Category Archives: Pastoral Reflections
Why Would God Send Anyone to Hell?
This is one of those questions that tends to come up a lot in conversations with people in the community around me, even amongst professing Christians. When it is raised, it is not typically meant as an exegetical argument that challenges the Christian doctrine of justice, but it is a question that comes from a more emotional level. The reasoning looks something like this. “I don’t think that I could condemn anyone to Hell and God is more merciful than I am, thus he must not send people to hell.”
In my late teens and early twenties, I went through a number of years of rebellion against the church and the things that the church taught. During those years I never became an atheist per say, but I became a universalist based on the above idea. I used to say, “God is love and he is the perfection of love; hence, he must love even those whom I cannot find it in myself to love and surely love would not condemn someone to hell.” I used to tell people that I did believe that a hell existed, but I considered it vacant.
There error in this line of thinking is two-fold. First, it demands that God define norms and actions on the basis of my preferences and standards. Because I could not condemn someone to eternal fire, then God must also not be able to do so. Secondly, it ignores the idea of justice, magnifying one attribute of God over and above all other attributes. In theological terms, God is “Simple,” meaning that not one aspect or attribute of God can be understood outside of the context of all the others — he is indivisible and perfectly consistent in himself.
The thing with justice is that it demands that punishment be given that is suitable to the crime that was committed. In addition, wherever possible, justice also demands that restitution is made. The example that I often give is that if I were to steal something from you, it is not good enough that I be punished for the theft, but you also want your things back (or appropriate compensation so you can repurchase that which was taken). And Biblically, were we to follow God’s established laws for Israel, restitution ought to be greater than the actual value of what was taken, depending on how important that thing happened to be. This greater restitution is designed both as a deterrent for those considering said theft and it is meant as a way of ameliorating the hardships caused by the theft.
And this has to do with theft. What of a more heinous crime like rape or murder? Certainly the punishment must be suitable to the crime. And, while no amount of money could ever atone for a crime like this, it would not be unreasonable to demand a certain degree of restitution from the criminal to compensate the family for medical bills, funeral expenses, etc… Further, a judge that decided to be merciful to a rapist or a murderer out of his or her love for the criminal, would be considered unjust and corrupt. He would be, in fact, promoting that which he should be punishing.
And now, we multiply. You see, all sin that is committed, is not only committed against others, but it is committed against God himself. And, as God is infinitely greater than man, the sin is infinitely more severe. Further, not only must sin be punished to see that justice is satisfied, but restitution must be made for justice to be fully done. Yet, how can man make restitution to God? Indeed, a perfect sacrifice had to be made in addition to the wrath of God being poured out in proper judgment over sin. And since you and I cannot make either the sacrifice nor endure the wrath of God, that is why Hell is our only proper and just punishment.
Does that mean that God is not merciful? That, of course, is the question that the Heidelberg Catechism poses on Day 4 (Question 11). The answer, of course, is to assure us that God’s mercy does not contradict his justice, that both are intertwined in and inseparable from the person of the God we serve. And so justice is served but mercy is shown through the suffering and death of his Son, who was sinless and could thus make a perfect sacrifice (restitution) and could suffer the weight of God’s wrath for all of God’s elect. Mercy, then, is seen in the giving of Christ for all who confess with their lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in their hearts that God raised him from the dead (Romans 10:9). Justice melted out on the Son on behalf of those God has chosen since before the foundation of the world (Ephesians 1:4) means that mercy can be given to that same body of people.
And, what of those for whom Christ did not die? Justice must still be served and Hell awaits all who are outside of the body of Christ. Interestingly enough, even in this context, God gives a degree of mercy even to those who are reprobate and headed for punishment in Hell. How so? They have a life here on earth marked by many good things — friends, the joy of holding a child in your arms, the love of family, the simple joys of good music and good food. It is a small consolation, indeed, for eternity in Hell; nevertheless, even to those outside of God’s saving grace, God’s mercies can be seen (or at least ought to be seen).
Worship and Wrath: Are they mutually exclusive?
As a child, I grew up singing old hymns of the faith — Isaac Watts, Fanny Crosby, Charles Wesley, and the like. Even today, many of these hymns are deeply ingrained in me. Then, somewhere in my early twenties, praise music became all the rage in the church I attended. And so, I was introduced to essentially a newer and more contemporary body of hymnody — largely written to be accompanied with a guitar than with an organ. And, as with some of the hymns that I grew up singing, some of these “old school” praise songs still can elicit a powerful emotional response.
As I’ve grown older and arguably more mature in my faith, I freely confess that I am drawn more to singing the psalms. This is not a dig against those who are writing hymnody so much as it is a reflection on the fact that I am paying more attention to the words I am singing and desire that those words be as Biblically and theologically accurate as possible. In many cases, when I sing hymns and praise songs, I end up singing with my guard up — something I don’t want to have to do. And so there is a natural gravitation toward the psalms and other Canonical songs.
What has struck me, though, is how different the tone of Canonical singing is than that of the hymnody and praise music with which I am familiar. Namely, I can’t think of too many hymns or praise songs that praise God for his wrath and for the destruction of his enemies. Sure, there is “Onward Christian Soldiers, marching as to war…,” but that’s not really about God’s wrath, its a call to evangelism and spiritual battle. Truly this is an appropriate theme to sing, but it not so much sing praise for God’s work of destroying his enemies in judgment. And I am not saying this because I wake up in the morning thinking, “Oh my, I want to sing of God’s wrath!” But then again, sometimes I do.
What has struck me about the Biblical songs of worship is that they do not just cover the happy parts of the Christian life. They sing of the feelings of abandonment, the struggle with loss, and the righteous anger the Christian ought to feel when facing the abominations of the wicked. And they sing praise to God for his wrath against the wicked.
The reality of this proved striking to me this weekend as I opened our worship. I have been using the songs of praise from Revelation as the language of our calls to worship this year and I arrived on Sunday at chapter 19:1-3, where the multitude in heaven are praising God for judging the great prostitute. That was clear enough, but the words that closed these verses sing praise to God that her “smoke goes up forever!” Indeed! Here are the saints in heaven glorifying God that the destruction of the prostitute, Babylon, is so great that she will burn in hell forever. The language of judgment certainly fills the pages of Revelation, but this passage truly stood out to me.
To be honest, I can’t say that I ever remember singing a hymn or a praise song that contained language like that. Wesley, Toplady, Newton, Watts, etc…, I don’t think I have run into a hymn from one of them that is structured like that. And, if these authors did write hymns praising God for his wrath upon the unbelieving world, they I don’t think they have made their way into any of the hymnals that I have used. Yet, they are in the psalters. Why? Because they are in the psalms.
One of the main errors of the church in America today is that it is theologically unbalanced. Preaching on the Law and on Sin is de-emphasized and preaching on grace is emphasized to such a degree that it dominates the conversation of the Christian. This has created an imbalanced theology in much of America. And, this imbalanced theology has created a culture that don’t think that sin is that bad and they embrace a form of universalism that implies that everyone gets to go to heaven so long as they ask.
Could there be a connection between the way we think and what we sing? I think that there is. Songs have long been one of the most effective ways to teach ideas to people (young and old). This is why we memorize our alphabet using the ABC Song. In seminary, we had to be able to recite the 66 books of the Bible in order — I cannot even begin to say just how many of my peers memorized the books of the Bible as a song. Funny. Music has a way of bypassing many of our intellectual filters and therein lies the danger. When we are singing things outside of the Canon of Scripture, we open ourselves up to the errors of those who wrote the hymn or even to an imbalanced view of God based on the choices made by the one selecting the hymns to sing.
Am I arguing for exclusive psalmody? Not entirely, though it probably would not take much to convince me of the value of exclusive Canonical singing. There are also hymns that are essentially composed of sections of scripture that have been strung together. These can open the door to the potential for using a passage out of its context to make the hymn author’s point, but they are in the realm of what I am growing toward. Recognizing that even exclusive psalm singers are at the mercy of those who translate and versify the psalms, there is no bullet-proof solution. What I am advocating though, is more intentional choices when it comes to the selection of music for worship. Not only ought the music we sing be scriptural, but it also must reflect the breadth of the language with which the people of God are to use as we worship God. In other words, let us not just sing about the wonderful grace and mercy of God, but also of the wrath and judgment he wields over sin.
Unity, Busyness, Tolerance, and Compromise: Not Synonymous
One of the attributes of the church, toward which we are called to strive, is unity. Indeed, how “good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell together in unity” (Psalm 133:1) and how important it is that we strive to maintain the “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” that must exist within the church (Ephesians 4:3). Truly, it is a wonderful and a beautiful thing to see Biblical unity growing amongst the body of Christ.
But Biblical, Christian unity is hard and it takes work. As a result many other things often get put in its place. Sometimes the church becomes busy with activities, something akin to the work of a beehive, with everyone buzzing around consumed by the things that must be accomplished. At times like this, there is so much going on that it feels as if people are united, though no one has the time to notice that the unity is tenuous at best. Activities unite them rather than the worship of Christ. How sad it is that churches often fall into this trap.
Sometimes those activities take the form of a program — things to research, demographic studies, and drawing conclusions about the community around them. Sadly, of course, most of the conclusions drawn are fairly obvious to those who have lived in the community for any length of time; nevertheless, such studies are often pursued with great energy and vigor. The church that I attended as a child was much like this — there was always a program going on and when a program ran its course, there was a pursuit of a new program to fill the void.
Then something happens and the activities either slow down, come to a close, or are halted for one reason or another. In the absence the activity or program, the problems that these things covered up come to the surface and people begin to face the reality that they have to either avoid one another or begin engaging in more authentic ways. Truly, this does not have to be a bad thing; in fact it is a very healthy thing for the body of Christ. Nevertheless, it is an uncomfortable thing that many people are unwilling to confront and many fall away, seeking other busy places.
Sadly, busyness is not the only thing that the church sometimes substitutes for Biblical unity. Sometimes unity is confused with tolerance. Tolerance is the practice of being willing to accept ideas and practices that one disagrees with for the sake of avoiding strife. This does not need to be an insidious thing, but it becomes so when tolerance is only a public persona and, when in private, the gossip begins. Then tolerance becomes little more than disgruntled resentment. Once again, authentic relationship is avoided lest the anger or frustration come to the surface and the facade of unity be laid bare and shown to be the hollow thing that it really is.
The sister of tolerance is compromise. How often people fail to face or take stands on difficult subjects because of fear of disagreement. Rather than working through differences in submission to a standard (the Bible), those differences are considered to be secondary and non-essential to unity. While indeed, some differences are non-essential to unity, when one begins down the pathway of compromising truth for the sake of unity, eventually essentials will be placed in the category of non-essentials. Further, compromise in this way is often a denial of both the notion of absolute Truth, the belief in the understandability of the Word of God, and also a denial of the rules of logic.
Compromise denies the notion of absolute Truth because it assumes that there is no absolute True answer to a given question. When there is a disagreement, there are only three possible options: Person “A” is right and person “B” is wrong, Person “A” is wrong and person “B” is right, or both Person “A” and “B” are wrong. And since God has given us minds to think and reason as well as His Word to study, shall we not labor to determine the right answer and not compromise?
Compromise denies that the Scriptures can be properly understood when it comes to important matters. In theological terms, we speak of this in terms of “perspicuity” or “clarity.” In other words, we say that the scriptures are crystal clear when it comes to the essentials for salvation while there are other things that are more opaque in nature. Does this principle, then, teach that there are things on which we must compromise? Not really. It simply teaches that there are some things on which we must labor more carefully and dig deeper. Yet, many of these matters have already been fleshed out for us by those who have gone before us and have written the Creeds and Confessions which we have inherited as a church. In this fashion, the church worked through the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the dual nature of Christ, but it also spoke of baptism, worship, and many other things that we still debate about. Isn’t it interesting that our tendency to “pick and choose” what we like from an early council or confession leads us into compromise?
Compromise also denies the rules of logic. Logic no longer seems to be “in vogue” these days, but nevertheless, logic is essential for communication, invention, and life in community. While society might like to play fast and loose with logic, the church must not. The most basic principle of logic is referred to as “The Law of Non-Contradiction.” This can be summarized as the idea that “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same way. For our purposes, we must be clear that two mutually-exclusive ideas cannot both be correct. For instance, either the sprinkling only view or the immersion only view of baptism is correct. Both cannot be so as they are mutually contradictory positions. Churches that choose to accept any view you hold are making a compromise for the sake of unity, but in doing so, deny the basic laws of logic.
More importantly, in all of these areas (compromise, tolerance, and busyness) we end up seeking to create a kind of unity by human means, not by divine means or by Biblical means. Isn’t it interesting that as much as the Bible speaks about Christian unity, Christians rarely look to the Bible to provide the means and definition of said unity. Whether we attribute it to our sin nature or to our downright active rebellion against God, we as the Church, must address what God says about our unity and then pursue God’s means of achieving it.
To begin with, true Christian unity, begins with an attitude of the heart. King David writes: “Instruct me, Yahweh, in your way so that I can walk in your truth; unite my heart to the fear of your name.” (Psalm 86:11). In other words, if we are going to have any sort of unity in the church, our hearts must first be united in the fear of the Lord and we must be a people who are committed to the instruction of the Lord’s ways. Yet, how often this is the last thing that church bodies look toward when it comes to binding together in unity. Nevertheless, it is the first step in moving in that direction.
The Apostle Paul builds upon what it is that David says when he writes: “I exhort you, brothers, through the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ, in order that you all agree and that there might not be divisions amongst you. Yet, be united in the same mind and in the same intent.” (1 Corinthians 1:10). One of the great problems that Paul was addressing in the Corinthian church was divisions and factions which were tearing the church apart and creating all sorts of avenues for sin. Yet, you will notice Paul’s solution. It is not compromise or tolerance or activities. Paul’s solution is to be united in the same mind and in the same purpose. In other words, Paul is saying that the church must have a united world-in-life view before these factions and divisions will go away. And how will that united worldview develop? It develops by sitting under the instruction of the Word of God that we might be united in our fear of Him.
Paul develops this idea further in Ephesians 4:11-16. Paul writes:
“And he gave the Apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, and the pastors and teachers to train the saints for the work of service, for the building up of the body in Christ, until we all arrive at the unity of faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, into mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, in order that we may no longer be infants tossed about and carried about by every wind of doctrine or the cunning of men by craftiness and deceitful schemes. But being truthful in love, we should grow up in every way into Him who is our Head, Christ, from whom the whole body is joined together and brought together — every ligament with which it is supplied, working as each is designed — makes the body increase and be built up in love.”
While there is much that can be said about this passage, for our purposes there are two points that should be made. The first is found in the language of God’s goal for the body — that it grow up into maturity. What does that maturity look like? The church is not thrown about as a ship on rough seas by every wind of doctrine and human cunning. In other words, a mature church is a doctrinally sound church. Further, given that a mature church is also a united church, to unite a church means that we must unite the church around true doctrine or teaching. Until that happens, the church will always be thrown to and fro.
The second point that is worth making is that the united body that speaks truth in love is one that is built up into mature doctrine. You cannot speak truth in love if you are not first committed to instruction in the fear of the Lord — the theme of David once again. The point is that right doctrine has an effect on the way people live out their lives. It is not separate from it. And thus, if you are doctrinally sound, you will speak truth in love. And, until you are doctrinally sound, what truth you know will not be spoken in love.
In the end, we are left at the same place we were when we started. If we want unity in the church, it cannot be achieved by man’s rules and ways. It can only be achieved by God’s. And God’s design for unity in the church begins with unity around the Word of God — around doctrine — around truth. If the body is committed to truth, there will be Christian unity. If the body is not committed to Christian truth, no matter how much work you do, unity will never be achieved.
God Said It and Yes, That Settles It
God Said it and Yes, that Settles It: An open letter in response to Adam Hamilton, on the United Methodist decision on the question of homosexuality in the church.
(Dr. Hamilton’s Original Post can be found here)
One of the benefits of the internet age is that it has allowed communication and ideas to be shared in a way that is unprecedented in human history. My old college professors used to lament this because it meant that anyone with a computer could post their thoughts for all to see, no matter how accurate their information may actually be. While I respect the positions of my former professors and take their words as a caution to read what others says with a grain (or lots of grains) of salt, I celebrate the change that has taken place. Think about it this way, there is a time not so long ago when the corporate publishing houses largely controlled the dissemination of ideas. That meant (typically) that the process of writing articles and books “belonged” to the professionals in their field. In turn, the average person in the west kept their ideas to themselves or to a small group of friends. Now, ideas can be freely shared broadly and people from every walk of life are encouraged to enter into the conversation. And Dr. Hamilton, given that you are a blogger as I am, I expect that you and I agree on this principle.
One of the interesting aspects of this larger conversation is that people are drawn in from broader perspectives than those having the actual conversation itself. While sometimes this is helpful, if it is not being actively sought, it can often be harmful — particularly in the context of debates that affect the lives of numerous people. That is why, when my wife forwarded this article (sent to her from a cousin), my initial reaction was, “I don’t have a dog in this fight — I left the United Methodist church almost 20 years ago — I’m staying out of it.”
Then I got to thinking and realized that I do have a dog in this fight. Not only was I born and raised in the United Methodist Church and have both a mother and a grandfather who were ordained in the United Methodist Church, but I also began preaching in the United Methodist Church. It was during the five years of preaching as a Licensed Lay Speaker (typically in the pulpit more than I was out of it) that my theology changed and I shifted from being a Wesleyan to a Calvinist (hence my departure). And so, I have roots in the United Methodist Church and am grateful to that church for giving me the opportunity to preach. There are also people for whom I care deeply that are invested in the denomination. Any denominational decision that grieves their spiritual wellbeing, then, grieves my heart as well. And, to borrow the words of Jesus, “whoever causes one of these little ones to stray, it would be better for a millstone to be hung around his neck and drowned in the sea.” Hard words, but words to which we must take heed.
And so, Dr Hamilton, be aware that others are listening. And while I am a Calvinist, I am a Calvinist who owes a debt of gratitude to you who are in the Wesleyan tradition — when I initially left the UMC to join the PCA, I used to tell people that I was a “Welsh Calvinist-Methodist in the spirit of Whitefield and Lloyd-Jones.” I trust, Dr. Hamilton, that you can appreciate that sentiment.
There is a stream of logic, though, within your blog that I think is worth addressing. You closed your article with the words: “The Bible says it, but I don’t believe that settles it.” Your position was supported by a number of Old and New Testament rules and guidelines that nearly every Biblical scholar considers to be matters of contextual application and not meant to be permanent and ongoing for the church. For example, you mention that we no longer advocate stoning for Sabbath-breaking (though boy, that would help church attendance, wouldn’t it?). We also no longer stone the incorrigible child or adulterers. We also do not anticipate being commanded to commit genocide and would prosecute those who would seek to attempt genocide. We also take out loans for automobiles and homes…and worse yet, we use our credit cards for most every purchase we make. Women aren’t required to wear hats (though many do on Easter Sunday) and men don’t shave their heads — frankly, I would grow my hair out again if I thought my Elders would condone it (lol!). So, I do understand the point you are making: we need to take the commands of scripture in the context of the passage in which they are found.
And so, as many of these commands are in the context of the civil law of ancient Israel, and we are no longer living under a theocratic form of government, many of these laws do not have a direct bearing on the way we live. But, from this point forward, we will differ. Because these laws are given by God, they teach us principles about his character — what God permits and what God finds to be sin when practiced in the lives of his people. Further, we also recognize that these Old Testament laws flow out of the Ten Commandments (which Jesus states will not pass away until the heavens and the earth pass away). And thus, we do not completely throw those laws out the window. In fact, in many western cultures, principles found in Biblical laws were applied to new contexts to create God-honoring laws in a new day and age.
An example of the aforementioned point is that of placing fences around flat roofs to prevent people from rolling off. This is a practical application of a principle found in God’s character — all humans are made in God’s image and thus their lives should be protected where possible. This, is also an application of the 6th commandment. Now, we may not have flat roofs, but we have many areas like swimming pools or construction sites where there are typically ordinances that are built upon the principle taught in Deuteronomy 22:8.
You may ask, what about the command to stone adulterers? The same principle applies. We learn about God’s attitude toward adultery and divorce by the strictness of this command…something that Jesus echoes again in Matthew 19:3-12. And, though the rules regarding divorce in America have gotten more and more permissive, that wasn’t always the case. And, as a fellow pastor, I expect that you probably share my view that divorce is too accessible in the United States and that they do tremendous damage to the life of the family.
How about not storing up treasure on earth? You and I once again, probably share a lot in common in this area, too. Too often, the wealth that people store up for retirement becomes an idol in their lives and stops them from doing ministry like they should. Amen? Sure, we should save money for such a time as when we are no longer able to be gainfully employed — counting the cost of building that tower that Jesus mentions — but there is a difference between enough and a super-abundance. And how much better can that wealth be used in building Christ’s kingdom? I am reminded of one of my favorite sayings from John Wesley: “Money and I are but passing acquaintances…” This, of course, sets the stage for his philosophy of earning all you can so you can give all you can.
And thus, when we get to the laws regarding the stoning of those practicing homosexual behavior, no, we do not actually carry this out. Yet, the principle that the law is built upon shows us God’s character. Furthermore, the language about homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 is language that is found not in the context of a law, but of a principle of keeping oneself sexually pure. In context, God is writing that this is the way Egyptians lived and I wiped them out; this is the way the Canaanites live and I am about to wipe them out. Do not live like your neighbors do or I will throw you out of the land as well. And so here is not just a passage from which we can infer a principle based on God’s laws for national Israel, here is a direct moral application of the seventh commandment.
Let me approach this from a different angle. When approaching a question in Scripture that was debated, Wesley offered a 4-fold approach to interpretation that we know as “Wesley’s Quadrilateral.” I know that you, Dr. Hamilton, are likely far more acquainted with this principle than I, but for the benefit of our readers following along with the conversation, let me offer up briefly what was ingrained upon me in my earlier days as a Methodist.
Essentially, Wesley argued that when there was a passage of Scripture that is unclear, one uses four tools to unpack what is being said: Scripture itself, Tradition, Reason, and Experience. What then, shall we say about the question of homosexual relationships when the Quadrilateral is used to explore the idea?
To begin with, what does Scripture teach? Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that homosexuals (along with those who commit to a number of other sinful practices) will not inherit the Kingdom of God. It is true that there is forgiveness in Christ whereby we are made a part of the Kingdom, but forgiveness requires repentance (Luke 24:46-47; Acts 8:22). As you well know, Dr. Hamilton, repentance means that you have changed your mind toward something you have been doing and have turned away from it. If a person is continuing to practice their sin (inside or outside of the context of the church), then they are clearly not repentant (see 1 John 3:4).
What else does Scripture teach? Paul instructs Timothy (1 Timothy 1:10) that those who practice homosexual behavior are doing what is contrary to “sound doctrine.” And, like the passage in 1 Corinthians 6, homosexual behavior is listed alongside of other sinful actions. Furthermore, Paul writes in Romans 1:26-27 that the homosexual actions of the people (both gay and lesbian in this instance) were a sign that God had withdrawn his restraining grace due to the idolatry of the people. John, in his Apocalypse, records that those who are sexually immoral (remember the list from Leviticus 18) will have their eternal portion in the lake of fire.
Typically, people look to Leviticus 20:13, which commands the death penalty for homosexual practice, but as we have mentioned already, Leviticus 18:22 is the definitive passage in the Old Testament that defines what is a pagan and immoral sexual act. But what of Genesis 13:13 which speaks of the men of Sodom? This action takes place again in Judges 19:22. We can also infer from 1 Kings 14:24 that the male prostitutes of the land were doing according to the “abominations of the nations the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.” What were those abominations? Leviticus 18.
My point is that I am not aware of a single passage of Scripture that speaks positively of the practice of homosexuality. No, not one. That is the testimony of Scripture alone. Where I stand now, in the Reformed tradition, this is largely where we stop — something we refer to as the “Reformed Hermeneutic,” but we are exploring this in the Wesleyan tradition, so what do tradition, reason, and experience have to say on the matter?
I think that you would be hard pressed to discover a theologian prior to liberalism in the mid-nineteenth century that would affirm homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. In Wesley’s own notes on the New Testament, he has some strong language when it comes to speaking of those practicing homosexuality, calling them Sodomites.
What of reason, then? Homosexuality, one could argue, is simply a natural inclination of certain people and thus should be tolerated at the very least in a culture that permits free expression. Yet, if that is the case, why do we not also tolerate polyamorous relationships? Should not group marriage also be allowed? Mormons advocated this to no avail for many years and Muslims are advocating this today. Why not other sexual practices that are ordinarily considered immoral? What defines the limits of morality? Does culture define this or does God? If you advocate for the culture, you are separating yourself from hundreds of years of Christian thought and philosophy.
What of experience? Certainly there are cultures which have tolerated degrees of homosexual behavior and sometimes even celebrated it, though the latter is very rare. There are also those who would argue that the homosexual relationships of which the Bible speaks are different from a loving and committed relationship advocated by those in the movement seeking to legitimate homosexual marriages today. Yet, experience is subjective by nature and is the weakest of Wesley’s four approaches. Statistics would also suggest that homosexual relationships, more often than not, do not have the longevity of heterosexual relationships. We could explore this at length, but even using Wesley’s own approach, advocating approval for a homosexual marriage or relationship in the context of the church, is really difficult to affirm.
From a Reformed perspective, the move of more mainstream denominations like the UMC toward a view that accepts homosexual practice as accepted seems more to be the church’s accommodation of a shift in the cultural attitude toward homosexuals. Yet, I am reminded of G. Campbell Morgan’s great quote that the church is called to lead the culture, not to follow it. Or, perhaps Jesus’ own words that the world does not accept us because Christ has called us out of the world (John 15:18-21).
In the end, Dr. Hamilton, the decision that the UMC makes will not directly affect me, my denomination, or the church I serve. Yet, it will do so indirectly due to friendships, family, and other acquaintances that fall within your denomination. I have appreciated the irenic approach to disagreement that is so often a part of your writings and I hope that you receive this open letter in the kind of irenic spirit with which it is meant.
You expressed your ideas in a public way and thus I offer a public response, though I do not suppose that a conservative and Reformed position on Scripture is really being sought out. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that a plea to reconsider your position is not being offered up.
In the end, let me ask you the question, if you hold to the statement, “The Bible says it, but I don’t believe that settles it,” then what settles the matter? Church tradition and reason also do not help your cause if you are advocating for gay marriage in the church. Are you willing to stand on experience alone? That seems to be shaky footing. I prefer to stand on God’s word (which challenges me and the culture for sure) because if God said it, that must settle it for Christ’s Church. I encourage you to reconsider your position.
The Art of Dissection and High School Biology
If I ever had any aspirations of going into the field of medicine, High School Biology class dashed them to the wind. Now, mind you, I attended a little Public High School in rural Harford County, Maryland and so “state-of-the-art” was little more than a series of spelling words for us. Nevertheless, we had biology class and in biology class, we dissected dead animals.
Mind you, we didn’t get to dissect anything exotic. Our teacher was a fisherman by avocation and so most of what we dissected related to that hobby: worms, crawfish, small fish, etc… Needless to say, for a teenage boy having grown up in the Boy Scouts, dissecting critters like this was not a huge draw.
What made things worse was the fact that those were the days when pretty much every boy carried some sort of knife in his pocket to school, but the School Board did not trust us with scalpels to do the dissections. Instead, we were assigned this little, rounded scissors — kind of like what we had used for crafts back in Kindergarten — to dissect these animals.
I don’t know what the School Board members were thinking (probably about liability), but if you are unsure as to the results we got, Kindergarten shears do not serve the budding biologist well in this task. I remember looking at all of the diagrams in our biology book, depicting what we were supposed to be seeing and all I remember ever seeing was mush. There is a rule of thumb principle in this — imprecise tools in the hands of a novice does not yield precision in any meaningful sense of the word.
So, why the recollection about High School Biology? In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul gives us one of the great analogies of the church — that of the body of Christ. Not all are eyes or hands but both eyes and hands are needed. You know the language. Yet, often, when pastors and theologians handle this idea and apply it to the church, I think that they handle it much like we handled dissection with Kindergarten shears. They make a mess and the body of Christ ends up looking like all the same stuff: mush.
Let me offer an example. In many denominations, if someone is identified as having a call to serve on the missions field or perhaps to go and plant a new church for the denomination, they are sent out to start raising money. True, the benefit to that model is that by the time the man is in the field, he has developed a large network of churches and Christians to help pray for and support his work — though most often, those churches and Christians are not anywhere near the field in which the man is working. Furthermore, it makes the assumption that the calling to be an evangelist brings with it the gift of being a fund-raiser. And the two do not necessarily go hand in glove.
A better model would be to say that if the church identifies a man as having the calling to serve as an evangelist, the church should send him and let him commit fully to said work while assigning the task to others in the body (who have a gift for and love of fund-raising) the task of making sure the evangelist’s financial needs are met. Different parts of the body have different roles, tasks, and giftings so that the whole body can function effectively.
It is true that we are fed by one Spirit and that we have one head in Christ Jesus. And so, there are some things that the whole body shares in common — a circulatory system and a nervous system, for example. Thus, there are things that the whole body does together. We gather for public worship, we commit time to prayer, and we study our Bibles. But, when it comes to the good works that we are called to do, we are most effective doing those works for which God has designed us. Not everyone is called to teach, but we need teachers. Not everyone is called to labor in mercy ministry, but we need those who do. Not everyone is called to organize events, but if we are going to put on an event of sorts, we need people to organize them. Not everyone is called to raise funds for projects, but we need people who raise funds. Not everyone is called to be at every mid-week prayer meeting, but they are good and healthy for the body (think of them like a vitamin tablet!). And, when you assume that every believer should be involved in every area of the work of the church (as many do), then you are making mush of the body with those kindergarten shears once again — rather than seeing the beauty of God’s design in the elegant complexity of the body.
Here’s the trick though. Each part of the body needs to be committed to a common end and each part of the body needs to trust the other parts of the body to act and work in the way in which they were designed. Just as in the human body, parts do not act autonomously, so too, all is meant to work under the headship of Christ that is expressed through the teaching of the Word of God and is moderated by the oversight of the Elders. Yet, the hand can do best what the hand was made to do and the other parts likewise.
And so, leadership in the body is not simply a matter of maintaining systems (your body can be physically healthy but your person can still remain utterly unproductive). Leadership is about equipping hands to be hands and eyes to be eyes and knees to be knees — and then letting those parts function at their full capacity (getting out of their way) so that the body as a whole can achieve its God-given mission of making disciples of the nations and being a buttress and pillar of the truth.
Now, part of Paul’s analogy is the principle that when one part of the body is hurting or in need, then other parts compensate. I stand amazed, for example, at people who have learned to do with their feet what most of us commonly do with our hands, and vice versa. Having had a stroke several years back where my left hand no longer wanted to work right, I had to learn to compensate and then to retrain my brain to make my hand work like it was supposed to do. And thus, in the church, sometimes we step out of our normal areas to assist the whole body in its time of need, but that too, only happens when the body is committed to a common end.
And so, we have a choice, as we look at the church, the body of Christ, we can lump all of the gifts together, dissecting the body with kindergarten shears (and ending up with a gooey mess) or you can expose the elegant diversity of God’s design for the church, celebrating the diverse gifts while knowing that all of those gifts came from one Spirit who calls us to serve to one end — the building of Christ’s kingdom.
I Smell Hell!
It is said that the American evangelist, Peter Cartwright (1785-1872), would pronounce these words when he arrived in a new town to preach: “I smell Hell!” And, much like the other revivalists of his era, he would find a place to set up and he would preach to whomever would listen. And indeed, people would come to listen. That was the culture in America during what people sometimes refer to as the “Second Great Awakening” or what others would simply call the close of the “Great Awakening” in America. Dates and labels I will leave to other historians to catalogue.
What I find to be a sad testimony as to the nature of the culture is that the language of preaching has changed. If Cartwright were alive today, his message might sound more like Billy Graham’s, “God wants you to accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior,” or even worse, like Joel Osteen’s, “God wants you to be happy and to have the desires of your heart!” Whatever the popular preachers and evangelists may sound like, it seems that wrath and hell, fire and brimstone, and repentance from sin has been all but forgotten — or is only mentioned in passing and not stressed. Indeed, people want a God who will love them just as they are, not a God that is angry with them as a result of their sin.
Yet, what people want and what the Bible teaches in this case are two different things — surprise, surprise. Yet, rather than be a steward of the oracles of God, the church has largely become a steward of modest worldly blessings and blind promises. G. Campbell Morgan used to say that it is the duty of the church to correct the spirit of the age rather than to follow it; sadly, too many congregations look around at dwindling numbers and opt to follow the spirit of the age, watering down the message of the Gospel until it is no Gospel at all, in the hopes of drawing more people in with a “more loving” message.
Folks, if someone defines “more loving” as being warm and fuzzy, tell them to go buy a nice sweater or a dog. A friendly Alaskan Malamute or an over-sized turtle-neck sweater from Alpaca wool will give you all of the warm, fuzzy loving that you need at a fraction of the cost and inconvenience of going to a popular church service or crusade meeting. But if that was truly love, then you wouldn’t need either God or the Bible.
Love is being told how to see the world accurately and in a way that is eternally truthful. Love is being made aware that there is a judgment coming one day and that unless we approach the Father through Jesus Christ the Son, we will be eternally condemned to righteous torment and wrath. Love is being told clearly that our works cannot make God happy with us and they amount to little more than dung in the eyes of a holy God. Love is telling a person that unless they repent of their sin and believe in Jesus Christ, nothing but sorrow will fill their lives, but if they do, even the greatest joys of earth cannot compare to the joy of heaven. Love is being honest and clear that if you were able to smell it, you would smell Hell on every American street corner and that most people have gotten so accustomed to it that they do not even notice.
Cartwright and I might disagree on a number of points of our theology and we also might disagree on our approaches to evangelism (he used a number of high-pressure tactics rather than trusting in the Holy Spirit for true conversion), but we are agreed on this starting point. Hell is in our midst and it is in the midst of our churches. The kind and culturally accommodating approach to evangelism has not done anyone any favors. Indeed, God will still call his own to himself despite their methodology, but ought not we seek to hold fast to the Gospel as presented in the Scriptures? Ought we not say that there is no way to the Father but through Jesus Christ the Son? Ought we not proclaim that unless you repent and believe in Jesus you will perish eternally? And ought we not trust the Holy Spirit to prepare soil in men and women so that they will bear the fruit of repentance in their lives? Ought our message not begin with vague promises or warmth and love, but instead be warnings to repent and believe? Like Cartwright, when I look at the world around me, “I smell Hell.”
Do We Really Need Seminaries?
Let me preface what I am about to say with the statement that I had an exceptional experience in a formal seminary atmosphere. In RTS, Jackson, I had the privilege of sitting under some men who were pastors at heart but who were also exceptional thinkers, communicators, and authors. I also made some friendships that have remained with me to this day. I am truly grateful for that time. Further, I teach in a formal seminary context in Ukraine and definitely see the logistical advantages to a formal, institutional model.
So, with that prefacing my comments below, please do not think that I am advocating an overthrow of the formal, or institutional, model. Yet, having now served Christ’s church full-time for more than a decade, I have come to re-think some of the assumptions that we make when it comes to training men for the ministry…one of which is how that training is to be done. Further, as a Reformed thinker, I have asked myself, is this model consistent with who we are as Reformed Christians or, have we yielded too much ground to Rome — in some ways, I fear that the latter may very well be true.
To begin with, the term “Seminary” comes from the Latin word for a “seedbed.” I have written on this before, but at the very heart of this is the notion that “seminarial” training, by the definition of the word is preparatory in nature and is not meant to be advanced study. Before everyone gets all wound up, let me explain what I mean by this. I am not saying that pastors ought not be scholars — folks, we must be. Our role is to be a teacher of the church, a guard on the wall against heresy, and a trainer of men and women when it comes to thinking correctly about their faith. We must be good scholars — it is a non-negotiable for the ministry as we are “pastors and teachers” according to Paul.
Interestingly, the term “seminary” finds its formal origins in the Council of Trent, a Roman reaction to the Reformation. At the heart of the Reformation was the conviction that the average person in the pews needed to be able to read and understand the whole of the Scriptures for himself. As a result, cities within which the Reformation set its roots found themselves forming schools to train people in theology — the Geneva Academy was a direct result of this mindset (hence, seminary being preparatory for the whole of the Christian life). Rome forcefully insisted that theological training belonged in the Academy, not in the pews (see chapter XVIII). This effectively limited theological training to the priesthood and took it out of the hands of the laymen — the suggestion that theology is too technical and complicated for the average believer (sadly, a view perpetuated in many protestant churches today).
When you assume that “seminary” is meant for advanced training, you not only discourage the average person in the pews from pursuing such Biblical education, but you end up with a context where the word itself no longer parallels the metaphoric value of its meaning. Think about it this way…here in western Pennsylvania, we have a relatively short growing season due to our climate and the fact that we have the potential of frost through most of May. Thus, if you are going to plant vegetables like tomatoes, the seeds need to be started in protected “seminaries” — seedbeds inside a greenhouse of one sort or another. The seedbed allows them to grow unmolested by the weather until they are ready to be planted in the ground in late May or early June.
Compared to the mature plant, these plants you have grown inside are small and they bear no fruit. It is not until they are hardened to direct sunlight and the winds of the outdoors, are pollinated by the insects and the wind, and have their roots sunk deep into our rocky Pennsylvania soil that the plants grow strong and then bear fruit. Do you see how the analogy of the language works? The seedbed (the seminary) is a protected place of basic training and real growth and maturity will not take place until the seminarian is planted in the world. So, where should you expect the formation of deep theological roots? It happens as the minister goes out of the time of training and into the world, feverishly studying so as to be able to engage and respond to the challenges of his environment. Too often, seminarians today think of their seminary training as terminal and they rarely pick up a theological textbook beyond the days of the formal classroom. The people of Christ’s church (including the pastors) have lost a great deal by submitting to Rome’s model.
The other challenge that goes hand-in-glove with the model established by Trent is that if a man wants to go to seminary for theological training, most often he must sell his home, resign from his job, and move somewhere “else” for that training. This creates, if nothing else, a financial hardship on the family, in many cases, forcing the wives to work outside of the home, and requires student loans. Thus, seminarians often find themselves graduating seminary with a load of personal debt as they enter into a job where typically the salary is not commensurate with the degree of training involved. In turn, many will be paying off student loans for the vast majority of their career.
Further, when a family relocates to attend seminary, this effectively removes the family from the life of the local church wherein his gifts and calling was discerned. This means that the local church which is sending him for training cannot effectively oversee the training he is receiving (should this not be overseen by the Pastor and elders?). This also means that the local church is not directly benefitting from the training this man receives — for example, he is not teaching Sunday School Classes, working with youth, visiting shut-in members, or occasionally filling the pulpit. Furthermore, this perpetuates the unBiblical idea that theological training does not belong in the local church.
This also perpetuates the view that the local pastor is not qualified to train another minister. People justify this by stating that the minister is too busy during the week in his duties of pastoral care to study and teach deep theological truths. But, what if the congregation, instead of the pastor, saw it as their calling to do the majority of the pastoral care under the oversight of the Elders and the Deacons? Would that not be consistent with what Paul teaches in Ephesians 4:12? Is this not the reason that the Apostles instituted the Diaconate in the first place (Acts 6:1-6)? Ought not the ministry of prayer and the Word be the pastor’s first and primary role in the life of the church? And if this is the case, ought not the role of training up new men to serve as pastors be a significant part of that role? Did God not bless the church in Acts 7 when they kept these roles clear? Once again, the bad model of Rome finds itself doing damage to rather than aiding the Church of Jesus Christ.
A Thought…
As I regularly tell my children, criticism isn’t of much value unless it is constructive criticism. So, what are some options that might address the challenge we face?
To begin with, given the electronic resources available to us, we need to make better use of them. Some schools, like The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS), have already moved in this direction. This uses resources like online books, lectures on iTunesU, and similar resources, studied with a mentoring model. Vast readings can also be purchased cheaply in online bookstores and can be acquired for free through Google Books, Monergism, CRTA, Third Millennium, and Reformed Books Online to name a few.
One may argue that online study cannot replace face to face interaction with Biblical scholars. And that very well may be true, but there are solutions for that as well. To begin with, of all the Biblical scholars I have known, the vast majority of them would be honored if someone offered to buy them lunch in exchange for the opportunity to pick their brains for 30 or 40 minutes. In a case like this, have 3-4 questions prepared, tell them that ahead of time and don’t abuse their time. Further, many are willing to answer direct emails or recommend books on a given subject.
Here’s the thing, top-notch scholars do not need to be teaching survey classes. In fact, were I to take a wager, most would rather not teach survey courses but would instead prefer to teach detailed studies of a book of the Bible or of an aspect of theology. Let said scholars teach that which is directly related to their fields of expertise and allow students to gain their basic Biblical knowledge on their own. Let institutions have entrance exams to determine Biblical understanding and let professors teach seminar classes in their expertise. It would change the dynamics quite a bit, but were seminars held for two weeks a quarter, the necessity for relocation would be reduced if not eliminated — two weeks of vacation becomes two weeks of intensive study under a world-respected expert in a given field.
Another option is for communities of like-minded churches to form mini-seminaries to cover at least the basics of the Bible and theology. Truly, mature pastors ought also be able to teach deep and complex points of theology, but I also recognize that “ought” does not yield “is” (the moralistic fallacy). Sadly, pastors often see their seminary education as terminal rather than being a seed-bed and thus do not continue their studies beyond their formal institutional schooling. In the case of a community seminary, this also opens opportunities for members who fill the pews of churches to also gain Biblical and Theological training. This then, also provides a central place that can afford to occasionally pay a respected expert to come and give a seminar on a particular subject.
Not only could such a community seminary be housed in an area church, but if there were sufficient interest, it could be housed by a local Christian school — their leadership is often like-minded with a group of area churches and their classrooms are largely dormant in the evenings. The Christian school in Florida, where I served as a teacher/administrator was regularly having the conversation of what it might look like were we to start a Christian college on campus, hosting evening classes for the community.
The question of Accreditation is often raised. To begin with, one must ask what it is that they are trying to accomplish by accrediting. If it is just a matter of accountability, one can accomplish that with a board made up of Pastors and Elders from the like-minded churches establishing the seminary. In many cases, the real purpose of accreditation has to do with student loans that can be achieved from the government. Yet, if education is done in-house and online, it can be done more or less for free or at a nominal cost if there is enough interest (perhaps investing money to build a common library that the students could use or hiring a part-time or full-time administrative assistant to keep things running smoothly or perhaps even to help with grading. The reality is, what right does the state have to dictate what theological education ought to look like? I say that it has none.
And again, presuming cooperation by like-minded churches, the presbytery or classis of each church involved could be part of the oversight of the “mini-seminary.” This gives them direct oversight of what is being taught and how it is being taught and arguably provides for better cooperation between the churches of the differing denominations as well. In addition to accountability, it provides for a smooth transition into the examining committees of each denominational group for those candidates preparing for their ministerial trials.
Here’s a novel idea, were churches to really embrace this more decentralized model, for those students who have graduated from all of the preliminary classes and survey courses, then churches create roles and jobs for them in the context of the church so that advanced training can take place outside of the seedbed classroom. This form of mentorship and in-depth teaching in small groups is invaluable to both student and congregation. Part of this internship could also include serving in those roles commonly associated with church secretaries, youth pastors, and visiting pastors — placing trained and Biblically mature men into the life of church leadership alongside of volunteers who have hopefully also made aspects of this Biblical training a part of their lives. That way, men graduating from seminary have already been trained in every level of ministry from making bulletins, organizing activities, visiting with the sick and elderly, evangelizing the lost, and the ministry of the pulpit.
Something needs to be said about degrees in this conversation. And while I am considered by much of my family as a bit of an academic, I think that the American drive toward degrees and titles behind their names is a bit overrated. Brothers, I remind you of what Jesus said in Matthew 23:8 about desiring the title of Rabbi — in modern equivalents, “Doctor.” We are Pastors and Elders and Deacons. These are the titles that God has given to the church. This does not mean that we ought not strive for advanced training, it just means we ought not covet the Title and content ourselves with the title of the office we fill. Interestingly enough, for many years, to be called a “Doctor of the Church” was an honorary title given posthumously based on the contribution that the person made to the teaching of the church. Would that not be a better model? Sadly, honorary degrees tend to be looked down upon in western society, though I think they should be valued over and above any degree that you might earn from an institution.
And so, we have both some critiques and an offer of constructive criticism. Will anything come of it? This, I do not know. I am already involved with TNARS because I believe in what they are doing and would love to see the next step taken. In the meantime, most likely, churches will continue sending their best men away to be trained in a seminary somewhere else without the oversight of the Elders who are sending and without the instruction these men receive benefitting the local church in discernible ways. In addition, they will continue to play into Rome’s worldview that theological training is only for a sub-class in the church, not for everyone — a worldview that is utterly alien to the Reformed faith though it has been embraced by far too many within our communion. Yet, think how much stronger our churches would be were we to have a Biblically-committed seminary in every community?
How to get there? Much of the groundwork has been laid by groups like TNARS and other smaller, “community” seminary models like City Seminary in Sacramento or Indianapolis Theological Seminary. Yet, for the next step to be taken, a working model committed to not following down the path of Trent and the institution must be established…somethign that takes both time and money. So, I suppose I should say, if this idea resonates with you and you want to put your money where your mouth is, then let’s start a conversation. Otherwise, pray for the church as we go into a new year and head towards a new decade.
How to Respond to An Angry Boss
“If the spirit of a ruler rises up against you, your position shall not be put to rest, for calmness will put to rest great sins.”
(Ecclesiastes 10:4)
Both Jewish and Christian translators wrestle with how to handle the translation of this verse…and both groups fall on various sides of the conversation. Literally, the text begins, “If the spirit of the ruler…” — the term in question that is used here is רוּחַ (ruach), or “spirit.” Most are in agreement that what Solomon has in view here is when a ruler or other man of power happens to become angry with you — he loses his temper or is enraged (the idea of that spirit “rising up”). As a result, many translations will render it more idomatically (see the ESV, NASB, NIV, etc… along with Rabbinical Scholars like David Altshuler {Metzudot}). Other translations (see the KJV, YLT, WEB, etc… along with the Rabbi Bahya ibn Paquda) render the text more literally as “spirit.”
My purpose here is not to extol the “more literal” or the “more idiomatic” approach to translation issues, though it is an important conversation to have. Instead, it is to point out that the variations we see between the translations we use do impact how we read and understand the text. Every translation, no matter how formal in nature, is an interpretation and when we understand that important truth, I think it helps us have more confidence in the texts we have when we see differences between our preferred translation and the preferred translation of another.
If we get too hung up here on debating the differences in word choice, though, we will lose the more important application that is found in the text. When you make a ruler angry, don’t just leave your position, don’t step down (unless you are commanded to do so by the ruler), but stay firm and stay calm because that calmness will cover over great sins.
Let’s bring this into our own context and then take it back into the ancient world of the Biblical context. How often people, when their employer is upset with them, just throw up their hands and storm off to write a letter of resignation — or worse yet, storm out the door, saying, “I Quit!” What was that country-western song that was popular several decades ago? “You can take this job and …”
Again, don’t hear me wrong, there is a time to resign from a job. If, perhaps, your employer would require you to do something unethical or that is contrary to God’s word, then you have to obey God and not man — in many cases, this would mean stepping down from your job. Yet, in very many cases, that’s not the context of which I speak. I am speaking of that impulsive response — your employer doesn’t like the way you handled a particular situation or client or perhaps your employer is unhappy about some decisions you have made. True, the meetings that follow may prove to be tense, but a level head and a calm demeanor will go a long way toward working through the problems and over time, allow you to earn the respect of those for whom you work.
I am reminded that when I first started as Chaplain for the Christian School in Florida where I served, the Superintendent and the Principal both told me that the scope and sequence for the Bible department was broken and that the Chapel program needed to be overhauled. When I was hired, the Superintendent told me his plan to fix the chapel program. I tested his plan out and realized very quickly that his plan was going to further damage the already broken system and would not restore it to prominence. Because Chapel was almost entirely under my jurisdiction, I put an abrupt end to the model that had been used, restructured the program, and rebuilt it from scratch.
This did not make my Superintendent happy, it did not make some of the teachers happy, it angered some of the pastors in the community (who were used to coming in and doing their own thing in our Chapel program), and it made some of the students and parents upset. Gratefully, my Superintendent “gave me enough rope to hang myself” and though he did not like my decision, gave me his support. It was a bumpy year and I received not a little bit of grief. Nevertheless, by the grace of God and with the counsel of Solomon in passages like this, I responded gently and with a calm spirit. Further, the whole tone and tenor of Chapel changed for the better and something very healthy (though not perfect) replaced something that was unhealthy and was otherwise broken. “A soft answer turns away wrath,” as Solomon teaches in Proverbs 15:1.
Now, with the principle before us, I encourage you to think about the examples set by Joseph, Daniel, and Esther. Each of these were in positions of power and influence and each had to face challenges brought upon by an impassioned king. Yet, rather than throwing their hands up in the air, they calmly continued doing what God had called them to do and each would be rewarded for their wisdom and tranquility. Shall we not do the same?
Thanksgiving
As Americans, we have many reasons to spend time giving thanks. We have freedoms that we enjoy, both religious and secular. We have an abundance of wealth and resources here — I’ve spent time overseas in a number of places and even the poor in America have far more resources than the poor elsewhere. We need to be grateful for that, though not use that as an excuse to ignore the poor in our midst. Did our Lord not say that we will always have such as these around us? And don’t the Scriptures demand that we care for those who cannot care for themselves?
In most of our cases, this day is a day where we gather with friends and/or family members and celebrate the blessings we have been given around a table laden with food. I think that it is safe to say that the abundance which most Americans enjoy is unsurpassed in this world. So, as I sit here, reflecting this morning before I put our own family’s turkey in the oven, what concerns me the most is that in America, most people will spend the day oblivious to the great spiritual truths for which we ought to be grateful.
Yes, it is true, that in many homes, some sort of a recited “grace” will be offered, asking God to bless our food. Giving God thanks is proper. In many homes as well, there will be a time where people share those things for which they have been grateful — family, jobs, friends, a warm home, and good food. And again, it is right to be thankful for these things. But is there not more?
Of all the Psalms that we have, only one of them is explicitly listed as a “Psalm for Thanksgiving” or as a “Psalm for Giving Thanks” (depending on your translation). That is Psalm 100. Sure, there are many other psalms that speak of giving thanks, do not misunderstand me, but only one whose superscript contains these words.
What is more interesting than that happens to be what the Psalmist gives thanks for. He does not give thanks for friends and family and food and homes — those things for which we normally give thanks — but he ultimately gives thanks for the character and goodness of God and commands that we respond with worship — not just with a prayer around the table…but with worship.
I wonder what it would look like in America if at every Thanksgiving Table, Psalm 100 was at the heart of the prayer of thankfulness — and it was sincerely prayed. I think that the time of worship would overshadow the time of eating. But that is what I think — I’m the preacher, I’m supposed to think like this. But what would it look like if all of us as Christians thought like this? I wonder if God would bless that with revival in our land or in our communities. How interesting it is when Christians speak about desiring revival, yet never act in such a way that would engender revival in their own lives. In most cases, where we were speaking about someone else, what would we call that? Hypocrisy? Maybe? This year, may we not be hypocrites. May we genuinely desire revival and in doing so, may we reorder our lives in such a way as to make the soil of our hearts and family fertile ground for God’s seed to be planted therein.
The Nations as an Inheritance
“He declares the power of His works to His people;
He gives to them the nations as an inheritance.”
(Psalm 111:6)
I had the joy of bringing the word this past weekend to Ministerios Betesda, a Hispanic congregation in south Florida. This was our second time together for a conference and I was invited to speak of the topic of finding delight through the Study of the Bible as an essential part of the Christian life. As always, the grace and hospitality of these saints was a great blessing (not to mention their cooking!) and I pray that the seeds planted during my time with them will bear good fruit.
It never ceases to amaze me how God brings people together and how radically similar we are once we get beyond superficial matters like the color of one’s skin or the cultural “personalities” that differ from region to region. At this stage of my life, this country-boy from north-eastern Maryland has been privileged to minister to homeless men on the streets of Jackson, Mississippi, to easter-European pastors in Ukraine and in Russia, to pastors in Kenya, and now to Hispanic Christians in south Florida; plus I have worked to mentor pastors in Rwanda, Uganda, Malawi, and India to name a few other places. My point is not to say, “look at me…” No, just the opposite. My point is to say, “Look at Jesus! And look at Christ’s Church!”
Now, all border and immigration politics aside, what I find wonderful is the nature of Christ’s church. It exists beyond national boundaries and it exists beyond language boundaries. The church may look a little different and sound a little different based on where you are, but Christ is being glorified as men and women, redeemed from the power of sin and death, come together for worship.
I remember the first time that God impressed this great truth upon me. I was in eastern Ukraine with a group of Russian-speaking Christians and we went to church. It was my first real trip out of the United States, so I was feeling pretty overwhelmed by the language barrier, but then, all of a sudden, I recognized the tune to the hymn these Christians were singing. Right there and then I was struck with the reality of the words of praise that these Christians were lifting up in a language not my own. America is not the salvation of the Church; Christ is — I truly understood that wonderful truth there and then.
The Bible talks a lot about this phrase “the inheritance of the nations” or “the nations as an inheritance.” Too often when we see these words, we think only in terms of land and territory and natural resources…yet this not of which the Bible is speaking. It is speaking of people who are being “shaken out” of the nations to fill the church. And, so, if you want to see God actively fulfilling this promise in Christ — spend some time doing cross-cultural ministry.
My concern, at least pastorally, is how often people don’t look outside of their context. In the church where I was raised, I heard about missionaries but I never met one — money was just sent to the denomination and they dispersed it as they saw fit, sending missionaries as they saw fit. The idea of anything cross-culture was seen as a novelty and not emphasized. Also, I have known churches to get so focused on their own challenges and problems that they begin to act as if they are the only thing that matters. Yet, the church is far bigger than one regional location.
In addition, I have found that the bad teachings and heresies that we see here in our American context are often the same bad teachings and heresies that plague the church elsewhere. The “prosperity” and new-age movements abound and attack the church not just here but all over. The errors that come along with the hyper-pentecostalism of people like Benny Hinn and Joyce Meyer are also leading many astray in other cultural contexts. The goal of church leadership is to build the church up to maturity to ensure that it is not swayed to-and-fro by the winds of human cunning and false doctrine. One thing we have in America — that our brothers and sisters elsewhere do not have — is an abundance of resources — not just money, but good theological literature. If we would strengthen Christ’s church we must not limit our work to our own cultural context — but extend the work to the whole of the Christian church so that men and women of every tribe and language would know the greatness of our God as is taught in our Bibles.
Titles and Doctors in the Church
“You are not to be called “Rabbi;” for you have one teacher and you are all brothers.”
(Matthew 23:8)
In Hebrew, the term “Rabbi” was and is used to someone who is an esteemed teacher in the church — literally, the word means “great one,” which shows you some of the esteem that the Jewish culture attributes to those who handle and teach the word of God. In Christian circles, it is perhaps equivalent to the esteem shown to seminary professors or to those who are respected enough to be called to speak at this conference or at that church here or there.
The Latin equivalent is “Doctor,” which literally means “teacher,” though the Latin text of Matthew 23:8 uses the term Magister (meaning master or ruler) instead of simply translating the Greek in its context. Sometimes that sounds a bit odd to our western ears as we most commonly think of doctors of medicine, not doctors of theology. Even so, doctors of theology were around long before medicine became an organized discipline.
Now, do not misunderstand what it is that I am about to say. I am not denigrating education, formal or informal, nor would I discourage pastors from continuing their education beyond seminary — I am doing that myself and I serve on the Advisory Board for the North American Reformed Seminary and I teach at a mission seminary in Ukraine. Education is an essential part of the ministry. And while indeed we are men of one book, to become so, we are also men of many books that serve the one book. Regular reading and a growing library is simply par for the course if you are in the Christian ministry. Woe to the pastor that shirks this duty. And it is a pleasurable duty indeed!
Yet, sometimes it is the title of “doctor” that causes men to seek education instead of the title of Doctor being given as a byproduct of the education a man pursues. This, I fear, often leads to pride and a sense of superiority; something that should not be a part of the makeup of the Christian pastor or church leader. And this is of what our Lord is speaking in the verse noted above.
And that leads us to the question…who should award the title of “doctor” to a teacher in the life of the Church? For a number of years I have advocated the Roman Catholic practice of proclaiming someone a “Doctor of the Church” after looking back at his or her contributions to the church itself. If one takes this model, it is the church that awards the title, not the institution.
In my own context, that then would fall to presbyteries or synods to make such pronouncements that Pastor So-and-So made such a contribution to the establishment of or teaching of the church hat at some point, the church would proclaim him one of their “doctors.”
This, of course, is reflected in the difference between an “earned degree” and an “honorary degree.” And though I would humbly assert that an honorary degree is of more value, it is typically the earned degree that people seek out. Yet, which is more valuable: That which I have done or the church’s recognition of what I have done? I would argue for the second. In a world filled with everyone getting degrees for virtually everything under the sun, it is something to think about.
Is it Really That Important?
“Okay, Pastor Win, lay it all on the table — you preach a lot about doctrine, you teach the Confirmation students a lot about doctrine, you write books about doctrine, and you debate with people over what doctrines are right and what doctrines are wrong — is it really that important? Doesn’t doctrine just divide the church into camps and keep us fighting with each other instead of uniting to work together for good? Wouldn’t it just be easier to focus on what we all agree on rather than drawing lines in the sand?”
I must confess, it would be much easier to just focus on what we all agree on and just affirm that if you love Jesus you must be okay. Humanly, it would be far easier if we could just all get along and be one big happy body. A lot of those people whose doctrine I reject as in error are friends of mine and I care deeply about them. Even furthermore, some of the people whose views I claim are heretical are really nice people and I like them a lot — some are even family members, my own family members. But easier isn’t always right. In fact, easy is often the pathway that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13). And that is not what we are called to as the Church.
Here’s the thing. Biblically, my most basic job as a pastor is to train you, the church, so that you are equipped for he work of ministry and to build up the body to “mature manhood” (Ephesians 4:11-13). What does that look like practically? Paul goes on to say that a mature church is not “tossed to and fro” by every wind of doctrine, human cunning, and deceitful schemes (Ephesians 4:14). In fact, Paul writes that the only way a church finds itself built up in love (Ephesians 4:16) is if we grow into this mature manhood.
Now, in the world around us, doctrines abound, some good — mostly bad. Doctrine is taught to us in school (from preschool up), on television, in movies, on the internet, on billboards, and on the radio as we drive down the road. Some of the bad doctrines even proclaim themselves to be Christian.
So, how will we decipher good from bad so that we are not tossed to and fro? The only way it can be done is by teaching good doctrine. And how do we identify good doctrine? We must measure it by the teaching of the Scriptures — the scriptures alone and the scriptures as a whole. How often I have corrected people on doctrine with the words, “That sounds nice, but that is not what the Bible teaches…” It is not meant to be mean or contentious (okay, maybe a little contentious, but never mean), it is just meant to get us back to our only rule for faith and practice: the Bible.
Yes, there are things that we all agree on — “do unto others as you would have them do to you” or “do not steal.” But then again, both the Mormons and the Muslims I have known over the years would pretty much attest to these things too yet their souls are destined for the fires of Hell. I don’t know about you, but the seriousness of that statement weighs on me. Further, there are people in our families, in our communities, and in our circles of influence that are destined for Hell unless they repent and believe, and all the while, we are happily singing, “Come, Lord Jesus, Come!” There seems to me a certain disparity in that reality if we are not actively pointing these people toward Christ. Yet, how will we point people such as this to what is true if we do not know what is true in the first place?
Paul writes that the church is to be a pillar and buttress of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). How can we do that unless we are first grounded solidly in the truth of God’s word? How can we do that unless we ground ourselves solidly in Biblical doctrine? How can we do that if the teachers of the church do not commit themselves to teach Biblical doctrine and the members of the church do not commit themselves to studying it? Remember, the purpose of the church is not to make her people feel good while going unnoticed by the community. The purpose of the church is to tear down the strongholds of hell in our midst and the weapon of our warfare is the Word of God — we must train in it.
It’s Not Just a Problem with Kids…
At this stage in my life, I have been in full-time ministry for a little over 12 years and for a decade before that, I served the church in the context of preaching pulpit supply. Over that time, I have filled a lot of pulpits, preached more than a thousand sermons, have taught more Bible studies than I can shake a stick at, and have given oodles of announcements. And, I am still relatively young.
What strikes me is how rarely people pay close attention to what is said. I can’t tell you how often I hear adults saying, “What? I didn’t know that such and such was happening! You should have let us know.” And then I stand there thinking, “Hmmm… it has been in the church newsletter, announced in several bulletins, has been verbally announced during our announcements time at the beginning of the service, and has even been mentioned from the pulpit…What more do you want, a personalized invitation?” And yeah, I have gone and done that too. More often than I would like to admit, things go in one ear and out the other, and it is not simply matters of announcements, but often it is Biblical truth as well.
As a parent and as a former High School teacher, I have often lamented about kids daydreaming instead of paying attention. But, when you are an adult, you are supposed to put away those childish ways, aren’t you? Think about it, if your boss at work had to give you a personalized invitation any time he wanted you to do something, you would soon find yourself seeking new employment with a not-so-good job reference to follow you around. If after 20 years…heck, if after 2 weeks at a new job, if you had not gained some proficiency at what you are doing, then people would be asking questions about your future at the firm. There is an expectation in the business world that the longer you work in a given job or trade, the more proficient you will become. That’s the world around us; but why not the church as well?
While I can perhaps give the youth a little leeway, you adults should know better. You know that the only way to learn is to listen carefully, take notes of things you want to go back to, and then ask good questions when there are things you don’t understand. But, what percentage of a church does this describe? I estimate that in the last 22 years, I have filled the pulpits of about three dozen churches, and as I think back, only two of those churches come to mind as places where more than 10% of people took notes during the sermons. Interesting…telling…and if you look at the state of the church in America today, well, it is no wonder.
Why do I give the youth a little more leeway? Well, if they are not being given good examples by the adults around them, what do you expect they will do? Very few will take the initiative to learn if they do not see it modeled and valued by their parents…more importantly, if it is not taught to them by their parents. And, of course, this does not just apply in church, but it applies to personal devotions and Bible study at home and applying the truths of God into our lives. And, while our jobs may depend on how closely we listen to our earthly bosses; your growth in faith depends on how closely you listen to and understand the Word of Christ, your eternal King. How much more weighty the latter is than the former.
So, folks, it’s not just kids who often don’t pay attention in church services; its adults. It’s not just a kids’ problem, its a sinful-people problem that we need to put to death. The good news is that the solution is the same no matter how young or old you are: pay close attention and take good notes. Over the years, I have often been accused of “preaching over people’s heads.” The wonderful thing that I have found is that those who start paying close attention and taking notes always come back to me and say, “I understand so much more of what you are talking about now that I am doing this.”
One more thing… Peter writes that gaining knowledge is part of our sanctification process (2 Peter 1:5), so as we learn, we grow more and more into the character of Christ. So, why wouldn’t we apply ourselves even more greatly to learning the deep things of God than the fleeting things of this earth? Sanctification is a good and desirable thing…isn’t it?
The Church is not a Circus
Okay, I need to confess something up front…I never much cared for the circus as a kid. It just wasn’t my schtick. Sorry. And if you are a lover of the circus, more power to you, though it seems that there are fewer and fewer traveling circuses going around. But, never mind you that…if you are desperate for the circus to come around, there are plenty of churches that are trying to fill the bill and put on the “greatest show on earth” all for your viewing enjoyment.
Am I being sarcastic? Yes. And then, in a sense, no. Churches, especially the big ones, do some pretty loony things to get people to come in the door. For example, over the years, I have seen stories where the staff dressed up as professional wrestlers and ran around, well, doing what those folks do. I have read accounts where churches have hired designers from Disney to create interactive kids’ spaces and programs. Many use sound and lights and pyrotechnics and I have witnessed churches bringing in strong-men to “bend bars for Jesus.” Shall we mention the old, let’s throw a pie in the face of the preacher to increase attendance model? Gimmicks.
And, while all of these are extremes, sometime the residual effect is that people in our congregations want to grasp a little of that excitement. For example, while I have no objection to contemporary hymnody and “praise songs” being used in church (at least those that are scripturally sound), I do have a problem with the “praise team” putting on a rock-n-roll concert as part of the service. In doing so, they draw attention to themselves and not toward Christ. The same can be said for the “cool” pastors who give a basic moralistic, feel-good message that is theologically and exegetically shallow. We worship an infinite God who has revealed himself in his word, shall we not expect that word to go deeper than we ever imagined? If we are mature, do we really need the pastor to hold our hand on personal application? Would it not be better for him to focus on digging out new treasures from the depths of this Word that help us appreciate the character of our God even more?
And that gets me to my point. What do you come to worship expecting it to be? If you expect entertainment, you are in the wrong place. True, there ought to be much about worship that should be enjoyable to you, but you are there to draw near to God by carefully attending to His word. The sermon should not tickle your ears, but should instruct you on the character of God and exhort you to repent of your sins and live in a way that honors that character. My grandfather (a Methodist minister) used to say, “If you have not stepped on toes in the sermon you have not preached.” There is great truth to that. Entertainment tends to leave you as you are — just perhaps more at ease from the stresses of life. The worship of God’s people is designed to be a tool to conform you into the image of Christ.
Yet, I look at the landscape of the “church” around us and I scratch my head. Exhortation and instruction seem to be only secondary and occasional byproducts of their approach. I see those praise bands practicing for hours to get their “set” down pat. I know of many pastors who practice their sermons with an audience repeatedly during the week to make it come across just so when it is delivered. In fact, many of them purchase sermon outlines that are pre-prepared. All they have to do is to personalize them and adapt them to their context — their job then largely is that of an actor performing a role and not as the shepherd-teacher of Christ’s church. Of course, many of these places have long ceased trying to be Christ’s church in anything but name and have imbibed of health-wealth and word-faith heresies to tickle those itching ears.
Pastors, you are teachers and exhorters, not performers. We need to be prepared but not polished. And we need to do our grunt-work in the Text of God’s word. It needs to work on us and get into our souls before we can ever expect that it will get into the souls of our people. Musicians, like the pastor, be prepared for what it is that you will play on Sunday morning; you are leading God’s people in worship. That said, it is not a performance and errors will be forgiven by Christians who have any sort of spiritual maturity.
And folks in the pews — parishioners as some denominations would refer to you — do not sit passively expecting to be entertained. You are not there to be entertained. You are there to actively engage in the worship of the King of the Universe, Jesus Christ. That does not mean that you need to put on a show…in fact, just the opposite. But it does mean you must participate. You must sing with the people of God — do not just stand there reading the words out of the hymnal and praying that the hymn is done soon — and do not bawl over the people around you as to draw attention to yourself. Sing with the people of God in their worship.
In times of corporate prayer, pray with the one leading the prayer. Ask yourself, “Do I really agree with the petitions of this prayer and if I don’t, in what ought I repent?” In times when the scripture is being read, ask yourself, “Do I understand what has been read and what can I learn about God and my relationship to him, from these words?” And when the sermon is being preached, pay careful attention. If you tend to get lost, take notes and think of questions that you might ask the pastor afterwards. And, before you come to worship, read over the passage your pastor will be preaching from, pray for him (and you), and again, formulate questions that you would like to have answers to from the passage — there is a good chance that he will address many if not most of these things…listen for them. And if he does not answer all of your questions, ask him afterwards, he will find it a thrill and a joy to engage in this kind of dialogue.
Oh, and if I have a pet peeve, it can be found in one of two complaints…either: “I am not being fed in worship” or “everything the pastor says goes over my head.” First of all, it is only the small children at the table that need to be fed; older children and adults feed themselves — Christians should strive to do that when the table has been set in the pastor’s sermon. Second of all, while that is typically meant as a complaint against the pastor, it speaks far more about the character of the one who is complaining…clearly they have not prepared themselves for worship nor have they actively engaged in worship during the service. In other words, those who say such things have imbibed some bad ideas about what worship is to be somewhere along the lines and unless they are open to correction, we will see them drift toward those who will tickle their ears instead of convicting their hearts. Sad.
Declining becomes Refining
Over the last decade, many traditional churches in America have experienced a decline in attendance and the membership that corresponds. Of course, much of that decline is in the wake of the mega-church movement that is built around big entertainment and celebrity pastors while also watering down their theology to make it palatable to all. There are also many small, Biblically faithful, churches and denominations that are growing, and my observation such is one of the healthiest things to see in the Christian church in America. These small groups tend to be theologically very narrow and the people attracted to them know what they believe and why…something a little harder to find in an older, established church.
My grandfather was a small church pastor back in the 1950’s and 60’s and something that he used to say is that sometimes in the life of the church you do addition by subtraction. Of course, my grandfather also used to say that sometimes church problems can only be solved by a few funerals…ouch…of course, no matter whether we are willing to admit to it or not, there is some truth to both of these statements.
While most pastors are disheartened by declines, whether seasonal or otherwise, times of decline can be healthy in the life of the church if you know how to approach them. More importantly, they can be learning times if you are patient enough and disciplined enough to learn from them.
The most prominent thing that comes along with decline is that it exposes indwelling sin that has not been dealt with by the Elders of a congregation. Many of these sins simply run under the surface in times when the pews are filled and activities in the church abound. People turn a blind eye because everything is going well and why would anyone want to stir up trouble? Yet, that is one of the jobs of the overseers of the church — to hold people accountable to their Christian vows and to living a Christian life. Wasn’t Elijah referred to as the “Troubler of Israel” by wicked king Ahab (1 Kings 18:17)? Surely you don’t think that Elijah earned this title by flattering the folks around him.
In times of decline, though, these indwelling sins tend to come to the surface. And here is the key thing to understand, if this indwelling sin is not addressed when a church has declined, it will undermine any future growth and break down the foundation of the church. This kind of indwelling sin may be a tendency to gossip, to slander, to manipulate events to get your own way, to pursue personal sins inside or outside of the church context, or just the desire to tear someone else down rather than to build them up. None of this belongs in the Christian church or in the Christian life. How fragile churches become when the Elders do not actively practice church discipline.
Another opportunity that comes with decline is focus. One of the trends that has harmed the church greatly over the last generation has been that of ecumenicism. Now, do understand that the principle that Christians should not break fellowship over every nook and cranny of their theology is an important one, so I am not advocating a kind of hyper-fundamentalist retreatism either. But ecumenicism has become more of an agreement by “least common denominator.” So if people say that they love Jesus, they get welcomed to the table with open arms even if who they mean by Jesus is radically different than who the Bible means by Jesus.
Instead, churches ought to know what they believe and why…and dig deeply into those theological roots. That is the only way not to be swayed by the winds of every human invention and doctrine (Ephesians 4:14). We might not break fellowship with every theological group, church, or denomination, but if we look carefully at what some of these groups say or teach, we will find ourselves breaking fellowship with a number of them. And in doing so, distinctive principles to which a church holds become prominent. Emphasizing distinctive teachings will tend to drive some away, so while the church is in decline anyway, one might as well clarify what the Bible teaches and why.
Two of the marks of the true Church of Jesus Christ are church discipline and the faithful preaching of the whole council of God. If a church has not been doing one or the other well, decline can be the optimal time to repent of that error and begin practicing them. Not only will you honor your Savior, but then when the church draws new people, many of them will come into a healthy context and will come for the right reasons. The decline becomes a matter of refinement rather than something to lament.
What is Going On?
I am told that there is a Chinese curse that goes: “May you live in interesting times.” Well, whether it is a curse or not is perhaps still up for debate, but I think that it is safe to say that we are indeed living in such times. As a nation, America is more divided than it has been in my short lifetime. We are at loggerheads over political ideologies, ethnic backgrounds and the color of our skin, gender roles and who may fill each, and socio-economic classes. College, which was once believed would be the ticket to upward mobility, no longer serves that purpose but often leaves students buried in debt.
On one level, big business seems to be gobbling up all of its smaller competitors but at the same time, the internet has created a whole new class of entrepreneurs who have made millions of dollars marketing themselves in innovative ways to a very selective group of followers. Violence and crime is rampant while at the same time many things that once were considered crimes (like marijuana use or erotica) have become more or less mainstream. Marriage has been redefined by the courts to include homosexual partners and most likely, will soon be redefined to include polyamorous relationships if not pedophilia. Nope, we do not live in the world my parents grew up in anymore.
So, are you depressed yet? I don’t mean to depress you (and there is good news…just keep reading), but I do mean to look at the world plainly and honestly through Christian eyes. So, bear with me…
Sadly, the church in America is not better off than the culture. Divorce rates in the church are statistically as high as divorce rates in the broader society around us. Increasingly, people are identifying themselves as “spiritual” but are rejecting any sort of organized religion — preferring a religion of their own making. The mega-church model is largely just a re-packaging of Finneyism and are destroying their communities and creating new “burned out districts” in their wake. And for fear of offending (and then losing) members, the church has largely abdicated its responsibility to preach repentance and correct the spirit of the age.
The largest church in America (Joel Osteen’s congregation) is preaching a non-judgmental prosperity gospel and the second largest church in America (Andy Stanley’s church) is preaching that Christians should “unhitch” themselves from the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments — a position that has been held to be heretical by the church for 1800 years. The Word of Faith movement, founded by Kenneth Hagin and made popular by people like Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer, claims that Christians can harness the power of God through the use of words, speaking things into reality — a view that has historically been considered a form of witchcraft by the church.
Homosexuality is being redefined in the church so that it is no longer considered a sin from which one ought to repent, but a legitimate and God-ordained tendency that ought to celebrated. And while this was not uncommon in liberal circles of Christianity, the conversation is being had within conservative, reformed congregations at this point (the “Revoice” conference, for example, is being hosted by a PCA congregation in the midwest). The Southern Baptist Convention is debating having a female president, claiming that the president is not a preacher, and then putting Beth Moore forward as a candidate, neglecting the fact that she regularly speaks and preaches to audiences of mixed men and women. With the conservative churches doubling back and reconsidering historically held positions, is it any wonder that the broader culture no longer respects us when we speak of absolute principles?
Okay, okay…I promised you some good news. The good news is that despite the depravity of the culture, of the church, and of the parody-church (those claiming to be the church but are heretical), the Gospel has remained the same. In fact, with the veneer of Christianity fading away from our culture, not only does depravity become that much more clear, but the Gospel becomes that much more defined as light in the darkness. And that means we have today more opportunities to share the Gospel with people than did our parents and our grandparents before them. The key is, we just need to equip ourselves to do it. Sure, that takes work, but there is no more important work that you could be doing than this (and there are more resources today than ever — we just need to use them).
So, when you look at the world around us and just scratch your head at what is going on, just remember, that is your invitation to engage people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But, will you?
Violence all Around Us
As I sit here this morning struggling to wrap my head around the recent school shootings that have taken place, it has me thinking about the violence of our society. True, when students and teachers lose their lives in what is supposed to be a place of learning, not a place of fear, it shakes you up — it has to. Yet, school shootings are not the only thing that is robbing our nation’s families of their future generations. Drugs and drug overdoses have become widespread and are plaguing our communities. Then we can talk about gangs and the crime associated with that, we can talk about how the innocence of so many young people is being robbed through rape and exploitation, and bullying has become an epidemic.
As a Christian, the simple answer, of course, is sin. Mankind is fallen, we have inherited it from our forefathers all of the way back to Adam, and the only solution is the completed work of Jesus Christ. No amount of legislation or government regulation will change this reality or will make our land less violent. Violence goes along with sin and always has — it goes back to Cain’s murder of his brother, Abel.
Yet, I don’t want to stop there because it seems to me that violence, in particularly violence performed by and against our youth, is on the rise. One might say that the rise in violence is simply the end result of there being more people in our country and in our communities, but I think that is too simplistic an answer because while we cannot change human nature, the actions we take and the principles we teach do affect the culture in which we live. And therein lies much of the problem.
While there are probably more contributors (feel free to share your thoughts here), I want to focus on two. The first of these things is that for more than a generation, young men and women have been taught that they evolved from lower life-forms. This is very obviously not consistent with a Christian world-view, but how does this promote violence? The answer is that in an evolutionary model, the main goal of a species is self-preservation and the right to breed. The phrases that most commonly gets used is “the survival of the fittest” or “the strong survive.” If one applies this mindset to humans, the one of central importance becomes the self and everyone around you exists to serve your needs. The moment they cease to benefit you, they get thrown to the side. Virtues like self-sacrifice, mercy, kindness, and chivalry are simply not a part of the “Law of the Jungle,” and thus vanishing from the worldviews of those taught in this way. I have said before, if you teach children that they are nothing more than evolved animals, do not be surprised when they behave like animals.
The second of these matters is that for more than a generation, people have been taught that they are basically good and it is society that corrupts. If this were the case, then why bother teaching moral law? If deep-down, people are good, then they are capable of following their own moral compass. And so, the teaching of absolute morality (like the Ten Commandments) has been replaced by the teaching of situational ethics. Everything is treated as relative (except for the laws of the State…funny how that works).
The problem is that deep down, we are not good, we are sinful. In fact, Question 5 of the Heidelberg Catechism asks whether we can keep the Law of God perfectly. The answer is surprising to most students: “No. By nature, I tend to hate God and my neighbor.” Most of the time people don’t think of themselves as hating God or their neighbor, but what is unprovoked violence if it is not an expression of hatred? And, is not hatred the opposite of love? Jesus said that if we love him, we will be obedient to his commands (John 14:15). Do we obey the commands of God consistently or even conscientiously? Usually not.
What is the solution? The only real and lasting solution is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, apart from the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit, we can also change the way we teach. We can teach children that they are made in the image of God and thus have a moral obligation to imitate him and live out his law. We can teach them that deep down they are sinners in need of grace as well as that they are in need of showing grace to others. We can teach them that their moral compass is not within themselves, but is found within the revealed word of God. No, you do not create Christian children by teaching them the Law (that is ultimately the work of the Holy Spirit), but you do create more of a moral community by doing so. And that is a community in which both believer and non-believer will thrive…and it is a community in which violence is greatly reduced.
The thing that grieves me the most is that if we do not change the way we live and function as a society, things will get worse and not better.
What Must a Christian Believe?
One of the debates that circulates around Christian church circles has to do with what that core body of information happens to be to which all Christians must assent. There are many who would say that the Apostles’ Creed stands as the most basic test of the Christian faith. Yet, I think that we would all agree that there are essentials to the faith that the Apostles’ Creed does not cover: the inspiration of Scripture, the dual nature of Christ, that we are justified by Grace through faith alone, etc… Further, most Mormons that I have interacted with will claim to affirm the Apostles’ Creed, though arguably there are differences by way of definition. So, while the Apostles’ Creed clearly provides a starting point, it is by no means able to stand on its own.
The Heidelberg Catechism addresses this very question prior to launching into a long exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Question 22 asks: “What then must a Christian believe?” The answer is: “All that is promised to us in the Gospel, which are taught in summary in the articles of the universal Christian faith.” In other words, the Apostles’ Creed is at best a summary that needs clarification, thus questions 23-58 provide that clarification within the Heidelberg Catechism.
But what does it mean when it says, “All that is promised to us in the Gospel”? To answer that question, we must first address the question of what the Gospel is. Certainly, we use the word to refer to a variety of things. Our Bibles contain four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that are explicitly referred to as “Gospels.” Further, when we speak to others about the “Gospel,” what we usually mean is explaining the basis of the Christian faith — man is a sinner in need of redeeming (and cannot redeem himself); Jesus, who had no sin and is the Son of God, came and died a substitutionary death for all who believe; so, repent and believe and you can share in this eternal promise…
Yet, on the most basic level, the word “Gospel” means “good news.” And where can this good news be found? It can only be found in the Bible. What is the good news? The good news is that though man is rebellious and fallen from the beginning, God had ordained a plan to redeem an elect people for himself through faith in His Son, Jesus. Where is that found? In the Bible. It is found in all of the Bible. The Old Testament lays the foundation for and prefigures the work of Christ in the New Testament, and the New Testament makes little sense unless rooted firmly in the Old. It is one complete book that contains and records the complete revelation of God. It is indispensable to the Christian faith…all of it. And thus, Heidelberg states unambiguously that we must believe all of the promises contained in he Gospel.
I think that it is high time, as a church, that we make a commitment to the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy the test of orthodoxy. Of course, that leaves a lot of people that we know, love, and care about in the cold. Then again, did Jesus not say that it is those who keep his commandments that love him (John 14:21)? Did Jesus not say that all authority in heaven and on earth is his (Matthew 28:18)? Does Moses not say that this Word was our very life (Deuteronomy 32:47) and that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Deuteronomy 8:3)? Every word… And does not Peter point out that all things that pertain to life and godliness come to us through the knowledge of God (2 Peter 1:3)? And how shall we have knowledge of God apart from embracing the Scriptures? Without the Scriptures we could know nothing about the God we worship. And since men are not qualified to give counsel to God (Romans 11:33-36), of which part of Scripture can man say to God, “I do not need this”? No, it is all breathed out by God to equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
So, what am I suggesting? I am suggesting that the test of orthodoxy be that the Scriptures are inspired by God in the original manuscripts (every word and letter — what is called “plenary inspiration”) and are thus inerrant (without error and without the possibility of error in what they teach) and are infallible (they will not fail the one who puts their trust in them). It is a commitment to the whole counsel of God that we must look to and our friends in the community who might believe otherwise may very well not be Christians as they are not being Christian as the Bible so presents.
Does this mean that we shut out as heretics everyone who disagrees with us? No. There are certainly areas of disagreement that take place within the orthodox church, areas where believers with a commitment to inerrancy have honest disagreements. Further, there may very well be some genuine believers who are being deluded into error by the false churches they attend. While in the first case, we can discuss and debate and not break fellowship, in the second case, we evangelize, we make an apologetic, and we try and sway those friends attending bad churches to seek out a church that upholds the Bible. It is by this manner that we add light and clarity to the muddled mess of our watered-down and politically correct church environment.
Naming Names
If you spend much time on this blog, you know that one of my concerns is for the Truth of God’s word to be triumphed in a world that throws so much chaff at you that sometimes you feel lost in information overload and don’t know who to believe. As a preacher, this has often led me to naming names from the pulpit of those in our society that are “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as it were. The even more challenging aspect of this is that the word “Christian” has been so misused and abused that society uses it to refer to anything so long as Jesus is mentioned within it…no mind whether it is Biblical or not. Of course, our society today is so Biblically illiterate, most people cannot distinguish between that which is Biblical and that which is preferential.
Sometimes, when names are named, people feel uncomfortable. Many people have perhaps attended an event down at the prosperity gospel megachurch down the street or have read “The Shack” or a Joyce Meyer book. Many people either secretly (or not secretly) prefer listing to Joel Osteen rather than the careful exposition of the Word, and when names are named, that makes people nervous. It forces them to repent of their own sloppy theology or perhaps troubles them because they often have friends who attend churches that teach a false theology and they don’t want ruffle feathers. They also tend to think that the pastor is just on another one of his grouchy tirades against the bigger church down the street (by the way, since when did the number of people in attendance become a measure of a pastor’s ministry?).
The question, then arises, why bother? Isn’t it more polite in today’s society to avoid naming names? Can’t we be nice to the other churches and give them the benefit of the doubt? Of course, “nice” is a word that we ought not apply to any Christian. Why? See here. Here’s the thing, we are not talking about matters of preference or neighborliness. You might not like that your neighbor has planted gum trees along the border of your property line, but you don’t make a ruckus about it because that would not be neighborly. But here we are talking eternal truth and eternal error, life and death, matters of heaven and hell! If your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers, or your family members are blissfully marching down the wide road to hell, it is not a nice thing, a kind thing, or a loving thing to remain silent while they perish. It is wicked and cruel.
And be clear, when I am speaking about naming names, I am not speaking about disagreements within the body of Christ. Some of my closest friends, for example, happen to be baptists and we disagree strongly about whether or not an infant should be baptized and how that baptism should be carried out. Given my German Reformed/Presbyterian background, one would expect no less. Yet, we disagree as brothers in the faith. I have several dear Lutheran friends as well, with whom I would strongly disagree as to what baptism does for the one baptized and over what takes place at the Lord’s Table, but again, these are “in house” debates in the Christian church. We ought to debate these things, yes, and debate them passionately. But we can do so all the while not breaking fellowship.
While modes of baptism, what takes place at the Lord’s Table, the music we sing, the kind of Bible we use, etc… are disagreements, they are secondary things. Differences here (in most cases) do not separate you from the body of Christ. But some differences do. When someone denies the Trinity, they can call themselves many things, but they cannot call themselves, “Christian.” When someone denies the dual nature of Christ, the substitutionary nature of Christ’s work, the authority of the Scriptures, the role of man being submissive to God, justification by grace alone worked through faith alone, the physical Resurrection on the third day, etc… one no longer is able to call oneself a Christian. They may still be an American, they may still be moral in a societal sense, they may still be a good laborer in a volunteer organization, they may still be a good neighbor, but Christian they are not. And, if there are those who are playacting at being Christian and are teaching otherwise, they need to be warned against.
Jesus warns us of false prophets (Matthew 7:15) as does the Apostle John (1 John 2:18-19 — here he calls them “antichrists”). And thus, we are called to test every tree — every spirit — by its fruit. As we look at Biblical tests of orthodoxy, some of that fruit is visible in the way we live — the Apostle Paul’s famed “Fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:22-23 — but it is also found in the things that are taught. Thus, earlier in Galatians, Paul very clearly warns the Galatians that if anyone, even an angel from heaven, were to teach them “another Gospel” — a Gospel different than the one Paul consistently taught (something preserved in the Word) — then he should be cursed. Notice that Paul does not say, “let the teaching be accursed,” but he says, “let him be accursed.”
In Titus 1:9, Paul even expands on this idea. He says that Elders (by the way, this is one of those passages where Paul speaks of Presbyters and Overseers as one in the same office) must be taught to do two things: 1) give instruction in sound doctrine and 2) rebel those who contradict sound doctrine. Do you notice how there are two sides to the same coin. Not only must there be teaching what is right but there must be a rebuke of that which is not sound teaching (recognizing that the Greek word used here refers to a public oral attack on a person, a thought, or an idea). In other words, calling out the heretic as such and then teaching the people of God how to think Biblically is one of the primary roles of the Elder in the Christian church.
One might then ask, is it really appropriate to name names? Wouldn’t it be easier to teach specifically against a bad idea without naming those who hold to that idea? The problem with that model is, if the pastor has not told you, “Do not read books by T.D. Jakes, he is a prosperity preacher who is part of the Word Faith movement and denies the orthodox understanding of the Trinity — he is a heretic.” How will you know not to buy a book by T.D. Jakes when you see it on the shelves of your local Christian bookstore — a store that has no qualms about selling you anything for their profit, though it will not profit your soul?
Further, the model we have in the Bible is to be very clear about who those are who have denied the faith. For example, Peter singles out Simon Magus and publicly rebukes him for trying to purchase the power of the Apostles (an error later called “Simony” in remembrance of this event — see Acts 8:9-24). Paul tells Timothy how he handed Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan for blasphemy (1 Timothy 1:20), he speaks of Phygelus and Hermogenes who abandoned him when he was arrested (2 Timothy 1:15), he rebukes Demas for being in love with this world (2 Timothy 4:10), and he speaks about the Lord taking out his vengeance on Alexander the Coppersmith for the harm he had done to Paul (2 Timothy 4:14). The Apostle John warns his friend, Gaius, against Diotrephes who is subverting the power of the Apostles and calls his actions evil (3 John 9-11). Finally, even Jesus speaks this way, not just to various Pharisees, Sadducees, and teachers of the Law during his earthly ministry, but also he calls out Jezebel in the city of Thyatira for her immorality (Revelation 2:20). And, while many scholars would suggest that Jezebel is a kind of “nick-name” given to this woman based on the wickedness of her namesake, you can be sure that everyone in that church knew exactly who that woman was.
As a shepherd of Christ’s flock, I am responsible to Christ my King first and foremost, and not to the sensibilities of the culture around me. In addition, in todays pluralistic society, we are surrounded by people of many different religious affiliations as well as those who claim to be Christian but who teach what Paul would call “another gospel.” This last group is the one that I feel poses the greatest threat. I do not expect those who grew up in our congregation to be tempted to practice Wicca or Buddhism, but many are quick to attend churches that claim to be Christian but do not offer a Christian message. We are surrounded by Word of Faith churches, Mormons, Roman Catholics, Prosperity Gospel Churches, and the writings and television programs of many false teachers. The “Pop Christian” culture has embraced ideas from Hillsong, Elevation Church, and others who distort the Word of God. How shall I justify remaining silent?
A final illustration. If the devil wanted to infiltrate your church, how would he do so? Would he don a tail and carry a pitchfork? Or, would he look like everybody else and nuance the truth just enough to lead you astray? It was the latter he did with Eve in the garden and it is the latter that he does through many of these false teachings. On the surface, a lot of what they teach “sounds right,” but if you look deeply, it is subversive. Remember, as Christians, this world is not our home. We are soldiers in an outpost in enemy territory and our command is to take ground and tear down the strongholds of the devil. Shall we not call out the enemy for who he is and pray that by doing so, he or she may repent and believers may not be swayed by their untruths?
Fighting Words
In Calvin’s commentary on Seneca’s De Clementia, he argues that “meaning is a function of use.” Now, we may debate over how that is worked out in Seneca or we may debate on how that gets worked out in the rest of Calvin’s later writings. And, while that might be a valuable conversation, my interest in this is how that idea has developed and been applied (and arguably mis-applied) in our modern context.
In principle, Calvin’s point is that languages grow and change over time based on the usage of the people. Further, many words are defined by their context. For example, the word “slug” has numerous uses from a measure of weight, to a punch, to something that goes in a shotgun shell, to a squishy mollusk that is the bane of most gardeners. In older uses, when printing presses were more common, a slug was a metal bar with letters and words on it and a “sluggard” is a lazy slow-poke. Further, words like nice, awesome, awful, gay, and clue meant something very different than they mean today. So, there is great truth in the matter that meaning is a function of usage.
Yet, we have entered into a society where meaning has become so fluid that almost anyone can redefine terms. This not only enters into how slang is used (in my generation, being “bad” was a good thing and in my son’s generation, if something was “sick” that meant it was a really good thing), but it also being to rob ideas of their objectivity. And this trend is dangerous.
In society, perhaps the most prominent of the changes has been the separation of the idea of gender from that of sex. According to their fundamental definitions, sex deals with biology and gender deals with roles and cultural expectations placed upon a person. Yet, historically, while the notion of “gender roles” has varied from culture to culture, it has always had a distinct connection to the biology of those who practice said roles. In other words, sex has largely been seen as the outward expression of an inward reality. That is, until today’s existentialism has permitted people to arbitrarily define their inward reality.
As someone who deals with people at the very heart of what I do, this shift is curious to me. When the “Women’s Lib” movement really began, it seemed like what they were striving for was a removal of gender roles — or at least to make them flexible enough that there was overlap in every area of society. This mindset would put them at odds with the modern Transsexual movement, which seems to be heightening the distinction between gender roles while also divorcing gender from biological sex. Yet, such does not seem to be the case.
While the aforementioned transformation is taking place in the broader society, the matter that concerns me the most is taking place in the church where ideas and doctrines are being redefined based on the whim and curiosity of the leadership. And, regardless of what you think on the whole gender question, this is infinitely more important because this matter has eternal consequences. While people have always challenged ideas held by the orthodox Christian church, today they are challenging said ideas while still referring to themselves as “Christian.” People reject the doctrine of the Trinity, of Creation, of Justification, the Resurrection, and of the inspiration of Scripture — things that are essential to the Christian faith and still place the name “Christian” in their churches. Furthermore, tolerance and “being respectful” of others has become so ingrained in our society, when pastors warn their congregations against the wolves in sheep’s clothing, he is often criticized as being intolerant, too dogmatic, or just unpleasant.
While words are flexible in terms of their usage, they still have meaning or at least a semantic range within which, based on context, they can be used. If you lose that, then any word can mean anything and “Dog, dog, dog, dog” can mean, “pick me up at 3:30 tomorrow afternoon.” Further, if you are defining terms differently than I am and we have not first established a basis of meaning for the words, we can be talking about two radically different things, yet we assume that we are speaking about the same thing. It is the Tower of Babel embraced by men and no longer seen as a mark of God’s judgment. In logic, this is called the fallacy of equivocation…yet, sadly, in common usage, it seems like it has moved from being a fallacy to a virtue. Like the word, “aweful,” which once meant “to be filled with awe,” it has seemingly turned its meaning entirely upside down and inside out to mean precisely the opposite of what it originally meant.
And we return to Calvin who would, I think it fair to say, be entirely disgusted with the games that the church plays in the name of Christ. He would say that while the church is trying to be nice, it is actually being “nice” in the sense of its original root: nescius — to be ignorant or stupid. A sad testimony for many churches in our day and age. Fighting words, indeed.
The Law of God
The longer I live the more things about the mindset of our culture just makes me scratch my head. When I was younger, we used to talk about “Things that make you go, Hmmm…” Today, I wonder if the phrase should be, “Things that make you go, huh?!?” And one of those things that I find a head-scratcher today is the way the Gospel has been redefined into something that it was never meant to be…at least if we have any sense of propriety to the Bible. And while it is true that this is not a new trend, it amazes me just how prevalent the idea is today.
Don’t misunderstand me, I do understand the context in which we live. The world is getting small, churches of pretty much every flavor exist on nearly every corner of America, yet overall, American church attendance is dropping. Buildings, also, are expensive. Old ones cost money to maintain and new ones cost money to build. There are also salaries to pay, activities to finance, and other costs that go along with doing business.
And so, churches behave like businesses, yes, and this is the first step down a path that leads away from fidelity to the Bible. How so? The purpose of a business is to make money and they do so by promoting their brand over the brand of others. So churches often enter into a kind of feeding frenzy, trying to grow by pulling members from one church into their own…typically by the programs and services that they have to offer. In addition, there is a phrase in business that goes: “The customer is always right.” That of course, is not true and few real businesses truly believe that sentiment, but it is still said. And, if you view church members as customers, your goal is to fill their needs and make them feel good about themselves, ready to go about the next week.
To do that, Law must be deemphasized. Why? Law makes us feel bad. It makes us feel guilty for the things we have done over the week. We’ve thought bad thoughts, we’ve coveted things that are not our own, we’ve even taken the Lord’s name in vain and have gone our own way on the Sabbath. People don’t want to be told they are sinners and deserving of the wrath of God. People want to be told that God forgives them anyway and that they should just keep doing their best and he will overlook the other stuff.
What’s wrong with a message like that? Well, apart from being entirely unbiblical, it belittles the Gospel. It’s a form of watered-down universalism. Why? Here’s the thing, if the bad news is that God is not happy with our sin, but that he will tolerate it anyway, do we really need him? No. The Gospel then is only about us feeling better about ourselves. And worship becomes a kind of “spiritual recharge” that kind of earns us the right to receive blessings from God (you never thought of the “prosperity gospel” as a works-righteousness movement, but it is — the more you do, the more you earn from God — that’s essentially their lie).
The problem is that God is not unhappy with us for our sin. God is enraged at our sin. It is outright rebellion and it always has been — going all of the way back to Adam and Eve (remember, they basically accused God of being a liar). The problem is that we stand in rebellion against God and deserve his wrath in the fires of Hell. Yep, that is far more serious than him just being unhappy with us…and no, he tolerates no sin in his presence (Isaiah 65:16; Habakkuk 1:13); he is light and in him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). And, as I have said repeatedly across the twenty-some years that I have been in the pulpit, and as many who have gone before me have said: “Until you come to terms with the greatness of your sin, you will never appreciate grace.”
So how do we come to terms with the greatness of our sin? That is essentially the question that is asked in the third question of the Heidelberg Catechism: “How do you know your misery?” We must indeed recognize that sin, whether small or great on human terms, brings misery to our souls. The answer is short and succinct: “The Law of God tells me.” In other words, until you let the Law weigh down your soul and nurture a sense of godly sorrow for your wicked state, grace will be nothing but a feel-good promise that eludes your life.
What then is the Law of God? Probably the best summary of it is found in the Ten Commandments — one law with ten interwoven parts. Heidelberg reminds us too of Jesus’ summary of the Ten Commandments, found in the command to Love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:36-40). Yet, these are summaries (convicting summaries, indeed!), but the outworking and application of this moral law is found throughout the Scripture. Thus, no matter how well we know the summaries, every passage of scripture has the power to approach you and to convict your soul.
So, the message of the Gospel is not, God is displeased but he will forgive you anyway, just come and worship him. That would portray God as a kind of senile grandfather doting on his children. No, the Gospel is much more powerful than that. You are a rebel. You are guilty of breaking the Law of God both knowingly and unknowingly and thus deserve wrath and the eternal torment of the fires of Hell. That is rightfully yours. Yet, in spite of that, God has elected to save some — a remnant from humanity for himself — not because of who we are or because of something we have done, but because he has graciously chosen to do so. And that does not mean that our sins are excused if we are part of that remnant. No, nothing of the sort. Our sins are not excused, but the punishment for our sins was borne by another — God’s own sinless Son. He did for us what we could never have done for ourselves.
This, folks, is grace, but it only makes sense under the conviction of the Law. That means that the message of Sunday morning is not to make you feel better about yourselves. It is not to give you a spiritual recharge during the week. The message of Sunday morning is to convict you of your sins, to show you the mighty nature of our God in contrast to our lowliness, and to reveal the work of Christ that gives us hope, lowly worms that we are. We do not come to invoke God’s blessings on our lives, we come to submit to the Word — to be crushed under its weight even — and to be exhorted to live a life of gratitude on the basis of that knowledge. Anything short of that is another Gospel, and in the words of the Apostle Paul:
“But, even if we or an angel from heaven were to proclaim a gospel incompatible with the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have already told you, now I say again, if someone preaches something incompatible to what you have received, let him be accursed!”
(Galatians 1:8-9)
Christian Delight
Question ninety in the Heidelberg Catechism asks, “What is the birth of the new man?” In other words, it wants to know what it is that distinguishes the believer from the unbeliever…or more personally, what distinguishes your life today as a Christian from the way you lived before as a non-Christian. The answer to this question is both telling and convicting. It is simply that we take a “heartfelt joy” in the Lord. So, beloved, up front, does that describe you when it comes to your church attendance, your devotional time, your family worship, and your prayer? If it doesn’t, then you may need to reevaluate your priorities a bit.
Yet, in case we are unclear as to what “heartfelt joy” looks like in our lives, the question goes further. It describes heartfelt joy as taking delight in two things: living according to the will of God and doing good works. In English, “delight” means that we take pleasure in these things — that they satisfy our hearts.
But do we really “delight” in living according to the will of God? You know, this ties in with Jesus’ statement that “if you love me you will obey my commandments” (John 14:15). Is obedience to God something that satisfies our soul and brings pleasure to our lives or is it something we do out of some sort of legalistic obligation? Do we groan on Sunday morning when it comes to getting out of bed and contemplate whether we really need to go on a given morning? Or to we rejoice that Sunday morning has come and look forward to being in the House of the Lord on this day with God’s own? Do we look forward to our personal Bible reading and devotional time, protecting a block of time so that we can practice it undisturbed? Or is it something we do some of the time so long as the “urgent” matters of the day do not distract us? Does our sin create in us a genuine and heartfelt sorrow? Or, do we just brush off our sin as no big deal, figuring that “God will forgive me anyway.” And, if you fall into this category, you may want to read Deuteronomy 29:18-20 just to refresh your mind as to God’s view of those who think this.
And, do we really delight in good works? Perhaps that is one that weighs easier on our souls because we all enjoy those random acts of kindness that we sometimes do. But, wait, the next question in Heidelberg reminds us that Good Works have three characteristics: they are done in faith, according to the Law of God, and are done for God’s glory alone. If all three of these criteria are not met, a work that someone does, no matter how noble, is not truly “good.” So, if we get the credit for it…or if anyone but God gets the credit for it, it is not good. So, do we truly delight in such works as are defined here?
Psalm 37:4 reads this way:
“Delight in Yahweh and he will give you the petitions of your heart.”
Does this mean that God gives us anything we want when we ask him? No. Does that mean that if our heart is in the right place and we pray in faith, God will give us anything for which we desire? No. What it does say is that if we truly delight in God, then our desire will be for a deeper and deeper relationship with God, and that he will give to us. Our error (and especially the error of the so-called “prosperity gospel” and the “word faith” movements) is that we tend to focus on the outcome and ignore the command. We need to focus on the imperative command that we find at the beginning of the verse: “Delight in Yahweh!”
Think about it this way. If you delight in the Lord then you will desire for your life whatever the Lord desires for your life. And God places into your life what he sovereignly designs for your life because it is designed to conform you into the image of Christ (and is thus, for your good). Sometimes that “good” is hard to see when you are in the middle of the “slough of despond” or the “valley of the shadow of death,” but through your delight in the Lord, these things become your heart’s desire and you can embrace them with thankfulness.
Are You Ready to Go to Church Tomorrow?
Okay, the pastor is just on one of his soapboxes, again. Sure, this is a soapbox…but if you are a Christian, it should be your soapbox as well. So, hear me out.
You see, many people are simply satisfied that you are going to church in the first place — you remember that kind old lady from Sunday School that used to say, “I don’t care where he goes as long as he goes to church somewhere…” She had all of the best intentions, but boy, she couldn’t be more wrong. What good does it do a person to attend worship at a place that plays at church, but does not teach in a way that is faithful to the Bible.
But I’m not talking about that dear old lady with all of her good intentions. And I am not talking about the silly statement that people that don’t want to come to church make…you know the one… “I can worship anywhere and don’t need to go to church to do it.” We could talk about the nature of the body of Christ and how it is to be unified for worship in conformity to God’s command, but my interest is not to go there either. And I’m also not talking about those who tell me, “I prefer to attend that other choice because they have Saturday-Night services…,” as if worship is about our convenience…no, my point is not to go there either.
What I want to address is the mindset that many have who think that their presence in the sanctuary at the prescribed hour is the most important thing. Now, I grant you, it is a better thing to be in church than to not be in church — at the very least you will be exposed to the preaching of the Gospel. But being physically present in church is the easiest part of your worship…and arguably the least important part. God demands that his people be wholly committed to him, not just our bodies, but our minds as well. But to engage mentally in the worship of God’s people, you need to prepare yourselves. So, here are some thoughts in the form of practical advice that you can put into play today to help prepare you for tomorrow’s service of corporate worship.
1) Have you prayed for the Pastor and those leading the service of worship? Are you committed to seeking God’s face that these men may speak the Word of Truth to you in a way that is wholly consistent with the testimony of the Scriptures?
2) Have you prayed for yourself? Are you committed to seeking God’s face that you may be prepared to listen attentively to what the Pastor brings that you may take it to heart and learn from him? Pray that the Holy Spirit would convict you where you need to be convicted and that he will apply the Word of God to your sinful heart.
3) Have you read the text on which the Pastor will preach? Most pastors are more than willing and able to share their sermon texts at least a week in advance. If they are unable to do this one might be tempted to ask about their preparedness or organization.
4) Having read the text, have you made a list of questions you have from the text itself? Take these with you as part of your notes (yes, plan to take notes on the pastor’s sermon…it will allow you to learn and it will keep him accountable — and if he knows you are taking notes, not only will it encourage him in his preparations but it will also encourage him not to take any shortcuts in preparation). Plan to take these notes with you and see how many of your questions the pastor answers. And if he does not answer one of your questions, drop him a note asking him said question, it will encourage him that you were listening and that the text is important enough to understand that you want to know said answers.
5) Do you know the hymns which will be sung or the additional readings that might be present? It may require a phone call to the church secretary to discover this, but if you can learn these things, reading the words ahead will allow you to prepare better to sing them.
6) Have you read through your notes from last week’s sermons? If your pastor preaches in the form of a series or through given texts of the Bible, reading these sermon notes will jog your memory and assist you in engaging with the text.
7) Plan to get a good night’s sleep. A rested mind is a more engaged mind. Be ready to engage fully in the worship of God.
We could likely add other things to this list, but try these things and see how your engagement with worship and the text will change. I also think that if you engage with these things, your personal devotions will improve, but that is a different conversation. Or, let me just say, in the words of the old television commercial, “try it, you’ll like it!”
There’s Something Missing from Our Conversation on the Body
In 1 Corinthians 12, the Apostle Paul makes an impassioned plea for the unity of the body…a unity that can only built up in love, when the body itself is functioning properly (Ephesians 4:16). Love in the body is indeed the “better way” (1 Corinthians 12:31) toward which we should strive. To make his point, Paul reminds us that a body has many parts…there are eyes and hands and ears, etc… Because the body needs all of the parts to be whole, unity is that which must be striven for. Amen. For most of us who have grown up in Christian circles or in churches, this is an idea that is pretty basic to our existence. No matter what our personal gifts and passions may be, we need the whole to live out the Great Commission in this world.
I fear, though, in a society that has become as specialized as ours has become, Paul’s analogy is often misapplied. In today’s world, it seems, that there are specialists in just about every field. Medicine, Law, and Mechanics are all examples of areas where people specialize in a narrow field. Certainly, there is a base of knowledge that all specialists share in common (I’ll come back to that idea), but there are Dermatologists, Hematologists, and Cardiologists; there those who specialize in Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Business Law; and people also specialize in Motorcycle Mechanics, Heavy Machinery Mechanics, and Auto Mechanics — many even specializing only one a particular make of automobiles.
Even in my former trade there were specialists (I installed carpet for 11 years before entering the ministry full-time). My specialty was Residential Flooring and in that, I did a lot of custom work (borders, inlays, etc…). For several months, just after arriving in seminary, I worked for a Commercial Flooring company, laying tile and glue-down floors. While I knew the basics, the guys who did that kind of flooring for a living could work circles around me. At the same time, most of them had never used a carpet kicker before…something that is a mainstay of residential work. We were specialists — we had areas in which we overlapped, but there were things in which we each did particularly well, and it is in those areas that we each tended to stay.
So, how does this apply to the church? Certainly, there are specializations in the church. To some, God has given the gift of administration, and we need those who can wisely manage the resources that God has entrusted to the church. To others, God has given the gift of helping, which extends well past the work of the Deacons to the whole church body, who cares enough to reach out and meet the needs of others (as I write this, we have a team of people traveling home from Houston, who spent the last week doing just that). To others, God gives the gift of teaching, something that is essential in the process of discipling Christians as they grow in faith. Still, to others, God has given a heart for evangelism, and these members are wired by God to look for people with whom they can share the Gospel. All of these are specializations — we share a common basic set of skills (every Christian ought to be able to share the Gospel, but some are that much more zealous for it, etc…). And again, Paul’s analogy carries, we all are not gifted in the same way and so we need one another.
At the same time, there are things in the life of the body that keep the whole body healthy. For example, as I am closing in on 50, my family doctor has insisted that I start taking vitamins and be more intentional about daily exercise. And so, I take my “One-a-Day” and I ride my stationary bike 5 miles (or walk a mile) pretty much every day (pretty much, life gets busy). These actions do not just benefit my stomach or my heart, they benefit every part of my body, helping it to be more healthy overall. Further, I pray and spend time reading and reflecting on God’s Word, every day. This again, benefits my whole being.
Likewise, in the life of the Church, there are things that we do that benefit the whole body — they act like vitamins for our soul. Spending time reading and reflecting on the Bible is not an activity that belongs just to the specialist, every part of the body must engage in this to keep the body well. Some often say that they are not good at prayer. Of course, if you can talk or think, you can pray and it again is an essential part of the Christian life, something not reserved for a specialist. Sometimes people say that they don’t really need Sunday School, but being discipled is again something that is to be a part of every Christian’s life and without a commitment to discipleship (personal and corporate), the body will not be healthy. They are exercises and vitamins for our overall health. True, my ears may not directly benefit from time on a stationary bike, but that time strengthens my heart which circulates blood all over my body, which in turn not only helps the blood flow to the ears, but it improves the health of the body to which my ears are attached. And so, they benefit indirectly, but they benefit nonetheless.
Sometimes Christians think that they don’t need corporate worship. Here, the analogy changes a little bit because our worship is not so much something we do to strengthen our body (though our body is strengthened as a by-product), it is our service to God. Our worship is our drawing near to our Almighty God and Savior according to His Word and giving him the praise and honor for who he is and for what he has done. This is a big part of what the church was created to do.
So, to say that you don’t need to worship as part of the church body is really to say that you are not part of the body at all. You exist, perhaps, in connection with the body for your own reasons, but that is to be like a parasite, not a functioning organ. Jesus speaks of this as well when he describes the church growing like a large tree from a small seed (see Mark 4:30-32). Once the tree (the Kingdom/Church) has grown and developed branches and leaves, the birds of the air (which often represent the unbelieving nations), make their nests in the midst of the tree. The birds benefit from the tree’s presence, but are not part of the tree and are not fed by the root of the tree. And, they will only nest in the branches of the tree for a season. Worship — being fed by the tap-root of the Spirit — drawing near according to the Word — is what distinguishes the tree from the bird in its nest.
Thus, in things like worship, the study of God’s word, and prayer, it is not a matter of specializing. It is a matter of being and being healthy. What is the goal of this healthy living? It is being united and built up in love. How is this love achieved? It is achieved through the growing mature in our doctrine so that we are not blown to and fro by the winds of human cunning and deceit (see Ephesians 4:13-16). This cannot happen apart from the whole body attending to the Word of God. Yes, we specialize, but we are also a part of a whole. To understand Paul’s analogy in 1 Corinthians 12, you need to preserve this balance…how often, though, we miss the second while over-emphasizing the first.
A Brave New World: Ariana Grande, Terror, and God’s War Psalms
I must confess, for me, music pretty much ended in the 80’s. Okay, so I exaggerate, but I am a kid of the era where Styx wasn’t so much a reference to a mythological river, Jethro Tull was not a historic agronomist, and The Boss was not someone you worked for, but all were musicians whose songs formed the soundtrack of my high-school and college years. And, well, yeah, beyond my school years as well.
But this is not so much the case with my children. So when I initially heard about the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert, the event was quickly catalogued along with the many other senseless terror attacks that seem to be more a part of our lives than they should ever be. To me, Ariana Grande sounded like a vacation resort or perhaps a new version of a latte at Starbucks. Not so much to my children. While the “soundrack” of my life is pretty much written, theirs is being written and it seems that an even younger generation is having to be pulled into the conversation about the nature of evil people who live in our midst.
It is a sad truth that terrorism is such a visible part of this world’s reality today. Of course, terrorism is nothing new. There have been wicked men throughout the ages that believed the proper way to express their ideology was to bully, intimidate, and strike terror into the heart of the general populace rather than making a reasoned argument in the world of ideas to advance the ideas or ideals they hold. And before someone accuses me of being an “Islamaphobe,” I do recognize that such actions have been taken in the name of every religious and areligious movement that is known to man, including Christianity. Evil identifies itself under many labels.
Yet, the presence of terrorists in history does not and should not lesson the righteous indignation that one feels whenever one is confronted with such evil. We must never become desensitized to such wicked actions…especially when such actions are perpetrated toward our children. Yet, fear, which is the aim of terrorist actions, should also never be our response. Instead, righteous anger is the response that terrorism should illicit from us.
Through the years, Christians have struggled with the question, “How do I express anger but not fall into sin?” (Ephesians 4:26). Vengeance belongs to God (Deuteronomy 32:35) yet God has also appointed the sword to be wielded by the governments of the world that they might avenge the innocent and bring the wrongdoers to their knees (Romans 13:4). In addition, God has given us a number of psalms that are designed to be prayers by God’s people against their wicked persecutors. These are psalms of imprecation and militant war psalms, calling on God to crush the wicked and destroy every remnant of their people from the face of the earth. Some examples of such psalms would be found in Psalms 5, 41, 58, 59, 69, 79, 94, 137, and others. How do we express our righteous indignation in a Godly and prayerful way? These psalms guide our prayers and direct our righteous anger in holy ways while trusting that God will bring vengeance in his time and in his way. We ought not shy away from these in our public praying in these times of such evil.
When Huxley spoke of a brave new world, he was describing a world where people were dominated by the things that brought them pleasure and entertainment and one could argue for the prophetic insight that he demonstrated. I am choosing to use the familiar phrase in a different way. While this world seems to be filled with terrors, the answer is for all men and women, young and old, to rise up and bravely stare the wicked in the face, declaring as one people, that we will not accept such behavior in our midst. That those who stand for wicked ideologies will be hunted down and crushed by the powers that God has placed to defend the innocent and that our culture will not cave in to the demands of those who would bully or ad hominem to get their way.
What would this world look like if all matters of difference were settled by reasoned debate and where we were confident enough in our own positions that we were comfortable disagreeing with one another, yet still remain neighbors in the wider community? It seems to me that such a world is far closer to what our American forefathers envisioned than what we have today. And such a world would not stand for Radical Islamic Terrorism…or any other kind of terrorism for that matter.
“Let them be overthrown in their pride by the sin of their mouths and the words of their lips and by the curse and by the lie that they make known. Consume them in wrath! Consume them until they are nothing! Let them know that God rules over Jacob and to the ends of the earth! Selah!
(Psalm 59:13-14 {verses 12-13 in English})
The Preacher's Study 