Godwin's Law

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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…

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”