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.”

A Few Thoughts on Christian Missions

“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

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

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?

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?

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

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.