2007-03-15T07:43:00.000-04:00

Hello friends. I have not been on lately because we have been very busy. For those who have not already heard, we have been considering for the last 15 months whether the Lord would have us move to Maine. This is prompted largely by a desire to be closer to my wife's parents who are in their 70's. So right now I am in Moncton, New Brunswick and in a few hours we will drive back to Bangor, Maine. We have been here church-, job-, and house-hunting in that order. Divine Providence led us to Faith Baptist Church and Pastor Dave Natale in Orono, Maine. We were blessed to be able to worship with them last weekend. I had 6 straight hours of interviewing at Eastern Maine Medical Center on Monday and that went well despite doing without lunch! I am hopeful that they will offer me a job in the ER and OR. And lastly we made an offer on a house in Bucksport yesterday and we will see what happens today.

On the blogging front: my old friend and childhood neighbor Larry Rogier has a very good treatment of the divorce/remarriage question in his article, A Second Look at the First Exception. I would highly recommend you read it. I made some comments to the article and Larry has responded to my comments and the comments of others.

How to leave a church

2007-02-22T10:29:00.000-05:00

Frank Turk over at Pyromaniacs has stirred up a very interesting dust storm. He talks about people leaving a church because, "things aren't right." I have been ruminating on this subject for some time as it goes along with my previous posts on the nature of the church.

Let me first say that while I don't want to bash fundamentalism, this is a huge problem in the movement. See, we started out historically coming out of bad, compromising churches. Now that is not a bad thing. Throughout history God has led some to be puritans and some to be pilgrims. If you disagree, I suppose you are still a member of the Roman or Greek Churches! Otherwise it is disingenuous to believe that is was right for Luther to split with the Pope but it is no longer right for us to separate from apostates. Unfortunately this is one of those areas where there is no black and white so we must rely on the leading of the Holy Spirit. However, too many people leave a church over things like, "I'm not being fed"; "I don't like the way the preacher is preaching"; or a hundred other non-essential, non-biblical things. Here in upstate South Carolina the problem is compounded by there being hundreds of churches.

So, when should you leave a church? I disagree with Turk's comments in the meta–a pastor that no longer believes in a literal hell and a need for repentance is in apostasy. If he will not repent and other church leaders will not support removing him from the pastorate then the church is in apostasy and there is a clear scriptural command to separate from that church. I think that is a cut and dried issue. The danger is calling things apostasy that aren't. For instance, if you believe that there is one inspired english translation of the Word and your church doesn't that is not heresy. Really, it's not. If your soteriology is not lined up with your pastor that is not cause to leave as long as you are both within the pale of orthodoxy. I think there is a huge struggle with a lot of peripheral issues like music, preaching styles, service schedules, organizational methodologies. I think all these things fall under the following principle: if it was like this when God led you there then you should submit to it and stay. The thornier question comes when these things change. Your church used to sing only hymns, now you are mixing in some more modern songs. The church used to meet Sunday morning and night and Wednesday evening, now you are meeting in small groups. The last pastor preached expositionally and the new one preaches more topically. You had a great youth pastor, now he left and the new guy just isn't connecting. These are hard questions. This, I think, is where a lot of conservative evangelicals start church hopping. But if you cannot tie your leaving to some principle of scripture then you shouldn't leave.

My last principle ties into my question, "How should you leave a church?" I firmly believe that you should never sever any relationship by just walking out the door. Would you leave a job by just walking out and never saying a word? But, people do this every week in churches all over the country. We have had good friends, people we loved and were close to, leave our church and never even tell us goodbye. We are to be family. How would you feel if one of your siblings just moved away with no explanation, no farewell, no forwarding address? If you are committed to building up the body of Christ in the church where God placed you, and if you must leave, it seems only reasonable that you should be able to stand up or write an open letter and explain to every one of your beloved brothers and sisters why you are leaving. If you don't feel like you can articulate publicly why you are leaving and severing your relationship with that particular body of believers then you probably shouldn't leave.

To recap: you have valid reason to leave a church if you are moving away from the immediate vicinity; if you are called to minister in another body that is more in need of your giftedness than your current church; or if your church leadership is in apostacy. The main principle in play is our commitment to building up the body of Christ. We should be able to articulate that God led us to join a particular body and that God is leading us away from that body. We should be able to do this within the bounds of "speaking the truth in love." Even if faced with apostasy we should be able to sever our relationship with a tearful admonition to the entire body to turn away from error and submit to the Word of God.

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. (Eph. 4: 14-19)

Reflections on Reading

2007-02-09T15:31:00.001-05:00

"I had, God knows, more sincerity than knowledge, in all the methods I took for [Friday]'s instruction; and must acknowledge, what I believe all that act upon the same principle will find, that in laying things open to him, I really informed and instructed myself in many things that either I did not know, or had not fully considered before; but which occurred naturally to my mind, upon my searching into them for the information of this poor savage; and I had more affection in my inquiry after things upon this occasion, than ever I felt before; so that whether this poor wild wretch was the better for me or no, I had great reason to be thankful that ever he came to me: my grief sat lighter upon me, my habitation grew comfortable to me beyond measure; and when I reflected, that in this solitary life, which I had been confined to, I had not only been moved myself to look up to Heaven, and to seek to the Hand that brought me thither, but was now to be made an instrument, under Providence, to save the life, and for aught I knew the soul, of a poor savage, and bring him to the true knowledge of religion, and of the Christian doctrine, that he might know Christ Jesus, to know whom is life eternal; I say, when I reflected upon all these things, a secret joy ran through every part of my soul, and I frequently rejoiced that ever I was brought to this place, which I had often thought the most dreadful of all afflictions that couldpossibly have befallen me." (page 225; The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe from the Gutenberg Project www.gutenberg.net )

I have been reflecting for a while on the concept of "christian." That is, is it accurate to talk about christian books, christian music, christian films, or whatever? I recently decided to reread the story of Robinson Crusoe. It must have been 20 years since I read it. As a child, I had an abridged, illustrated version that I reread till the covers fell off. I had never read the entire book. I knew that there was a lot of religious material in the book that was cut from my abridgment but I had no idea how much. What an awesome book. The author continuously goes back to theme of Divine Providence and the thankfulness toward God that the protagonist often reflects on after his conversion. The passage I quoted above is after Robinson rescues Friday and then undertakes to convert him to Christianity. He does this not by compulsion but by convincing him of the existence of God and his own rebellious state in lieu of God and then pointing him to the Savior. It is all so beautifully laid out. Yet this is not generally considered to be a Christian book. It is simply a good story where a man finds himself on an abandoned island and there learns that His Maker has not abandoned him! If you have not read this book, I would encourage you to get it. I have been encouraged by this fictional character to be more thankful, more in love with God's Word and more outspoken in sharing the Gospel. This is truly a Christian Book.

Selecting Leadership in the Church

2007-01-25T10:43:00.001-05:00

Most evangelical churches are congregational, meaning the the assembly of the members has a say on matters of church business. Most also have some form of leadership that is more or less selected by the members to exercise that role. Some may have a more authoritarian form like a pastor that is voted in but once there has a very strong voice in any decision making. Some may have a more diverse group like a plurality of elders who are picked to lead the body. Some, like the Brethren churches have very little centralized leadership.

Leadership is biblical. We see leadership in the church laid out in the New Testament. We are given qualifications for what kind of men can be in leadership. But the thing I have been considering is the choosing or appointing of leadership. Appointing a leader can be a very top down thing like the president appointing a secretary of state but it can also be a bottom up concept like a congregation voting on a pastor.

We see both of these approaches in the scriptures. Paul appointed elders in every church that he established. He instructed men how to appoint pastors. But there is the other style of appointment too. Do you remember? In Acts 1 the whole assembly was to decide who should take Judas's place as one of the twelve apostles.

I have been ruminating on this for several days because I find it interesting. There are two components. First there was qualification. Peter articulated to the assembly that they needed a man that had witnessed Jesus's entire earthly ministry from His baptism to His resurrection. There were then 2 men Joseph and Matthias that were put forward as meeting the qualification. I find it interesting that they found 2 men who were qualified (and we are given no indication that one was more qualified) and then they chose between them. Often in politics we talk about the evil of two lessers in an election but here was two well-qualified men and the assembly had to choose one of them to exercise leadership.

Then they held a vote. Well, not really. Then they cast lots. Now I know that we see lots being cast throughout scripture although it is not entirely clear what this device was. Whether it was some kind of dice or straws or colored stones drawn from a bag is really immaterial. The issue is it was something definitive (not like tea leaves!) that could unequivocally answer a question. Not only do we see lots being used in scripture frequently but we see some commentary on their use. Most shocking to us is perhaps Proverbs 16:33:

33 The lot is cast into the lap; But the whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah. (ASV)

So, this is the question I have been asking: can you imagine your church selecting deacons, elders, presbyters, pastors or whatever by lot? I think an argument could be made that an election is a form of the lot, however, I have been considering what happens when you have no rational bearing on the outcome. A method "cast into the lap" where the "whole disposing" is in God's control.

I'm not suggesting this necessarily. But the exercise is this: our twenty-first century minds immediately become uncomfortable with such a low-tech and irrational idea. But this is something that scripture tells us that God commanded of His people in the Old Testament and we see it used in the New Testament. So before we just write it off as some vestige of the past we should at least consider it. Would you base your decision on your next leader on the role of a die?

An Ideal Church

2007-01-17T10:49:00.000-05:00

"A church is an assembly of baptized believers, joined by a covenant of discipline and witness, who meet together regularly under the preaching of the Word of God."

So what does this look like ideally? Obviously this is going to be opinionated. Also, I guess I should insert American or something since assemblies of believers will look different in different parts of the world at different times. However some of these principles will actually be the same wherever and whenever you see them even though the outward manifestation may not appear congruent.

While a church is not a building (according to our working definition) the place of assembly should look like a place set apart for the worship of God. It should not look like something that got thrown up overnight or like something that will fall down today. It should not be dwarfed by a Family Life Center, a bookstore, a school, a bus depot or other extracurricular structures. As you enter this building it should have a sanctuary that calls for a solemnity and consideration of the greatness of God. [Aside: I think that one of the huge problems of modern American Christianity is that we have allowed our churches to become multi-purpose theaters where many things take place and consequently our worship just become one among the many mundane things and is no longer holy and special. But I will take that up another time.]

The people that we see gathered should look as though they came here on purpose with preparation to do something that is unlike other mundane gatherings throughout the week. I do not espouse a certain kind of dress I simply say that they should dress in a way that is set apart, that indicates a reverence and desire to worship. As we look around at those assembled it should not look like a crowd at a football game or movie theater. It should look different because they are here for a different reason. The conversations overheard should be different than the everyday water-cooler fare. These people should be engaging in each other's lives and not simply rehashing the weather, the workweek and the latest TV show craze.

As the service starts, one would hope to observe in the liturgy (music, prayer, reading, speaking) a formality without formulaity that indicates that this is not just a political meeting or hobby club but a group that is coming before the Creator and Sustainer for the purpose of hallowing His Name. If the music is just like what you listen to while passing time on your commute then there is a problem for it should be more thought-provoking and stirring. The prayers should not sound like your dinner prayer they should be intoned and addressed as being from the entire group to God and they should stir up truth as we listen to the one praying. As we read the Word and it should be done with worshipful excellence not hurried through or stumbled through. It should not be done in antiquated language that is incomprehensible to the listeners. [Aside again: I always find it strange when preachers who never say "Thou" when talking to you will say it 17 times while preaching. What is that about?]

Lastly, the church has ordinances. We were given them for a reason and we should use them to accomplish the purpose for which they were intended. That is a whole topic in itself but suffice it to say that I believe we have taken these wonderful pictures that Christ gave to us and cheapened them almost to the point of insignificance. The ideal church should be making these ordinances a centerpiece of their mission to discipline each other to holiness and witness to the world of the greatness of God.

American Christianity is made up of many churches who do not have a clear purpose. They go through rituals without understanding the purpose and basis of what they do. Of course I do not believe that all or even most of the churches are completely lost but this is the kind of thing that creeps in on an assembly and starts to slowly choke out life. Thus it is incumbent on those that want to continue, while the Lord tarries, to see their bodies grow and accomplish the Great Commission to actively fight to maintain an assembly of baptized believers, joined by a covenant of discipline and witness, who meet together regularly under the preaching of the Word of God.

Welcome to 2007

2007-01-05T09:01:00.001-05:00

Well, it's double-ought seven and I am still alive. My family has had the most relaxing, quiet and uneventful Christmas break ever. So I did not break up the quiet by blogging. But now I am back and I have several more articles in my church series that I will be working in.

I caught an interesting article over at SharperIron that I thought I should comment on today. According to that blog the top story in Evangelical blogging in 2007 was "Porn-it is not just for Perverts any more." Seems more like a story from 1999 (the year the internet really took off) but I will not belabor that. The gist however is that just as many men who claim the name of Christ are partaking of internet porn. And the church seems to not be doing much about it.

Galatians 6:1 gives us the very important command to restore brothers who we find in sin. But it also reminds us to be "considering yourself, lest you also be tempted." I am thankful that of all the struggles with sin I have, internet porn has not been among them. That is due in large part to a wonderful wife who has been very tech and internet savvy from the beginning. We have all the good rules: I try not to be browsing around the net when I am by myself; the computer is set where everyone can see the screen; the history is available for review. Despite such rules and the touting of accountability services the problem seems to be growing, not going away.

Perhaps it is time the we really get up close and personal. Imagine this. You arrive at church on Sunday morning. You see you buddy Fred. "Hey, man! Howz it goin'," you say. Fred says, "Great. By the way, have you been looking at any internet porn this week?"

WHOA! You can't be talking like that at church! Why not? Are we not to "consider one another to provoke to love and good works (Heb 10:24)?" Seems to me if this is a growing problem then people are not doing enough considering. We need to get beyond the weather and "How'r ya doin'" to something that means something regarding love and good works. I have a friend that consistently confronts me about my relationship with my wife. It is great because I know that when I see him, he will ask me if I am loving my wife the way Christ loves the church. That is the kind of thing that we need: relationships that help us have the discipline to witness to the world about the grace of God.

Try it this week.

Really, what is a church?

2006-12-10T08:26:00.000-05:00

In my last post I gave a working definition of "church." Modern American Evangelicalism is struggling to live as the church, grow the church and glorify God in the church and I posit that this is because so few really know what it is. I want to look at three pictures of the church that the Word of God gives us and then discuss their application. Again, as I discussed in the last article, there are universal church applications to all these truths but there also must be local church applications.

One Body
The concept of the church as a body is laid out by Paul in the 12th chapter of his first epistle to the Corinthians. Paul is speaking here in the context of using spiritual gifts (v. 7). Gifts are given for the common good not to lift up the individual. Then he launches into how that commonality is to work:

12The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. 28And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31But eagerly desire the greater gifts.
Similarly this theme is addressed in Romans 12:4-5 and Ephesians 4: 4-16. A body is an organic unit that works together for a common purpose: the life and growth of the body.

A Holy Temple
In Ephesians 2 Paul uses the body metaphor to teach that Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ and then springs into a new picture.

14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
I think that we have to work a little harder than the Ephesians or Corinthians did to understand the temple metaphor. In the ancient world temples were huge, ornate edifices built to honor a deity. Who has not seen the Parthenon and the Pantheon? Who has not heard of the splendor of Solomon's temple? But these building were not places where people gathered to worship like we do on Sunday. There was occult (i.e. hidden, secret) worship that went on inside. But the main religious function that they served was to glorify the deity by simply being there and being beautiful.

A Family
Paul routinely addresses his letters to the "brethren." John speaks to the "fathers." Peter talks about "my son Mark." James not only starts out talking to "brothers," but repeats it throughout. Then we come to 1 Timothy 5.

1Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

Here we have laid out the whole family: mother, father, sister, brother. This is how we are to relate to others. Are we talking about the Universal Church? Surely we are but when do I address an older Chinese man as father? Is this not better understood as how I relate to those with whom I worship on a weekly basis? A family is a group of people uniquely set apart from others to love and grow each other.

Application
A body, a temple, a family. What do we learn from this? The first thing I see is sovereignty. While we all have a responsibility to choose a good assembly of believers with which to associate, it is God who places us into the body; who builds us into the temple; who allows us to be born into a family. In our church people must stand up and give testimony how God has led them to come and join our church. It has always amazed me that after giving testimony to being led to our church people will then turn around and leave quietly citing preaching, youth group, children's ministry, music or some other subjective fault for why they are leaving. If God places us in a church, should we not have a clear call by God to leave the church.

Secondly, I see no place in these three illustrations for entertainment, personal benefit, or other selfish motives in deciding where I will worship and serve God. I think that in exercising my responsibility to find a body of believers to associate with I can use denominational distinctive to assist the choice. I believe that one might grow spiritually to a point where one sees doctrinal error which was not noticed when you came.

So in conclusion I see a scriptural mindset we need to inculcate in ourselves. What is my part in the body? How am I adorning the temple of God? Am I committed to my family even when they are imperfect? This is the point of this teaching in the Word. We are created and saved to the glory of God. And we are to live in the church to this end, not to fulfill some petty personal need.

What is a Church?

2006-11-29T21:37:00.000-05:00

I know many people who have grown up in church that cannot define what a church is. I don't really know that I can. I have a definition that I think is workable although there is a niggling doubt that it is somehow incomplete.

Before I get to my working definition, I think it is important to ask, "Do we need a definition?" Since most people cannot define it does it need definition. Is the understanding sufficiently clear to negate the need for a clearer casting of the term? The reason that there needs to be a clear definition is that it affects how we choose, join and leave our churches. Without a firm biblical idea of what a church is, even the concept of church membership is moot. If a church is merely a chance gathering of Christians then I can come or go as I see fit. Or, if Matthew 18:20 defines a church than I can stay home and have church with my family. It is important to know what terms mean and the word "Church" is no exception.

Another quick digression is the matter of local vs. universal. I realize that there are some who deny the existence of the universal or invisible church. It seems evident from a passage like Ephesians 5:25 that there is some kind of universal body of all who truly believe in Christ and He relates to that body. At the same time there is clearly a need to focus on some kind of local church who is actually able to work together in time and space to edify each other and to evangelize the lost around them. So my question is essentially: "What is a local church?"

I have this definition from the Catechism for Boys and Girls: "A church is an assembly of baptized believers, joined by a covenant of discipline and witness, who meet together regularly under the preaching of the Word of God."

The key points of this answer are crucial. Assembly is the actual Greek term that has come to translated as "church." It emphasizes the community and the need that we have to be in regular conversation and contact with others who are striving to live godly lives. Furthermore, it underlines that while we have a private duty to the Great Commission there is also a corporate responsibility. Baptized: while I am not at all a Big-B-Baptist, the Bible stresses this step of obedience in the life of true believers. To some the placing the word Believers in a definition of church might have seemed ridiculous. But from the Puritan's "Grandfather Clause" to the modern problem of allowing "seekers" to join churches there is a trend by some to allow membership to those who have shown no desire to repent of sin and turn to Christ in faith.

That people should be held or Joined together is a state of nature. People can not be counted on to do what is right or even to act in their own self-interest. One only has to witness a crisis where people will do foolish things instead of banding together for their own safety and the common good. Mankind is in need of accountability to accomplish almost any worthwhile task. This joining is two-fold. First is an agreement for Discipline. Our salvation starts with justification when we are judicially declared righteous in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately that is only the beginning. It is interesting that it is not Paul, Peter or James who tells us how to confront sin among believers but the Lord Himself in Matthew 18. We need to pursue holiness and we need to encourage it in others and we need to be ready to let others pursue holiness in us. This kind of "iron sharpening iron" sets up the second part of the covenant. Witness is the feet of the Gospel. The Church as a corporation can not witness without the individual lives of the members. The members can witness so much more effectively when it is not just their story but a multitude of witnesses all saying to the world, "Repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand!"

And all this is accomplished by the regular Meeting of God's people to encourage each other to discipline themselves to holiness and to spread the Gospel. As they sit under the regular Preaching of the Bible they are built up and equipped to allow the Holy Spirit to fill them with the mind of Christ and to go out into the world to tell others the good news!

I hope that this gets you thinking about what your view of Church is. In part 2 we will look at how this should impact our church life and, we will look at practical implications of this viewpoint. It is important to know what we are talking about. Everything we believe about church membership, church purpose and methodology is based on what we believe a church really is.

So, now you have my definition. What is yours?

Pastor Appreciation

2006-11-29T07:27:00.000-05:00

There is an excellent article here about appreciating your pastor. It lists some scary statistics and some good suggestions. It is well worth reading.

Christian Duty: An Oxymoron?

2006-11-21T12:17:00.000-05:00

Is the concept of "christian duty" an oxymoron? To hear many people in Evangelical Christianity today it seems so. Just mention the term in sermon or conversation and see if people don't start to squirm and mutter about "legalism" and "phariseeism." Recently there has been a resurgence of the whole "Lordship Salvation" controversy. It touches on this issue. Do I have a duty to obey God as Lord and Master and is that duty somehow tied to my salvation or assurance of salvation?

I do not think that I can conclusively solve this debate when great men have fought across the field without victory. But, I will wade in with my little two cents!

The concept of duty is definitely a New Testament one. We find the word in the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ when he tells his disciples that men ought to pray and men ought to worship (Lk 18:1; John 4:20). The word is used 104 times in the NT and it is frequently translated as ought, should, or must. It comes from another Greek word that is often translated as "bound." Sometimes these are references to things that need to be done like, "I must work the works of Him that sent me…(Jn 9:4). But there are plenty of things that we must do. They are duties. We are bound to do them.

Here is a brief list:
•We must be compassionate and forgiving (Mt 18:33)
•We must not be troubled by the world situation around us; we must preach the gospel (Mk 13:7-10)
•We must speak the gospel (Lk 12:12; Ep 6:20; Col 4:4-6)
•We must observe the sabbath (Lk 13:14)
•We must pray (Lk 18:1; Ro 8:26)
•We must worship God in spirit and truth (Jn 4:24)
•We must obey God rather than men (Ac 5:29)
•We must go through trials (Ac 14:22)
•We must be generous (Ac 20:35)
•We must be humble (Ro 12:3)
•We must know some things (1 Co 8:2; He 2:1; He 11:6)
•We must encourage those who minister to us (2 Co 2:3)
•We must walk in a way that is pleasing to God (1 Th 4:1; 1 Tim 3:2-15; Ti 1:7; 2 Pe 3:11)
•We must follow godly leaders (2 Th 3:7)
•We must be gentle (2 Tim 2:24)

Here is the rub. By what are we bound to these duties and what do they accomplish. Doing duty can never accomplish any form of salvation. Throughout scripture we are reminded of our inability to please God or measure up to His standard of righteousness. The best verse is Is 64:6 where the prophet posits that even if we could be really righteous it would not be enough to earn favor with God. Our only hope for salvation is Christ. So what then is this duty?

The fact that our duty does not save us in no way obviates us from that duty as some would simplistically have it. The idea that we can partake of God's saving grace and mercy and yet be unchanged is absurd. Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. But the work of Christ is to save us from the sin that separates us from God. So this saving faith must perforce include repentance from the sin or else we have nothing from which to be saved. And the evidence of this saving faith is revealed in how we do our duty to God and others.

The Westminster divines state, "The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in … their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love and willing mind." This is not the drudge duty of slavery but the joyful duty of the family. I do not need to instruct my children of their duty to receive gifts from me. I rarely need to be reminded of my duty to eat my supper that my wife has prepared. My wife does not need to remind me of my husbandly duty to her. These are duties that we willingly perform.

So Christian duty is no oxymoron! It is what a heart that has submitted itself to Christ will joyfully and willingly perform. The reason that we have these duties enumerated to us is that, in the bent of our natural man, we do not know these duties. We are like children who have never seen a wrapped present and so do not understand the joy that comes from unwrapping and receiving the gift inside.

Christ is the Lord of all the cosmos. We must come to Him in belief that He is able to save us as the one that He is. As we enter into His Kingdom we take upon ourselves duties. They may look just like the duties that our previous religious background had saddled us with. The difference is in the heart that informs our obedience.

Dying for Freedom

2006-11-13T07:49:00.000-05:00

If you made it through the last few days without hearing someone say, "Freedom ain't free!" then it probably just reflects American ambivalence to Veteran's Day. Being married to a Canadiene and reading BBC news, it has struck me how much more seriously this holiday is to our friends. You might want to look at this article to see what I mean. Of course we did not lose a whole generation on the fields of Flanders like they did.

But at this time when we commemorate people who fought and died for freedom, I can't help but think of those who are dying for what is not freedom. All around us are people that are fighting to remain free to do what they want to do; to be free from God. And yet what they are pursuing as freedom is not at all freedom but slavery to sin and selfishness. As our country becomes increasingly post-modern we are seeing a tremendous rise in anti-christian attitudes and paganism. At my workplace I have coworkers who are witches and who will (almost) literally spit at the name of Jesus. And yet, from my point of view they are in a prisonhouse of sin.

These thoughts lead me closer to home. What about those who are Christians. Evangelical Christians are increasingly looking more like the world around us. And even in Fundamentalism the stain of worldliness has crept in. We have been set free from the enslavement of sin and selfishness but are we really living in that freedom? Or has our Christian liberty become an excuse for allowing ourselves to be enslaved again. Are we simply the house slaves who have nicer clothes and quarters than the field hands?

As we celebrate those who died for freedom, I cannot help but think of the one who died to make all men free. He died to free men in this life and to give them life that will never end in the hereafter. And He suffered like no other man has ever suffered, even those who endured the unimaginable hell of World War I. And He gives the freedom to all who will reach out and accept it humbly!

Confronting Leaders

2006-11-06T18:06:00.000-05:00

For the second time in 6 months a high-profile evangelical leader has been found to be in sin. Now, I have no wish to delve into salacious details or pontificate about hypocrisy. I am all to aware that if I had been present when Christ said, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone," I would not have been the last to slink away. But there is a trend here that I have been thinking about for the last 3 days.

An accusation comes to light. A leader is lovingly confronted by men who love him. Lies are told and smoke screens are thrown out. After a passage of time the leader acknowledges that he did indeed sin and tried to cover it up.

So, I have been wondering how you avoid this. I have a thought (of course! I am a blogger. Duh!) But I would like to hear the thoughts of any who read this as well. So here is the scenario. You are a church leader. It has come to your attention that the pastor has been involved in some kind of behavior that is not in keeping with the scriptural qualifications of elders. How do you handle it?

My initial thought

I would pray about it and of course be sure that there is some substance. (Although, often in this day and age even a baseless charge needs to be dealt with carefully.) I would then share with my fellow leaders the information I have. Some will say I have just jumped out of Matthew 18 and I am aware of that. I will explain why. After praying with the other leaders for forgiveness and repentance and making sure that we are in the right frame of mind and spirit to confront sin, I would lay out the accusation to the pastor. I would then ask him to no speak. I would ask him to take some time and get before God in prayer about how he should handle the situation. I would then schedule a meeting later to hear his reply. I would make it clear that we would wait to hear his response before passing any judgement.

My rationale

In both situations that I referenced above, a man was confronted with strong accusations. He immediately replied and went into "spin" and damage-control mode. My first impression is that some consideration needs to be made of the society in which we live and the human nature that we are saddled with. By confronting such a leader fairly and openly and then giving him time to think about his reply instead of getting his reaction I think that we would open up the door for immediate confession and start quickly on the path of reconciliation. A moral lapse like these 2 cases means that such a man is not going to be eligible for ministry. But why compound that crushing news by setting the man up to lie and dissimulate? My rational for confronting corporately instead of first confronting individually is this. I think that these kinds of accusations have a large corporate component. I think they require corporate response. This is not an issue between me and a brother. It is a problem between the flock and the pastor and it requires handling at that level.

Well, that is my well-considered (ok, three-day) opinion. I look forward to hearing your remarks.

The Foundation of the Law

2006-10-30T07:32:00.000-05:00

Have you ever noticed that the Ten Commandments start in verse 3 of Exodus 20? Any view that we take of the Law and its application to the modern church has to take into account the foundation of the Law found in Exodus 20:1-2. I see three points here.

God Spoke
One of the fantastic claims of scripture is the hundreds of times that the Bible claims to be the direct revelation of the God of Heaven. We know from Paul that "all the writings are given" by God. But whenever the scripture bothers to point out or set out a specific passage as being from God that it deserves our special attention. So apart from any restatement of these commands in the New Testament there is something of importance here.

I am the Lord, thy God
All the following remarks are predicated on God's identity as the self-existent, immutable, creator God. He identifies this specifically with His personal nature by emphasizing that He is our God. He is not some aloof prime mover. This is a God who loves His people and He is revealing Himself to them so that they might love Him.

I have brought you out
His interest in the well-being of His people is reiterated by His deliverance from slavery. God could have very well given the law while the people were in Egypt. He could have used that to determine who really had a heart for Him and delivered only them. But He delivered all the people and even a significant number of Egyptians that followed them out and then He revealed Himself in His law.

No wonder David exclaims:
O that my ways were directed to keep your statutes! Then I will not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments. I will praise you with uprightness of heart, when I have learned your righteous judgments.

The Law shows our need of the Grace of God and God's Grace empowers us to keep His Law out of love for Him.

Education Matters

2006-10-16T11:33:00.000-04:00

I have already posted once today so I will not belabor this. There is an excellent post about Classical Education. I believe passionately that this methodology is the best way to prepare ourselves to be ambassadors of the Kingdom of God.

The Wonder of God's Law

2006-10-16T10:55:00.000-04:00

I have been a bit hung up on this whole Law of God thing for a while. Thankfully this is a small blog so I don't have to worry about losing readership, advertising revenue, etc! This is just how I am. My mind locks on something for a while and I mull it over. Anyway, Dan Philips had another of his magisterial posts this week that launched me even more down this path. So on with it….

The Wonder of God's Law. I have been in Psalm 119 this week and the thing that jumps out as you read is that David is very hung up on the Law. Now, you can try and wiggle around and equate this to the extant Bible of his day and there is some good in that. But in the end, you have to admit that what David was overwhelmed with and what he was spending his time looking at and what he was pondering day and night was the Law. He didn't have the Pastoral Epistles or the Prophets.

So why do we spend so little time even looking at God's Law? Let alone marveling and meditating. Why can many evangelicals not even name the main commandments let alone tell what they mean and provide application to modern life. Is our view of the all-sufficiency of all scripture really that deficient?

My thinking was also stirred by Phil Johnson's testimony and how he used 1 John 2:3-6 to minister to kids who had grown up in Christian homes without showing any sign of regeneration.

And hereby we do know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He that says, I know Him, and keeps not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keeps His word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in Him. He that saith He abides in Him ought himself also so to walk, even as He walked.

Now, what commandments are these? Jesus, always kept God's law in practice and principle and thus was able to stand up as a second Adam and be a perfect substitute for us. The point is that just as He upheld God's standard of righteousness we should also strive to keeps God's law. Not to earn salvation! That is impossible and foolish. Christ already has done all the earning! We strive to keep the Law of God because the founding principle of the Law is to love God with all our heart, soul and strength. And this keeping of the Law merges us into the Law of Grace and allows us to proclaim the gospel to the world by demonstrating that we know and love the One True God.

The Application of the Law of God

2006-10-04T07:16:00.000-04:00

In my last post I talked about the Operation of the Law of God. That brought some comments about the Application of the Law of God. So how applicable are the principles of the Ten Commandments to 21st century Christians?

There are several problems with this question. First, many people have a view of the Law that Moses brought to the people that holds that people were saved by keeping the Law. Then Christ came and provided a new way to come to God. The problem with this view is that it establishes a paradox where some are saved by faith while in the past people were saved by their own work and merit. Hebrews however, clearly shows that all the OT saints came to God in faith.

Second, and more important, there are those who want to comb through the NT to find which of the Ten Commandments are reiterated and thus still applicable to us today. My first thought is that they all are because Jesus told the Pharisees that the Commandments where summed up by, "Love God; love others," and that all the scriptures "hang on this." If we understand that this rubric: love God; love others, is the Law in a nutshell then all the law is still applicable. My next answer to this thought is that if the Law is principial and if God is immutable why is there even any question as to whether there is any application to us? Of course there is! God is not changeable and so the principles by which we relate to Him will not change either.

Now I had some comment about the specific example I used from Commandment IV which gives us the Sabatical Principle. I used this because I think it is the one of the most glaring examples of how the Evangelical Church in America is turning away from God. Our whole view of the Lord's Day is off. Christians rarely ever even call Sunday "The Lord's Day" any more. To many it is just a random day that someone chose and decided to have church on. So therefore if we want to have church Saturday evening and then hit the lake all day Sunday that is fine too. The idea that God desires that we take 14% of our week and set it aside to worship Him is lost on most who call themselves Christians. And the concept that observing the Lord's Day might require some sacrifice of preparation is really not on the radar screens.

So the point is that God gave us His Law to teach us what He is like; to inform us of our duty toward the God who has reached out to us in mercy and showered us with grace; and to elucidate how far short of His Glory we have fallen. The Law is wrapped up in the Gospel. It marks out our deadness; and delineates Christ's perfect righteousness. Then we can appreciate our Lord as we see Him spill His own blood. Then we are driven to cry out, "Wash me Savior, or I die!." And how can we go on making excuses for not keeping the Law? We do not keep the law out of any need to earn God's favor because we have already seen that it was an impossible task! We keep the covenant out of our deep love and respect for the One who turned away His just and righteous wrath from us toward His own Son!

We do not need to put the Ten Commandments in the public schools or fret about them being removed from the county courthouse, but they should be present in our homes and in our churches. The Ten Commandments will not fix our society beyond convicting people of their innate inability to please God, however, for those who are part of the Kingdom that is coming, they are indispensable.

The Operation of the Law of God

2006-09-25T11:02:00.000-04:00

The Law of God. It was given by God through Moses and preserved in the Pentateuch. When Jesus started His public ministry He made clear that He was not coming to lay aside the Law but to fulfill it (Matt 5 ff.-Sermon on the Mount). As we move on into the Gospels we start to see a conflict that we often call Law vs. Grace. There is a lot of material in the NT about not living under the law. Many Christians today feel that the Law of God is not very applicable to them. This seems to be at odds with Paul's statement to Timothy that "all the writings are God breathed and are profitable…."

Obviously this is a large subject and I only want to touch on one small part of it today. That is the working of the law. On its face the law seems to be pretty straightforward. "Thou shall not do such-n-such." But Christ Himself peels away this veneer and reveals that there is much more there. Our Lord told the crowd that the prohibition on murder was really a prohibition on hatred. This could not have been something new that He was teaching; they should have known this already.

So what do I mean by the working of the Law. I think that in our fallen state we have real difficulty thinking like God. In our flesh we seek technical or procedural laws. We want an algorithm that says: "If you see X; then do Y." But God does not legislate like this. His law is "Love me; love others." The Decalogue is a series of refinements on the overriding principle of Love. Throughout the books of Moses we see "case law" given to exemplify how the principles of the 10 Commandments look in real life.

So the Law of God works on the basis of principle versus procedure. How does this impact the modern church? Well, when one looks at the 4th Commandment and says, "I am not bound to observe the Sabath!" then one can start to have Saturday services or call off evening service on Super Bowl Sunday. But when we observe that part of loving God with all our hearts, souls and and minds includes keeping the Sabatical Principle of the Fourth Commandment it leads us to a whole different mindset toward our Sunday worship.

Another example that hits close to home is the Second Commandment. Many Christians would be hard-pressed to imagine how they could violate this command of God. Again let us consider the principle embodied here that there is a right way and wrong way to worship God. I think we are commanded that we are not to allow the surrounding culture dictate how we worship the One True God. Does this not speak to so much to how we do church in America today?

This principle versus procedure thought brings to mind the example used by many including John Piper and Jim Berg to name just two. We would never expect to be given a list of procedures of how to behave in a marriage relationship. "When it is the anniversary, thou shall give the wife flowers." But we all understand how the principles of marriage dictate what we do on important occasions like anniversaries.

The essence of Christianity is to have a restored relationship with God through Christ in the power of the Spirit. Every relationship has rules or laws. Very few if any of them are the technical or procedural types; most are principial. That is how God's Law works.

St. Paul on Blogging

2006-09-16T19:34:00.000-04:00

When I first announced my entry into the Blogosphere my dad responded typically. He did not jump up and down with excitement; he did praise my first article (published on Stuff Out Loud); and he issued a warning. He challenged me to study II Timothy 2: 16 and allow it to inform anything that I was going to do in blogging. I have been doing that.

I find this advice of Paul to Timothy as one of those amazing places where a 2000 year-old document seems to speak as though it was written yesterday. Truely, this is the Word of the Lord! Paul has just told Timothy to be diligent in his ministry and to accurately handle the Word of Truth. Then he says, "But, avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness… (NASB)" WOW. Surely this speaks to those of us that blog.

Every time some new technology comes down the pike the church has to make a decision. It can take the Naysayer position. This is what the Amish did about 200 years ago. It is also what the Roman Church did during the Age of Enlightenment. Or the church can take the Naive approach. This is where it accepts every new thing as being morally neutral and tries to incorporate it into church. I can think of no better example of this than American Christianity with its Christian Rap, Christian Theme Parks, Christian Self-Help, and Redeeming Everything. In the middle of these extremes is the Wisdom decision. In wisdom the church evaluates new things, discards those that are useless and adapts those that are usable to spread the message of the gospel. The best example is how the early fundamentalists seized on the power of radio to make an end-run around the increasingly liberal denominations and take their message directly to the people. Radio was one of the cornerstones of early fundamentalism.

Along come weblogging, now known as blogging. It took a couple of years to catch on but by 2005 Sharper Iron, Pyromaniac, et al where a growing part of the phenomenon of Christian Blogging. Some have raised serious concerns about blogging and bloggers and have said that the church should not participate in this medium. They may have a point from Paul since there is much "worldly and empty chatter." There has been many unloving things said and much that is not true. Should Christians leave the bloggosphere or would that be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I believe that there is much good in blogging. I have read many great articles by young and mature Christians that I would not otherwise have access to. I have been encouraged; I have been provoked to think; I have been pushed to study by bloggers. I believe that blogging allows Christians that would otherwise never get to "provoke one another to love and good works" to do this over many miles and even around the world. I really think that blogging is going to change our view of information in the next ten years.

So where does that leave us with Paul's remark? Like so many things, (ie. meat, circumcision, wine) I think that he would conditionally say that we should blog. I see a parallel between the world of the blog and Mars Hill where Paul so boldly came with the gospel. But Paul never holds back from telling us what love should inform our actions. Love of God and love for the brethren must shape every liberty and every action. We must avoid "wordly and empty chatter" that attacks, confuses, discourages, and harms our brothers or sisters. We may not participate in any blogging that undermines the Kingdom. We must always "speak the Truth in love."

So early in the 21st Century we have a new technology. It can be used for good or ill. It cannot be completely avoided. Let us follow Paul's advice and "accurately handle the Word of Truth" so that the Truth can illuminate the world!

My Way

2006-09-02T19:26:00.000-04:00

This past week (August 25) there was another tremendous article over at PyroManiacs called "You can go your own way." In it Dan Phillips talks about the response of two men when told by God that they are to be allowed to go their own way. One is ecstatic; the other cries out for God to have mercy and not allow him to go his own way.

Dan's article reminded me of a point made by Jim Berg in his book Changed Into His Image. In the book Dr. Berg posits that all God would need to do to destroy us is to withdraw His grace and allow us to have our own way. This was and is a powerful thought that pops into the forefront of my mind from time to time. It needs to crop up much more often. My flesh and my heart are sinful enough that if God allowed me to have my own way I could and would destroy my very life.

Two things Dan brought out that really arrested me: first, the response of a Godly man when presented with the chance to go his own way is, "Oh Dear God, no, please no!" We must cultivate in ourselves a sensitivity to our own selfish desires and be quick to call for divine help when we start to pull in that direction.

Second, "Autonomy. It is the essence of Hell, it is sin's direst judgment, it is the Christian's most horrifying fear." What a great truth. Especially in America where autonomy is the end all and be all of our existence. I was reminded again of how much I need to depend on God; of how completely I must operate in the power of the Holy Spirit; of how I require the mind of Christ to do anything good.

In closing I quote Dan again, "The rebel's greatest fear is that he would be denied the desires of his heart. The saint's is that he would be abandoned to his."

O Lord, give me Your desires, Your thoughts, Your motives! All mine are worthless dust while Yours are glory, life, and benefit to all the World.

Whom Should We Quote?

2006-08-24T20:57:00.000-04:00

Over at Pyromaniacs I ran into an interesting article several days ago. In dealing with guilt by association (hereafter referred to as GBA) they got into a discussion about a situation where John MacArthur quoted a liberal theologian. I have some personal experience with this type of thing.

One of the most horrifying examples of this type of thing occurred last year. I was listening to a wonderful message by the ever eloquent and loquacious Church Swindol. He preached on of the best messages on the inerrant inspiration of the Word of God that I have ever heard. He could have preached it at the most fundamental of fundamentalist churches or schools and they would have been pleased. Well, that is, until he got to the close. He closes out with a story about Karl Barth telling some friends that the most profound thing he has learned in life is: "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so." Now, how do you finish a sermon on the inspiration of the Bible with a quote by the poster-boy of Neo-Orthodoxy?

The situation that TeamPyro is discussing is altogether different. There is nothing wrong with quoting from liberals and apostates. The problem with bad theology is rarely total error. It is the problem of 99% pure water mixed with the 1% pure poison. And since we are talking about what men have said and written it is fairly easy to glean some of the good stuff from bad theologians.

The problem is when men like Barth and Bonhoeffer get quoted in glowing terms that make them sound like great Christians. The thing to get upset about is when such men are held up as exemplars of the Christian life and are called great men of God.

But the issue at hand is how to deal with quoting from such men. First, I would say, that my own pastor does not need to give a disclaimer every time he quotes from some shady theologian. I know where he is and as long as he is not praising liberals I am happy for him to quote pretty much whomever he wishes. Second, when I listen to men like John MacArthur, John Piper, or Chuck Swindol, I listen fairly critically. I am not under the weekly pastorate of these men so I am not as familiar with them. Therefore, I listen and the warning light comes on when they quote from apostates. Again, as long as they are not making out over such men I can accept that.

The bottom line is that I worry if my pastor is moving into error. If some guy on the radio or podcast is preaching a lot of crazy stuff I shut him off and stop listening. I don't think we need to have the big tabloid exposé in the blogosphere every time someone says something that sounds a little off to us!

I Love BJU

2006-08-19T13:31:00.000-04:00

I love Bob Jones University. I do not say that lightly or just to grab attention. It is really true.

I decided long ago not to be apologetic about the school or my affiliation with it. I decided to simply be grateful. So many alumni can not see any good that God produced in their lives through BJU.

I think that I would be a far different person if I had not gone to the World's Most Unusual University. I know the struggles and tendencies of my heart and a less conservative institution may have allowed me to get into far more trouble than I had opportunity to find in Greenville.

There are certainly things I would like to see change at my alma mater. If the university wants to form an alumni committee I would gladly serve on it. However, until then I will go on thanking God for my time at BJU and praying for the health of that institution.

This article was inspired by Bob Bixby.

2006-08-09T13:42:00.000-04:00

I Will Always Be A Fundamentalist

2006-08-02T10:57:00.000-04:00

I will always be a fundamentalist. Some might marvel at so categorical a statement. I know there have been hours of blogging on the subject from such luminaries of the blogosphere as the Pyromaniacs and Bauder. This is actually the stuff that first lured me into blogging. So I have read a lot of it and mulled it over for a while now.

My first thought is that, while I am an American, I do not feel responsible to answer for every kooky thing that every American does. More specifically, I generally identify myself as a Republican, however I do not have to agree with everyone else who identifies themselves with that label. Some like John McCain hardly seem to warrant the label given some of their positions. To many GOP members my conservative views may seem to place me far to the right of the mainstream party. The point is that we don't let others define us. We don't allow the misuse of labels to change who we are.

Imagine if someone tells me, "All white people are racist." Do I start wearing shoe-polish on my face and try to be non-white? No, I am caucasian and I cannot change that. I can try to articulate to this individual that they are wrong and even that they are racist for espousing such an idea. Or I may need to just walk away and leave this individual with their crazy delusions.

The fact is that I believe there are certain truths that are core to True Christianity. These truths are revealed by God in His Word. That means that His Word has to be infallible and preserved or else we don't know anything. These truths are fundamental and no one who denies them can be called a brother nor can I have close fellowship with such a one.

Furthermore, I want to be with others who hold to the same Truth. And I really don't want to try and fellowship with any form of modernist or liberal who wants to slap the name of Christ on their chest but deny the Power of the Gospel. These are the hallmarks of fundamentalism. KJV only, certain musical styles, clothing and worship styles are not definitive. Anyone that wants them to be definitive of fundamentalism is wrong. I refuse to let them redefine who I am.

One important point I want to make is my attitude toward Christian brothers. One becomes a follower of Jesus by faith alone in Christ alone. There are lots of Christians out there who are not fundamentalists. There are two ditches or curbs that define the road I take here. The first is that I do not need to have a holier-than-thou attitude toward people who are not fundamentalist. I cannot look down on them. I do not need to try and "convert" them. Second, I do not need to try and bend my beliefs to snuggle up to them. That is the mistake that defines new-evangelicalism. My responsibility is to love all those that love my Lord. I need to encourage them to believe. I do not need to convince all my SBC and PCA friends to leave their churches and join a fundamentalist assembly.

Now you have seen a little bit on my identity crisis. The crisis is over. I will always be a fundamentalist.

Blogging for the Kingdom

2006-07-18T21:52:00.000-04:00

We all go through times in our lives where themes are constantly coming up in our daily devotions, in sermons and in conversations. One idea that the Spirit seems to keep raising in my heart over the past several months has been that of Kingdom Relationships.

All I am saying with the idea of Kingdom Relationships, is that we have to relate to people, all people, within the context of Kingdom Relationships. My relationship with my spouse needs to be one that prepares her to be a citizen of the eternal kingdom. My relationships with my children should prepare them for the day that they bow before that eternal throne. My interactions with my coworkers should be such to encourage those who are entering into the kingdom and compelling towards those who are not already submitting to the King. I submit to you that our interactions with everyone on this planet with whom we have any contact must be contributing to the building up of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, does that really hold true in the blogosphere? This has been the subject of much discussion on the Christian forums of cyberspace. I have witnessed many a discussion that turned from its subject to harsh words of disagreement or accusation over anything or nothing. You may well have seen hijacks of interesting threads turn to inane discussions or crazy accusations. Is this behavior in keeping with the Truth? Again, I postulate that all our interactions must be kingdom focused. Even in cases of contention and confrontation we must conduct ourselves with a care that we do not turn away those who need to enter in nor do we savage those with whom we will worship for all eternity.

All this is readily agreeable. There is a practical problem however. It comes in two parts. The first should be readily apparent to all. We have the great mandate of Ephesians 4:15 to speak the truth in love. We must speak in a way that shows love. It is always easier to communicate when we speak to people face to face. Oral communication is the next easiest. The hardest is realm in which to communicate is that of written words. It is so difficult (even in this age of emoticons ;p !) to communicate our intentions accurately. That means that participants in email, blogs and chats need to be that much more wary of how they express themselves. I believe that this problem is also helped by identification. On a blog, when I feel like garythegreat89 is attacking me it is hard to imagine this cyberbabble of a name as a brother in Christ. When participants clearly identify themselves and open themselves up to reproof and correction by publishing their email address they are less likely to be lighting up the flamethrower.

The second part of the problem is accepting confrontation in grace. Whenever someone comes to us with criticism, rebuke, reproof or correction we need to accept it as from the Lord. Even when it is mostly untrue there is almost always some element of truth that we can take and allow the Holy Spirit to use. I think of the strong words that Paul uses at the end of 1 Corinthians 4, "What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?" The apostle apparently felt warranted to say that his demeanor toward them would be based on their response.

So my admonition to any who reads these words is that we all must speak the truth in love, hear the truth with grace and proclaim the truth of the Kingdom!

Standing on the Rock

2006-07-13T08:45:00.000-04:00

This blog is called Standing on the Rock. I decided to call it that because I think that an important part of life is to have a stable foundation spiritually, philosophically, emotionally from which to observe the world. As a christian there can be no other foundation than Jesus Christ, His divinity, His life, His eternally efficacious work (1 Cor 3:11).

Now, I did pause before deciding on this. I do have some political and social subjects I would like to address. Can one do that on a blog with a religious title like "Standing on the Rock?" I think one certainly may. I am reminded of Bob Jones Sr's saying that, "For the christian there is no separation between the secular and the sacred." This always raises american hackles and some will quickly trot out the ol' separation of church and state. And my first reply is that speaking in the public forum and legislating a state religion are apples and monkeys. My view is that a religion that does not affect our view of society, history, science and politics is no religion at all. The framers were intent on keeping the government from establishing one sect or denomination and then discriminating against others. Anyone who has read the founding fathers cannot help but notice the incessant references to God, God's Word, Creation and Divine Law and Providence. There is no hypocrisy in discussing cultural issues from a religious perspective. There is no intolerance in declaring one option better than another based on economics, culture or morals.

Whether we discuss religion, culture, sports or philosophy we must do it from some framework, some basis. My basis is the Word of God and what it reveals to us about God and about ourselves. Each person must choose between viewing life from God's perspective or from a humanistic perspective. I think that we always struggle to see from God's viewpoint because our fleshly hearts constantly try to infuse man's way into the picture. But thankfully God has promised that His Word and the Holy Spirit will guide us to wisdom that is from above. And we can use this wisdom to analyze all of life.

Standing on the Rock is not about me sharing any higher knowledge. I hope that I can write some things that are entertaining and thought-provoking. I am writing mostly for my own benefit since I need to write to hone my own skills and to formulate my own thoughts.

Any feedback is welcome. Any constructive criticism is appreciated.

A Thought About Dan Brown's Work

2006-07-04T09:04:00.000-04:00

Unless you have been renting Ted Kaczyski's cabin in Montana for the last 6 months you have heard about The Da Vinci Code. Clearly such an insidious attack on Christianity must be answered by the church. Or does it? The obvious problem is that the book and movie are a fiction, but purport to be factual. And the alleged historical facts of this story have been used to attack the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth and the Inerrancy of Scripture. Now, last time I checked, these are both core fundamentals of christianity so we have to defend them, right?

The problem, as I see it is that if these are really part of the nucleus of christianity then should not every one who calls themselves a christian know this. We should certainly not have to worry that any member of our church would be confused by this assault. Furthermore, if our church is in the business of edifying, building up, and strengthening the saints then our members should be sanctifying God in their hearts and readying themselves to give an answer to anyone who questions the foundational truth on which our faith rests (1 Peter 3:15).

I am an ER nurse. It is not unusual for someone to come to the emergency room for some seemingly minor problem, only to find out that they have a major problem like cancer. Imagine a fairly healthy person in their early 50's that has a fainting spell and comes in to be checked. As part of the routine exam we do a chest x-ray. We are all shocked to see a huge cancerous mass in the left lung. Everything seemed fine but in just a moment this person goes from being healthy to being very sick. Their ability to get life or health insurance is completely changed. This may affect their ability to get a job as well as their ability to keep a job.

Dan Brown has done a great service to the church. By writing a simple work of fiction, lacing it with an improbably 2,000 year-old conspiracy that has spanned centuries and continents, and then stating that his work is factual, he has revealed a huge cancer in the very breast of the church. Answering questions about the divinity of Christ and the preservation of scripture should be bread and butter to any true believer in the Way, the Truth, and the Life. And especially in Fundamentalist circles this should be true. But The Da Vinci Code had revealed that this is not the case. Pastors and churches everywhere are scrambling to be sure their people know how to answer this attack and how to springboard from discussing a work of fiction to sharing the message of hope that is the Gospel. Instead of the church saying, "Bring it on!" she is whimpering, "Wait a minute?!"

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul says, "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” This is the Gospel! Jesus Christ, the very Son of God came and fulfilled Old Testament prophecy and this is recorded by multiple eyewitnesses in the New Testament! Every one of us has to know this! If we cannot defend these truths against all comers, I assert that we do not KNOW them! If you try to tell me that the earth is flat you are going to get no where with me because I really, really know that it is a globe. And these truths are just as fundamental.

So, I tell you that you have a huge cancer in your chest. I guess there are several responses you might make. You could deny it. You could ask how it got there. You could cry and wail and get depressed. But the healthy response is to ask, "How do we need to treat this?" Our churches have to be about the proclamation of the Gospel. The Good News of the Kingdom. We have to be able to articulate what it is. Perhaps the reason why the church is having so little impact on our society is that we really do not know the Gospel. Perhaps the reason that Fundamentalism is in the state it is in (whatever that may be!), is that we really do not apprehend the truth that we purport to proclaim. So if that is true, we have to get back to the clear teaching of the Word of God. At it's heart is the message that Jesus explicitly stated that He was God Very God. His disciples understood it, and His enemies understood it. The Jews killed Jesus because of this truth and He validated His claim by rising from the dead. His disciples knew He rose, and His enemies knew he rose. It was attested by hundreds of people. And it was immediately recorded by multiple authors.

This is not the kind of knowledge that you learn in seminary. This is the kind of truth that must be taught in Sunday School. These things are not some part of a complex theory that one needs an advanced degree to be able to speak of. What it is is a fact of history that our children should learn just as they learn about George Washington and World War II. Furthermore, these are not just pieces of factual knowledge because they are eternal truth. When we are in God's presence joining in that eternal, joyful, raucous worship service before the eternal throne, I don't think that medical knowledge or quantum physics or Magna Carta is going to mean much to us. But the Eternal Son and the Everlasting Word will be central to our never-ending existence.

Let us be ready to give to every one an answer of our Great Hope. And let us build up others that they may to likewise!

Standing on the Rock

Godwin's Law

I Love Historical Fiction Except When I Hate It

Doctrine & Piety

Evaluating Traditions

The Theology of the Death of a Cat.

Separation

Determining Orthodoxy

What has been going on?

Civic Religion in America

Ungodliness

Church Constitutions

A Funny Thing Happened…

Shocker: Antidepressants Don't Work Well!

I really need to write a book.

I like Ben Stein

Consider the Prophet Job

A New Year

Apology: The Revelation of God

Apology: The Existence of God

Apology: An Introduction

A Few Thoughts on Christian Missions

Church Membership Revisited

Bob Bixby's Thoughts on the Emerging Middle

What kind of judgment do we face?

Do you Belive In Magic?

The Gospel and Good Discipline

364

The Gospel of Grace & Truth

Doctrine, Wisdom, Conviction

The Hypocrisy of Paedobaptism

The Centrality of the Gospel

Appologetics: The Law of Large Numbers

April 17 & thoughts of appologetics

Easter Paean

Good Friday

Current thoughts

Note from the Road

How to leave a church

Reflections on Reading

Selecting Leadership in the Church

An Ideal Church

Welcome to 2007

Really, what is a church?

What is a Church?

Pastor Appreciation

Recommended Reading

Christian Duty: An Oxymoron?

Dying for Freedom

Confronting Leaders

The Foundation of the Law

Education Matters

The Wonder of God's Law

The Application of the Law of God

The Operation of the Law of God

St. Paul on Blogging

My Way

Whom Should We Quote?

I Love BJU

I Will Always Be A Fundamentalist

Blogging for the Kingdom

Standing on the Rock

A Thought About Dan Brown's Work