Appologetics: The Law of Large Numbers

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

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

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

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

April 17 & thoughts of appologetics

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

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

Easter Paean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Friday

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

Current thoughts

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

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

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

Note from the Road

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


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

How to leave a church

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reflections on Reading

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

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

Selecting Leadership in the Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Ideal Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Try it this week.

Really, what is a church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is a Church?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pastor Appreciation

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

Recommended Reading

Dan Philips over at Pyromaniacs has written another great article excoriating the kind of mushy post-modern thinking that is increasingly common in evangelical circles.

Christian Duty: An Oxymoron?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dying for Freedom

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

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

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

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

Confronting Leaders

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

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

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

My initial thought

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

My rationale

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

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

The Foundation of the Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

Education Matters

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