Theological Musings

A New Home for Theological Musings!

2006-09-13T22:33:00.000-05:00

Update your links and feed subscriptions!! The blog has moved!

Before I give you the details, I need to apologize to ded because no sooner did I make him get a Blogger account to keep commenting here, then I made the decision to make a change in location! If I had known what I was about to do, I would have held off on the difficulty of making people sign up here. But over the last week, I've done a lot of thinking, and decided to go ahead and make this latest change.

So, I have changed the location of this blog. You may now read Theological Musings at my new domain name: TheologicalMusingsBlog.com. I have switched to a WordPress system, which I think, in the long run, will be a much better system for me. I can do so much more with it because it's open source and fully customizable.

For you, the reader, there are some benefits, too. For example, if you have a blog of your own, your name on comments will now link directly to your blog address instead of your Blogger profile (avoiding that frustrating two-click process to see a commenter's blog). And if you like to read the comments, but don't want to keep checking back, you can subscribe to comments for a particular post or the entire blog itself to read in your RSS reader.

So, come on over and see the new place. I even wrote a new post over there for you to read and comment on already. I've also imported this entire blog with its comments, so everything exists over there now.

For those of you who have links to me on your blogs, please update them to the new address at your convenience. I will leave this blog up indefinitely, especially since it will take me a while to clean up the links in old posts in the new format to link to that site and not this one.

See you over at the new place, I hope!

steve :)

Going too Far

2006-09-03T10:29:00.000-05:00

First of all, I must apologize for the length of time without posting. Where has the time gone?! I've been super busy with the stage company (my summer gig as Music Director) and getting my act together for the start of the fall semester at the University, as well as beginning our first year of homeschooling, and the time has just kept slipping by! But in the short time I have available this morning, I want to try to put down my thoughts on a topic that has increasingly disturbed me. That is the general topic of going too far in our beliefs, our applications, our interpretations of Scripture, etc.

To start with the typical disclaimer (i.e., this is not what I'm talking about in the upcoming paragraphs!), I recognize that application sometimes means deriving principles from Scripture and applying them to other situations. This can be completely valid, and when done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, allows us to read Scripture as much more than just a collection of stories, sayings, and sentiments. However, it is vitally important that we recognize the danger in application. That danger is the ease of crossing the line into turning a principle into a law, or turning a story into a propositional command.

For example, if I were to share the story of Nehemiah with you, and talk about how vitally important it is for a leader to continually re-cast a vision every twenty-six days, would you find that absurd? Yet, this is one of the foundational principles in Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Church. He calls it the "Nehemiah Principle". Half-way through the 52-day task of rebuilding the walls, Nehemiah had to remind the people of what they were trying to accomplish. And so, Warren turns this into a "principle" that leaders need to remind people of the vision every twenty-six days. This is taking things too far.

A valid observation from Nehemiah might be that leaders need to be aware of when their group is losing focus and remind them of the vision. Or, a valid application might be that leaders should never assume that the people with whom they work continue to follow the same vision. But to turn it into a principle based on the number of days smacks of "proof-texting". Perhaps some groups can retain their focus better than thousands of people who had been in captivity for most of their lives!

Another example was a recent comment on my post about Tim LaHaye's public comments. The comment simply said, "Dont [sic] forget the godless told Noah to sit down and shut up as well. Your words are unwise." I've already replied to that comment, but I think it bears repeating here. As far as I can tell from Scripture, we have absolutely no record of what interaction (if any) Noah had with "the godless" prior to the flood. It's a common telling of the story that includes people mocking Noah, ridiculing him for building a big boat so far away from water, etc. But it's not biblical. We can add dramatic elements to the story all we want, but we have no right to then draw application from the very things we added to the text. The extent of the revelation about Noah's time is that people were just going on with their daily lives right up until the flood came. And we know that God did not find any righteous among those who lost their lives in the flood. That's it! We must approach Scripture with the humility to say that God has not chosen to reveal anything else about that.

Yet another example is when we just pull things out of thin air (or from non-biblical analogies altogether) and then turn them into principles and teach them. For example, my wife is currently reviewing a book that is generally meant to be an instruction manual on how to be a Proverbs 31 woman. I won't give too many specifics here because she has yet to write and submit her review, and I don't want to appear to be trumping that. But there was one particular part she read to me that illustrates my point very well.

The author referenced another author's use of the metaphor of an embassy for the Christian's home. The basic idea was that when an ambassador lives in a foreign country, the embassy where that ambassador works is located in the foreign country, but is filled with sights and sounds and customs of the home country. The author went on to use this analogy to say that we should view our homes as "embassies" reflecting our true home with God. And the application of that? Everything should be kept neat, clean, orderly, and beautiful. The author went on to stipulate that this is also part of being a "good steward" of the homes God has given us.

My response to this was not a positive one at all. Why? Because the analogy itself does not even work biblically. First of all, we, not our homes, are the temple of the Holy Spirit. In fact, God does not dwell in man-made buildings (Acts 7:48) at all. So while I'm sure we can come up with other reasons why it would be helpful and beneficial to keep our homes clean, it is very inappropriate to imply that this is a requirement of properly representing God! I would like to speak even more strongly against this sly legalism, but I will refrain.

(As an ironic side note, I once saw an ad in a Christian magazine for a firm that builds church buildings. They used as part of their ad the single phrase from Acts 7:49, "What kind of house will you build for me?" If you look at that statement in context (and Isaiah 66:1 to which Stephen refers in his statements in Acts 7), you will see that God is making it clear that it is impossible for us to build any kind of dwelling for Him since He created everything. Appropriately applying this passage would more than likely put that company out of business, not be an effective marketing slogan for them!)

Let me share one final illustration of something that popped up recently in the blogosphere that turned my stomach in this regard. I don't regularly read Purgatorio, although it is frequently a humorous and fun diversion from heavy blog reading. However, recently, I was directed there by a link somewhere else to see an entry about a "Cowboy Church" here in North Carolina. Now, to be fair, I will point out that Marc, the host of Purgatorio, was not commenting one way or the other. So it is not Marc, with whom I take the biggest issue (although when pressed in the comment thread, it doesn't appear that Marc really wanted to discredit some of the vicious comments). It is some of the comments that were made with which I take issue. Here is a sampling:

WHY, WHY, WHY do we feel the need to custom-tailor everything in churches to some kind of "lifestyle"? Churches are like Barbie dolls... there’s Cowboy/Girl, Biker, Rocker… why do we care about personal affinities that matter nothing to a holy God? God never commanded us to make our services into experiences that people can "relate to". There is only one thing needful, and that is the preaching of the unvarnished Gospel. NO ONE is able to "relate to" that without the sovereign work of God in their hearts. These kinds of things make me sick. "Wow... cool... as long as they remember to put in a Bible message, then they can play cowboy dress-up all they want."

While we’re at it, let’s have "The Church of Christ for MENSA members", or how about, "The Holy Church of Christ for Computer Geeks", and "The Gardener's Fellowship of the Lord". Was the apostle Paul not concerned about factions and sects arising within the body of Christ? What if some God fearing computer geeks showed up at the cowboy church wanting to worship God? Would this cause division or unity? Should the common denominator be "cowboys", or "Christ"? Isn't this the difference between God-centered and man-centered worship?

The Lord's Day is not an option as far as I see it in the scriptures! I work as a Care Aide and am forced to work some Sundays to take care of the mentally challenged, but my heart pines to be with the people of God in church. I would council a new convert who was not employed in a work of mercy (police man, fireman, nurse etc) to seek to stop working on Sundays and be in church. It is sin to engage in work that will draw others away from church on Sundays (ie: Rodeos). I thought cowboys took a stand on principle...even if it cost them money.

I would be more comfortable if they would call it cowboy "chapel" or cowboy something else rather than cowboy "church." Church seems to imply that it is its own separate entity off to the side of the local church.

Ehh, just another way for a church to draw people to them while they can sit on their hands and wait to preach the gospel to them when they come in the door. I thank the Lord that He saves souls that way! But if men were truly devoted, they would be going to the cowboys' farm on every other day of the week and presenting the Gospel to them, and wouldn’t have to worry about making a church to suit their needs.

You get the idea. And the basic theme from all of the negative commenters is that this can't possibly be pleasing to God because it's so...so...not what we do! And since what we do must be what pleases God, well then these cowboys just need to come do our thing. And for many of them, that's the biblical position. As one commenter noted above, because this Cowboy Church meets on Tuesday nights, it's unbiblical right off the bat because it's not "The Lord's Day". And some are speaking about division. Ummm, how many of those people are part of a denominational church?!

So basically, the bottom line I'm trying to convey here is that it is quite necessary for us to search the Scriptures and find what God has revealed. And it is quite necessary for us to walk in the Spirit and be led by the Spirit. But let's not take that to a point where we begin to pile legalism on others based on something that's not even there.

Until next time,

steve :)

Important Change in Comments

2006-08-15T20:45:00.000-05:00

This is a sad day for me. It's sad because it marks an end of a particular aspect of this blog that I have really enjoyed. As I mentioned in a recent post about comments, I have always enjoyed having a free, open comments section. However, a recent anonymous comment has finally convinced me that anonymous comments are not worth the freedom.

As the old saying goes, it only takes a few anonymous commenters to ruin a good discussion on a blog. Well, ok, so I just made that up, but it should be an old saying by now! ;)

So, with my apologies to ded (one of my dearest friends and frequent commenter here) and any of my other wonderful commenters who don't have Blogger accounts, everyone who wishes to comment from now on (this has been put into effect immediately) must have a Blogger account to comment. Now, this does not cost a thing (except a few minutes of your time) and does not require you to set up your own blog. However, for those who currently don't have a Blogger account, please go to http://www.blogger.com and set up an account for yourself. You don't even have to use your real name, but you will have to create some kind of "nickname" to use.

Again, I'm very sorry to have to make this change. I guess by nature, I'm a pretty optimistic person, and I had hoped that this blog could always remain a totally free and open exchange. But I don't want to have to avoid mentioning certain topics (such as eschatology) just to fly below the radar of rabid hounds and their Google searches for key terms in those debates.

To all of my sincere commenters who haven't hid behind the cloak of anonymity, please know how grateful I am to each of you. And I realize this won't stop all the bizarre comments (some of the more bizarre ones lately have actually had Blogger accounts), but I've just had enough of some of the most slanderous comments coming from people who can't even be bothered to change the word "Anonymous" to something more useful.

Now that this change has been put in place, let's all return to edifying dialogue, shall we? :) And Lord willing, with my next post, we will!

Until next time,

~~Anonymous~~ steve :)

Hidden in My Heart: More than Memorization

2006-08-10T21:01:00.000-05:00

Most of us who have been around Christianity for any length of time probably are familiar with the verse in the Psalms which says, "I have hidden Your word in my heart so that I might not sin against You." (Psalm 119:11) And to many of us that has meant one thing: Memorize Scripture.

I guess the reasoning goes like this: When Jesus was tempted to sin, He responded with Scripture. "It is written...." Since it's highly unlikely that Jesus had a set of Old Testament scrolls and a Strongs Exhaustive Concordance in the desert with Him, we can safely assume that He had these verses memorized. And it was this memorized Scripture that He turned to in order to refute the temptation. Therefore, the thinking continues, Psalm 119:11 can best be applied to our lives by memorizing Scripture that can be used in times of temptation.

And you know what? That's not a bad idea in the least! I highly recommend it. But lately, I have begun to realize that having something in our heart is light years beyond mere memorization. Allow me to use a metaphor.

As many of you know, I'm a professional musician. I am classically trained as a pianist, but my music experience varies greatly from country to jazz to rock to classical to praise and worship. With the exception of heavy metal, I have probably done something in just about every genre, either live or in the studio. Specifically in the area of classical music, however, I often refer to knowing a piece of music "by heart". Usually, that's shorthand that many of us use (not just in music) for "I've got it memorized." But there's more to it, I think.

It might be more appropriate (although it sure would sound funny!) if we referred to memorization as "I know it by head!" Head knowledge is way different from heart knowledge. If I have something memorized, it may not have anything to do with my heart (and of course, I'm using "heart" as the common term for the emotional and spiritual center of our being).

When I know a piece of music truly "by heart", it is more than just notes that I'm playing with my fingers. The music begins to take on a life of its own. It begins to communicate with the listener. In truth, it even begins to communicate with me. Part of me becomes part of the music, and part of the music becomes part of me, if you know what I mean.

See, I had an understanding of something just this past year that I had never really thought about in over 30 years of playing the piano. Musical notation is not at all perfect. Think about it. A composer may write four quarter notes in a line of music. Every quarter note in the printed notation looks exactly alike. The value of each note, as notated, is precisely the same as the others. And yet, if I play them the way they are written (each one identical to the others), it sounds very dull and uninteresting.

When I play "by heart" (or "from the heart"), however, something happens. One note may be a bit longer than the others. One note may be a different volume than the others. Each note gets some life added to it that is in no way indicated by the printed music. Yet it becomes what the composer intended. He never intended each of those notes to be precisely identical in length, volume, etc. Not until I play the music "by heart" does it begin to find its full life.

Now, let's pull the analogy into where we started this post. What does it mean to hide the word "in my heart"? Well, if you will tolerate some more of my "out of the box" thinking on the written word, I would like to submit that, much as with written music, the words on the page don't really begin to take on their truest expression until they become part of my heart. I can tell you from very personal experience (several years in an Awana program) that it is possible to memorize Scripture and have it be as dull and as lifeless as those precisely-played, completely-equal quarter notes I mentioned in my musical analogy.

And I believe that is exactly what Jesus did not do with the Scripture. Nor do I believe that is what the Psalmist had in mind in Psalm 119. No, there is definitely a deeper level where we begin to "own" the Scripture, and it begins to "own" us. Just like with music, it is not until I put myself into that Scripture, and put that Scripture into myself that the Scripture becomes what its "Composer" intended it to be. Not what I intend it to be. But what He intends it to be.

Any musician who is worth anything knows that the goal is not merely to put his own interpretation into the music. The goal is to capture what the composer intended. May that be true of our use of Scripture, as well.

Until next time,

steve :)

Comments on the Comments

2006-08-07T11:07:00.000-05:00

First of all, let me say that it's nice to be back from vacation. While I did have some access to the internet while I was away with my wife and son, I chose to severely limit the time I spent online -- hence no major posting or commenting. I now have several hundred posts in Bloglines to sift through, but oh well!

It was really interesting to see the wide range of comments on my recent posts. Several picked up on my brief comment about no longer being a dispensational, pre-tribulationalist and voiced their agreement (or disagreement, if you're Gordon Cloud! hehe). Others refrained from commenting on the position itself (my post was not intended to be a defense of any eschatological position) and commented on the idea of "celebrity Christians." Great comments on both of those.

And then.....

One commenter simply copied and pasted an entire post from their own blog as their comment. A simple link would have been sufficient, and would have given my readers the opportunity to visit the other blog if they so desired. But why post a link when you can just copy and paste the entire post?! ;) Not to mention that the lack of any kind of formatting, even in the original post on their site, leads me to believe they might have copied and pasted it from some other blog onto their own.

And there was the self-proclaimed Messiah whose proofs I admittedly did not read in their entirety. All I know is that he was born in the year of the lamb, under the zodiac sign of the lion, making him very unique, as I'm sure there were no other births during that time period... ;)

And there were a couple of anonymous comments which basically just bashed the pre-trib position in general and Tim LaHaye in specific. (A tangential question: Did anyone feel like my post about Tim LaHaye was slanderous or in any other way inappropriate?) And it is those comments which prompt me to ask my own readers for their input.

I have made it clear on a number of threads that I do not delete comments (unless, of course, they are outright spam). If a comment was incredibly offensive (containing profanity, for example), I might consider editing it slightly and reposting it, but that has never even come up. So, I have yet to delete a comment that was anything but a duplicate post or spam.

Obviously, increased readership brings increased comments, but I've noticed that some of these comments are coming from Google searches for the topics discussed. (In other words, it is not technically "increased readership". These are more along the lines of what some bloggers refer to as "drive-by commenting".) For example, I mentioned the pre-trib rapture in another post a while ago (I have no idea which one now), and got a similar anonymous comment about searching Google for certain phrases that are guaranteed to give interesting reading material about the pre-trib rapture position. And now, when I mention it again, the same type of comment shows up, again anonymous.

Should I just delete comments like that? Should I have some guidelines for commenters that give me a basis for deletion? Or is it enough to simply respond with a comment saying that those types of comments are not desired, yet still leave it for the record? Those of you who also have blogs, how do you handle this?

Let me explain my reasoning for not deleting comments, and open it up for discussion, correction, or other viewpoints. Any of you who have read my blog (or comments elsewhere) for any length of time know that part of my philosophy regarding the body of Christ is that people should not set themselves up as "filters" for information. In other words, if we believe that people are filled with the Spirit of God, then we should not feel like we need to "protect" them from information that might counter the Spirit. Rather, we should be helping them learn how to listen to the Spirit themselves so that they can discern.

I base this idea, in part, on the example of the Apostles themselves. For example, Paul wrote to the entire citywide church (i.e., Corinth) regarding heresies that were infiltrating their fellowship. He did not simply tell the leaders to make sure to cover up the heresies and keep it under wraps. He told the entire congregation to test prophecies, etc. Similarly, John wrote to the believers (1 John) telling them to test spirits, etc., and that they didn't need anyone to teach them the things to which he referred. Likewise, the Bereans are spoken of positively in Acts for searching the Scriptures themselves to test what the Apostles were teaching.

In other words, while the elders and leaders certainly should be trying to persuade people of correct doctrine, it is not their job to actually filter the information for the people. I can find no precedent in Scripture for this (please correct me if someone knows of a passage I am missing in my thoughts here). So, if I delete a comment, just because I disagree with it, or because I think it is something that does not need to be propogated (such as self-proclaimed Messiahs or attacks on people), I feel like I would be overstepping my bounds and trying to do the the Spirit's job for Him.

Now, many blogs have "rules of engagement", either written or unwritten, to which commenters must adhere or risk being deleted. On blogs such as those, the anonymous comments about pre-tribbers would not be tolerated. But are those rules actually a hindrance to legitimate dialogue at times? For example, some blogs do not allow anonymous comments. People who comment without certain information revealed (such as name, email address, etc.) are deleted (well, their comments are deleted, not the actual people themselves, to my knowledge!) regardless of the content of the comment. The comment may include very pertinent and truthful information, or may ask legitimate questions, but the "rules" of the blog supercede the content, and so those comments are deleted. That seems to me to be antithetical to other principles that should be at play.

All that to say, I would like some feedback from my readers (even anonymously, if you choose!) with regard to all of this. Are there legitimate reasons (other than those I already mentioned) for deleting comments, thereby filtering some of the discussion? Is it a necessary step for a growing blog? Or is it possible to live differently, even in this world of blogging, and allow more true discussion to take place, even if that discussion is counter to my own thoughts and desires?

Whatever your thoughts, I do so appreciate you regular readers and commenters, and value this particular type of conversation. And for those who comment anonymously (or any of us for that matter), I would appeal to something other than a set of rules that I might come up with on my own. I would appeal to the Spirit of God's own guidelines. May we all demonstrate fruit of His indwelling in our conversation here.

Until next time,

steve :)

Would the Real Tim LaHaye Please Sit Down (and be quiet)!

2006-07-29T21:52:00.000-05:00

I'm not real big on calling Christian leaders out publicly and taking issue with them. I try to be very respectful, and especially remembering the fact that a lot of these men have paid way more of their fair share of dues in getting to the position where they are. But sometimes one just needs to speak out.

Thanks to a recent post from the JollyBlogger, an MSNBC/Newsweek interview with Tim LaHaye was brought to my attention. And frankly, I have had enough. While I certainly don't expect my little blog to bear any influence on Mr. LaHaye's agenda, I'll pretend it does and say, "Mr. LaHaye, please cease your public speaking about prophecy and the end times."

Now, a few words of disclaimer. This has nothing to do with the fact that I am no longer a dispensationalist or pre-tribber, and Mr. LaHaye is. It's the fact that what he says is not only grossly inaccurate, but takes a sharp sideswipe at large portions of the body of Christ.

For example, on page 2 of the online version of the MSNBC/Newsweek interview, the following exchange takes place between the interviewer (in bold print) and Mr. LaHaye:

[M]y understanding is that current biblical scholarship reads some of the apocalyptic scenes in the Bible as metaphorically addressing events that were taking place as the Bible was being written.
These are usually liberal theologians that don’t believe the Bible literally....Part of the opposition to our position is from the secular humanists, but part of it is from the liberal people of theology that reject the Bible. I don't see a great deal of difference between them. Their basic conclusions are often the same.

These are very interesting (and loaded) statements. Now, granted, I'm reading between the lines just a tad, but it seems to me, from reading some of LaHaye's books in the past, that when he says "liberal", he means anyone who does not believe in the pre-trib rapture. For example, several years ago, I read his book Rapture Under Attack, and was amazed at the harsh attacks he leveled against people who differ from him eschatologically. And this current interview is no different.

The whole premise behind Mr. LaHaye's teaching is that reading the Bible literally necessitates a pre-trib rapture belief, and if you reject the pre-trib rapture belief, you do not take the Bible literally. Consequently, he can summarily write off anyone who differs with him, as he did in this interview, as those who "reject the Bible". Mr. LaHaye, nothing could be further from the truth!

In fact, it should be noted that even Mr. LaHaye's interpretation of Revelation is not consistent in interpreting things literally. Just as one very small example, LaHaye believes that Revelation 4:1 is speaking of the rapture of the Church. Yet Rev. 4:1 only speaks of John being called up into heaven to view what was to happen. Reading that literally would necessitate a simple, clear interpretation that John was called up into heaven. Yet LaHaye departs from the literal meaning there and inserts his interpretation that it is a metaphor of the rapture of the Church.

Now, the point of this post is not to argue against pre-tribulationalism. Maybe we can talk about that in another post, if my readers care to. But the point I want to make here is that Mr. LaHaye has worn out his welcome as a spokesman for Christianity, and has elevated what should be considered, at best, a secondary issue (eschatology), to the position of primary doctrine. And consequently, he's out there telling reporters that the current conflict in the Middle East is proof that his viewpoint is correct.

And those who disagree with him are slandered in statements such as the following (the conclusion of the abridged interview linked above):

I would say that [a particular critic is] just betraying his poverty of faith. If he had faith in the Bible, faith in the future and Jesus Christ, he’d recognize that our passion is just like the theme song in our books: we don’t want anybody to be left behind.

Now, I do have some questions as to the authenticity of Mr. LaHaye's closing statement. He claims that his "passion" is that he doesn't want anybody to be left behind. Now, I'm sure that to a certain extent, that is true. But if that was really what was driving him, why did he file a lawsuit against the makers of the "Left Behind" movie? Why does he feel that he has to spend time and energy attacking those who disagree with his eschatology, rather than just getting the word out to people? Quite honestly, if he really believes that this is the end, why not just give his books away so that more people can be reached, and nobody will be "left behind"? But instead, the money keeps rolling in, and predictably, LaHaye says, "I think it's a God thing. God has just chosen to bless this series." Apparently, God didn't bless the lawsuit.

In my opinion, Tim LaHaye is in the same category as Pat Robertson, whose public statements do more to embarrass the body of Christ than to bear witness to the Kingdom. So when LaHaye comments on the current Middle East conflict by saying, "Biblically speaking, the very nations that are mentioned in prophecy—and have been mentioned for 2,500 years as occupying the focus of the tension of the last days—are the very nations that are involved in the conflict right now", it smacks of sensationalism.

So, Mr. LaHaye, please take your seat and refrain from commenting on current events. Your 15 minutes of fame is long over.

Until next time,

steve :)

Painting the Outside of the Tomb

2006-07-28T22:43:00.000-05:00

I want to talk about a very touchy, emotional issue for a lot of people. I know this will be difficult to talk about tactfully, but I really feel like I can't hold back my opinion on this much longer. It has to do with the idea that it is the responsibility of Christians to make sure that morality is enforced by our government.

Now, I do realize that I have a couple of non-USA readers, so I want to apologize ahead of time to them for this decidedly US-centric post. But since I'm a citizen of the USA and I live here in the USA, and most of my readers...well, you get the idea.

Let me start with a little story. Last November or December, I was speaking to a Christian brother about someone we both knew who was unsaved. This third party also happened to be an admitted homosexual. The comment that my Christian brother made to me was with regard to trying to witness to this other person. He said, "How do you tell someone, 'Hey, I'd like you to worship my God, and oh, by the way, He totally disapproves of your lifestyle'?"

My response was rather simple: You don't. You witness to the Gospel, and you let the Holy Spirit do the convicting (John 16:8). Yet it seems that so many Christians in America are determined that we must make sure that sinners know that God hates their sin. And to make sure they know, we want to fight to pass legislation that makes it illegal for them to participate in their sin. And if they do choose to participate, we want to make sure that they get no civil or social benefits from their open rebellion against our God.

And this is where I fear we have missed the mark. In my opinion, legislating morality amounts to painting the outside of a tomb. It looks real nice on the outside, but it's still full of dead bones. And meanwhile, we have succeeded in telling people what we (and God) are against, without really sharing the Gospel with them to begin with.

Don't get me wrong. I believe the Bible when it says that homosexuality is unnatural behavior. But as some homosexuals have pointed out, why aren't we, as Christians, campaigning as actively to make divorce illegal as we are to make homosexual marriage permanently illegal? This is, in my opinion, a valid question.

Recently, I caught a snippet of Chuck Colson (I believe it was his Breakpoint program) commenting about the consitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, and how we need to make sure that amendment still gets pushed through. He stated that we needed to stop this "attack on marriage".

Likewise, when I was discussing my thoughts about this with some other Christians, they said, "So you think we shouldn't stop gay people from getting married? What are you going to do when they tell you that your marriage is not legal anymore because it's a heterosexual marriage?"

Well, my response to that is quite simple, too: I don't depend on the government to tell me that my marriage to Christy is legitimate. My marriage is something that is valid in the eyes of God. In the same way that I won't stop worshipping with my fellow believers if Christian worship ever becomes illegal in the United States, I do not put my trust in the government to "protect my marriage".

So what should we be doing as believers in our culture? This is not an easy question to answer, because it's not really a simple question. Recently, one of my blogging friends, Brad (aka Broken Messenger), talked about the issue of politics, and in reading some of his other thoughts, I came across an article he wrote last November about politics in the life of the Christian. In this very thought-provoking article and resulting discussion, Brad wrote:

...[I]n the wake of each of [the apostle]’s lives the face of the Roman Empire was changed without a single piece of legislation passed, a single election won, a victorious revolt or the successful expulsion of a single ruler or senator of the establishment. The apostles sought after the hearts of men for Christ by living Christ, and their legacies changed the world.

Now, to be sure, Brad does make certain to point out that he's not saying we should not participate in the political process (i.e., vote based on our conscience, etc.), but makes a very true statement when he says, "No one has ever [found] or will ever find eternal life through the passing of a ballot measure."

Even more recently, Raborn Johnson wrote about the differences between the kingdoms of this world and the Kingdom of God. In his post, he concludes with a very challenging question:

Could it be that we have overestimated the power of fleshly ideas to change the hearts of people, while underestimating the power of God's love shown through believers corporately, and individually to accomplish the same purpose?

I think the answer is "yes". As Christians in America, I fear we have swung so far to the side of political action, even to the point of using church services to rally people around certain legislative actions. I find this incredibly concerning.

May the Lord give us wisdom to know how to live our lives within our culture in such a way that men are drawn to the flame of the Holy Spirit burning within us. If that becomes the case, we will see true, genuine change take place in our culture in a way that no legislation could ever accomplish. Let's put our faith solidly in the power of God to change lives through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then true life will reside within those whom we attempt to reach, and we will not merely have a freshly-painted tomb.

Until next time,

steve :)

Reflections on One Year of Blogging

2006-07-20T08:13:00.000-05:00

It seems customary for people to mark the anniversary of their blog each year. I don't fully understand why, but I guess I'll be the lemming that I try not to be and follow the crowd on this.

So here it is, one year since I wrote my first post here on Blogger. At the time, I had no idea what would happen. I didn't know if anyone would read or what. As it turns out, I have had a very fun year of it.

There have been a few surprises along the way. Like who would have thought that a blog that writes from a simple church perspective would attract several institutional pastors as regular readers and commenters?! :) But Ray and Gordon, I love you guys, and thank you for the very edifying and uplifting dialogues here. You two, especially, have done a lot to keep me hopeful in a lot of areas.

Another surprise has been seeing which posts resonated, and which ones didn't. Sometimes I would write something that I thought was really interesting and provocative, and not too many people would engage. But on the other hand, the post that seems to have gotten the most attention, and was definitely the most "linked-to" post of this first year was one that I never really even wrote for anyone else but myself. That was A Blogger's Version of 1 Corinthians 13. Somehow, it got passed around and linked to, and resulted in some really encouraging comments. I still shake my head in amazement at that.

At any rate, this whole experience so far has been everything I thought it would be and nothing at all like I thought it would be! But I look forward to the next year, and the next year, and however long I have the privilege of sharing my thoughts with you in this fashion.

Adrian Warnock, a blogger I have admired for a while now because of his gracious spirit and tone, recently wrote about the topic of being an "influential blogger". He writes:

You see, we need to be loving towards our readers and leave them with a positive impression. Sure, it's easier to get a lot of comments with an aggressive "nasty" post, but is it consistent with Christian love?

In agreement with Adrian, I hope that your time here is edifying, beneficial, encouraging, and challenging in your walk with Jesus. May God receive all of the glory from this.

Until next time,

steve :)

Is Subjectivity Always a Bad Thing?

2006-07-15T22:16:00.000-05:00

It's interesting what you learn when you start asking questions and seeking answers. I'm coming up on the first anniversary of this blog (July 20), and it's been an interesting year of learning. Not just learning things in response to my questions, but learning what others think. Sometimes, I have learned very painfully what others think of the questions I ask. And sometimes I find out that some people just don't want to hear any questions asked.

What always amuses me, though, is how people want to figure out what box to put me in so they can label me and then dismiss my thoughts. And the funny thing is that many times, I've never even heard of the boxes until I'm put in them.

Take postmodernism, for example. Several months ago, I started seeing the word "pomo" used on some blogs. It took me a while to even find out what the word stood for. I figured out really quickly that it was used in a rather derogatory way, but finding out what it was short for was just the start of my learning.

Once I found out that "pomo" was short for "postmodernism", then I had to find out what postmodernism was. I have found that the concept of "postmodernism" has very different definitions, depending on who is doing the defining. To a lot of Christians, "postmodernism" is the evil trend in our culture to deny any absolute truth and leave everything up to "personal interpretation". It seems to be characterized by those opposed to it as something that resists truth and certainty, and instead wants to leave all options open.

While I have no interest in defending postmodernism, I'm not necessarily sure it's all that its critics say it is. But whether or not it is, it seems easy for people to want to shove me (and people like me) into a box labeled "pomo" and then dismiss us as being an enemy of the Gospel. Well, ok, so maybe they don't go that far in their assessment (at least not to my face), but the responses I get sometimes on other blogs (and an occasional comment that will pop up here on this blog from people other than my regular commenters) indicate that my questions cause major doubt in their minds as to my dedication to the absolute truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

One of the responses that so frequently heads this direction is an accusation that I am advocating for subjectivity, and therefore am rejecting the objective truth of God's revelation. So I wanted to take a moment to talk about subjectivity and how it relates to our Christianity. In order to do so, one must sort through some implications of subjectivity as that term is used in theological discussions.

Subjectivity, in most discussions of this nature, appears to be rejected as a postmodern approach of lack of absolutes. In other words, as I have pointed out in the recent discussion on the role of Scripture (part 1, part 2, and part 3), and as some comments showed in reply to my thoughts, many think that I am advocating for something so subjective that there is 1) no accountability, and 2) no canon (measure) with which to evaluate the legitimacy of the experience or belief.

There is this polarization of two extremes: One purports to be a completely objective, propositional approach to theology. This is the approach that thinks that anything we know about God can only be known through reading the Bible. By coming to the right conclusions as to what the text says, we are left with clear statements of propositional truth (i.e., either true or false, but no room for in-between). The other polarized position is a rejection of all objective truth, and just going on feelings or "being led by the Spirit" in a way in which no one is permitted to question our experience because "God led me" or "God told me".

As most of my regular readers can predict, my response to that is that there is a middle ground between the two polar opposites. And that leads us to the question in the title of this post: Is subjectivity always a bad thing?

Recently, I began reading a book by Carl Raschke entitled The Next Reformation. I have not gotten very far into the book, so I'm not prepared to comment on the book overall. But one quote jumped off the page at me. (This is from page 19 of the paperback version)

The theme of subjective truth, properly understood, has been far more congenial to the expansion of the gospel through the ages than any canon of propositional certitude. When evangelical believers undergo conversion...and offer their own lives to Christ in a personal profession of faith, it is rarely the result of anyone having convinced them through careful and flawless reasoning that Jesus is their Savior. It is usually because God ministering as the Holy Spirit has grappled with them in their private depths of confusion and doubt and given them a whole new inner lease on life. Paul may have convinced a few Athenian citizens that the "Unknown God" they were worshipping was in fact the living Creator. But Paul himself was not drawn to Christianity because some philosopher offered a better argument than the Stoics, Cynics, or Epicureans of his time. Saul of Tarsus became Paul the apostle because the resurrected Lord encountered him on the road to Damascus, said only a few soul-wrenching words to him, and left him speechless and dumbstruck.

In other words, the very experience of conversion itself is subjective. Yes, there is objective truth involved, but it also includes a subjective experience. I know of few Christians who would be willing to deny that. And yet, somehow, once a person is saved, we want them to shun all subjectivity and subscribe to a series of propositional statements in order to show "maturity" in their faith. Especially to most cessationists (sorry, Gordon, and other regular readers who are still cessationists), the idea of personal experience becomes very mistrusted. If someone claims to be "led by God" toward a certain decision, some Christians mock that and claim that this "leading" denies the sufficiency of Scripture as the "rule" for our lives.

One of the points that I made in my posts about the role of Scripture is that, while Scripture claims to be "profitable", I do not see a claim by Scripture itself to be "sufficient". When we say that Scripture is "sufficient" for making decisions, living a life pleasing to God, etc., we rule out the subjective experience of the Holy Spirit in our lives. And I think that this is making a huge mistake.

As a means of definition, allow me to quote from Webster's New World Dictionary for the terms "objective" and "subjective":

objective -- of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject, or person thinking; hence, being, or regarded as being, independent of the mind

subjective -- of, affected by, or produced by the mind or a particular state of mind; of or resulting from the feelings or temperament of the subject, or person thinking, rather than the attributes of the object thought of

While these definitions may make it sound like subjectivity is something to be steadfastly avoided, we must remember that part of the experience of the believer is a renewal of the mind, and a partaking of the mind of Christ. Thus, the very subjective experience of the believer is, itself, subject to the Spirit of God.

The necessary conclusion of the cessationist argument is that any subjective experience recorded in Scripture is not a model for us today because we have the full revelation in Scripture. Yet in many situations, we see people being led in Scripture based on a relationship with God that surpasses mere words on a page.

For example, God led Abraham to leave his homeland and go to the land which God would show him. Abraham's servant gave praise to God (Genesis 24:27) for leading him in the search for Isaac's wife-to-be. Romans 8:14 talks about us being "led by the Spirit of God". The book of Acts records several situations where believers sought God's leading in a particular situation. For example, in Acts 15, we read in verse 28 that the leaders of the church determined that a particular consensus decision "seemed right to the Holy Spirit and to [them]". This is just to mention a small handful of examples.

Another point worth making at this juncture is the information from God in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:33 and shown to be applied to the New Covenant in Hebrews 10:16) that there was coming a day when he would write His law on our hearts. This is in contrast to the law that was written by God on stone (and given to Moses to give to the people).

The fullness of revelation (according to Hebrews 1:1-2), as I have mentioned before, is Jesus Christ Himself. And Paul references "Christ in you, the hope of glory" in Colossians 1:27. So, if the pattern in Scripture is an experience that includes both objective and subjective, culminating in a personal indwelling of us by Jesus Christ, why should our position be any different? Why should this point in the story of God's interaction with man be anything less than what went before us?

This in no way advocates a system where there is no accountability for what someone claims God led them to do. We continue to have ways of testing what is said and done (i.e., against the written revelation given to us, against the testimony of the Spirit within us, etc.), and we must use those tools given to us. But at the same time, we should not shun the work of the Holy Spirit in leading those of us who are children of God through whatever means He chooses to use.

Until next time,

steve :)

Some Closing Thoughts on the View of Scripture

2006-06-28T08:29:00.000-05:00

The last two posts have generated some really deep discussion, and not a little discomfort on the part of some! For those of you who have participated, thank you for taking the time to talk through this topic.

Ray commented that he wasn't sure where we were headed with some of this discussion, and so I want to take a few minutes to sort of wrap up some of my thoughts on this subject, and then see where we go from there. Admittedly, the subject has introduced a few rabbit trails, and there is way too much temptation to chase all of those trails!

As I mentioned in a brief response to Ray, much of this discussion (from my standpoint) is a reaction against my own perception of what could be called "bibliolatry". Specifically, I have been put off by the insistence by some on other blogs that we have a relationship with a book, and the reference to the book itself as "the living word of God". (For some other interesting reading on this problem, see this essay by the Internet Monk.)

I'm trying to find the balance (middle-ground) position of respecting the writings for what they are, and seeing them as a means to a relationship and revelation of Jesus Christ Himself.

Like with some other doctrines, I think we (and by "we" here, I mean Christianity as a whole) settle on certain points of doctrine, deduced from what has been revealed, and then over time, those deductions become as firm in our collective minds as the word of God itself. Eventually, we build other deductions on those previous deductions, but continue to say that it is "clearly taught in Scripture".

I fear sometimes that the sola scriptura position of the Reformers, in reaction to the convoluted (at least in their mind) elevation of Tradition by the RCC, was a healthy position that, over the last 450 years has evolved into an unhealthy "worship" of the revelation that is designed to point us to the true object of worship -- Jesus.

In other words, if we step back and look at the "forest" (the over-arching story of God's dealing with man) instead of the "trees" (the little stories that take place at any point in time), we see a desire on God's part to have face-to-face interaction with His people.

God walked in the Garden after Adam sinned, saying, "Adam where are you?" Then, after selecting a people for Himself, He called all of them to the mountain. They were scared, and asked Moses to represent them and tell them what God said. This set in motion centuries and centuries of prophets speaking the word of God to the people.

Finally, God comes in human flesh Himself and reveals Himself to us through the person of Jesus. And through the written Scripture, we can come to a place where we can believe the testimony of those who saw Him and walked with Him and talked with Him. And through their report, then, we can come to a place of knowing Him ourselves.

When we then know Him (and I don't want to, for this moment, get bogged down in Calvinistic vs. Arminian language, so bear with me while I just write from my heart here!), He has promised to indwell us -- this is the "hope of glory"...Christ dwells in us!!

We, on this side of the incarnation, have something available to us that was only foreshadowed in the Old Testament! Based on what I see in the prophets, God has followed through on His promises (more physical fulfillment still to come, I believe) of dwelling with us, writing His law on our hearts, etc.

If our handling of Scripture does not lead us to this kind of intimacy, then we have mishandled the Scriptures, I believe. And it is this perceived mishandling that I am reacting to.

It's not that anyone here has promoted this idea, or anything like that. I'm reacting to what I have seen and heard for many years, and more recently in the blogosphere.

Dan Phillips, in the post that started this mess, claims that we cannot "know" anything about Jesus other than what we have in the Bible. And there is an immensely strong reaction against anyone who says that we can know Him in any way apart from what we read.

But if this is true, Jesus never needed to come in the flesh. And, quite frankly, we really don't need the Holy Spirit inside of us. If all that is needed for a relationship with the Father is a book, we already had that! And this is where the doctrine of inspiration can start to actually cause some difficulty. Because the Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit, we need the Holy Spirit to "illumine" the text for us, and teach us what it means. But to be rather blunt, Scripture itself does not mention anything about the Spirit "illuminating" the written Word.

Yes, yes, He uses that word as part of the process. Don't ever think that I'm arguing against that. But to restrict His work to that goes beyond what is actually revealed in Scripture itself. And that's one of the basic points I've been trying to make in this. We cannot let our derived doctrines then force us to a position that goes beyond what the text says to begin with!

But as soon as someone mentions this kind of idea of an intimate relationship, it is assumed that we are talking about wacky, subjective insanity. The mockery of Dan Phillips to my questions about the Holy Spirit show either 1) fear of something greater than he is willing to acknowledge, or 2) lack of understanding of what God revealed in Jesus.

When Paul talked about knowing Jesus, I don't believe he was referring merely to knowing facts about him. He was not referring to reading historical accounts about Jesus. I believe he was speaking to an intimate knowledge of a relationship with Jesus. The metaphors that Jesus Himself used (such as the vine and branches in John 15) reflect a relationship that is far different from a relationship with a book.

This position does not equate to "discontentment" with anything that God has given. To be misrepresented as such shows an unwillingness by the critic to even consider the merits of this position. And I would humbly suggest that there are merits for this position within the very Bible from which some claim to get all of their doctrine. We can look at those together, if anyone is interested, but quite frankly, I don't think you need me to spell it out! :)

Until next time,

steve :)

More on the Proper View of Scripture

2006-06-26T22:18:00.000-05:00

In response to my last post, frequent commenter Gordon Cloud wrote:

I think that ultimately we must ask ourselves, "What is the Word of God?"

Regular readers of my blog already know that one of the things that marks my blog is a willingness (some might even say "eagerness") to ask the hard questions and challenge the status quo. I hope, however, that you all understand that this tendency in me is not just an attempt to question for the sake of questioning. It is how I think through issues and work through beliefs. And it's a practice that refreshes me, even if it annoys some of my readers! ;)

So, when I read Gordon's comment, it struck a chord with me, because I was already heading in that direction. Let's start by taking a look at some common teachings and assumptions in the body of Christ today:

The term "Word of God", with the exception of in the context of John 1 refers to the Bible.
Any references to "word" (such as Psalm 119:9-16, Psalm 119:89, Psalm 138:2, John 17:17, Colossians 3:16, James 1:22, etc.) are references to our Bible
When Paul says that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), he is referring to the sixty-six books of the canon that we call the Bible
The Bible is the complete word of God to us today, and contains 100% of the instructions we need for life (this belief is called "the sufficiency of Scripture")
We are commanded in Scripture to study the Bible (2 Timothy 2:15 in the KJV) in order to show that we are "approved workmen" and so that we can "rightly divide" the Scriptures.

Now, I must first of all say that I am not automatically saying that all of these notions are bad. Nor am I even saying that they are all totally wrong. But I think we owe it to ourselves to take a step back and look at what we are really saying, and make sure that we are speaking accurately. With that in mind, I want to take a look at some of these points and see how they hold up.

As with most of my posts, I'm "thinking out loud" here, and welcome any comments, even in disagreement. I sincerely hope I don't lose readers on this one, but hopefully most of you will give me the grace to talk through this, and may even talk through it with me.

Do all (or even any) references to "word of God" refer to our Bible? To answer this question, we need to be aware of a few things. First of all (and I already mentioned some of this in the comments on the previous post), there are generally two Greek words that are often translated as "word" in the New Testament. They are familiar to most, and are logos and rhema. I have often heard it said that logos refers to the written word, while rhema refers to the spoken word. However, this does not hold water in New Testament usage. For example, in Matthew 8:8 the centurion says to Jesus, "Just say the word", which is the Greek word logos. Unless he was asking Jesus to quote from the Old Testament, I think it's rather difficult to say that logos is a written word there.

Getting back to the question at hand, though, if references to "word" in Scripture referred to our Bible, then the fact remains that every usage of that in the Bible would have to be prophetic in nature. In other words, when David says, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet", he would have to be referring to a future "word", including the sentence that he had just penned. Now, I am entirely willing to concede the idea that David could have been speaking prophetically to some extent, but the context of his statements (especially all the many references in Psalm 119) doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, if the meaning is mostly prophetic.

Even beyond David, however, what of all the references to "the word" in the New Testament? When Paul wrote to Timothy and said, "Preach the word", was he talking about expositional preaching? Was he referring to preaching the Bible? Even if he was, what "Bible" did Timothy have? It was only the Old Testament. (Somehow, I have difficulty picturing Timothy preaching expositorally from Paul's letter to him, but that's beside the point!)

As I have noted in previous comments, there is a bit of an anachronism for us to assume that "word" in the Bible refers to our "completed canon". And this is demonstrated even more so by the fact that translations such as the NASB translate both logos and rhema as "message" on more than one occasion. I think the translators understand something. It is not so much the specific books that we have canonized that are the "word of God", but the message that is contained within them.

Now, I realize this flies in the face of many popular evangelical notions about inspiration and inerrancy, but for that I'm not sure I can really apologize. If looking at what the Bible actually says causes us to rethink our popular notions, than by all means, let's rethink them! Many would draw a very clear distinction between saying the Bible is the word of God vs. the Bible contains the word of God. And those who would draw that distinction most likely would say that the former is the "correct" view, while the latter somehow demeans the value of Scripture.

So, since I've brought up the subject of inspiration, let's look at that with relation to the topic at hand. The classic "proof" of inspiration of the Scripture is Paul's statement to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16. In this verse, we read that "all Scripture" is inspired by God. This statement is (again, anachronistically) extrapolated out to refer to the sixty-six books we hold in our bound Bibles. But I think we need to be really honest here and look at what Paul actually says. (I realize I'm stepping on toes, but please hear me out!) Let's look at the context in 2 Timothy 3:14-17. I'll use the NASB here:

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

When Paul says "all Scripture", to what is he referring? I believe that the best interpretation is to see this as a reference to the "sacred writings" of the previous sentence. And again, what would these sacred writings have been? The Old Testament. This is what Timothy had been studying.

Now, am I arguing against an inspired New Testament? Honestly, no. At least not at this point! But let me say that I don't believe we are completely straightforward in our normal evangelical treatment of this topic. For example, when Paul states to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 7:25 that he does not have a command from the Lord, but gives his opinion, we have only two possible interpretations as it relates to the doctrine of inspiration.

Paul really was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but just didn't know it, and so he thought he was giving his opinion.
Paul knew that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but said it was his opinion anyway.

Now, unfortunately, in both of these scenarios, someone is either lying or being manipulative. (Hang with me, folks. I know this is difficult.) If Paul was being inspired by the Holy Spirit to write this statement, and the Holy Spirit told him to write that it was his opinion only, the Holy Spirit is being deceptive. Obviously, I reject this idea immediately! But that leaves the other possible alternative that Paul himself was being deceptive. Unless we consider a third possible alternative: Could it be that, at least in that sentence, Paul really is writing his own opinion and is not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I'll leave my horrified readers to think through the implications of that alternative. ;)

Suffice it to say that I don't believe the doctrine of inspiration is completely honest about situations like that one. There also seems to be a distinct difference between Old Testament writers who fully understood they were writing "the word of God" and New Testament authors such as Paul who seem to be fully unaware that they are writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

How does all this relate to the issue at hand? Quite simply that we have to be careful in casually applying 2 Timothy 3:16 to the canon itself. (Please note that I am not saying it is impossible! I just think that we have to be honest about the problems it presents.)

This post is getting lengthy, and most of my regular readers have stopped reading by now and taken any links to my site off their blogs, I'm sure! hehe So let me wrap up by looking at the last of my initial bullet points.

Are we commanded to "study" the Scripture? Is studying the Scripture a way of proving anything to God? Does it make us "approved" in His sight? 2 Timothy 2:15 is the key verse for the AWANA program in so many churches. AWANA stands for "Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed" and their entire program is based on Scripture memory.

Well, I took some time yesterday and today to look at this verse. Once again, I have this annoying feeling that what I've been taught for so many years does not necessarily stand up to scrutiny. You see, nowhere else in the New Testament do the translators of the KJV translate that Greek word (spoudazo) as "study". In fact, that same word appears in the same form (imperative) two other times in the very same letter to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:9 and 2 Timothy 4:21). And in neither case did the translators use "study". In fact, it would not have made any sense. In both of these other verses, they translated it as "Do thy diligence", presumably a 17th-century way of saying "Be diligent".

So, if that is the case, why would it be any different in 2 Timothy 2:15? To this end, the translators of the NASB chose "Be diligent" as the translation in 2:15. In the chapter 4 case, they used "Make every effort". Same concept. This seems so much more consistent to me, and makes sense. Paul wasn't telling Timothy to try to excel in Scripture memory. (In fact, Timothy probably already had huge portions of the Scripture memorized since he had been taught it from a very early age.) Why would Paul tell someone who has already been diligently studying the Scriptures to "study" those same Scriptures? That seems odd to me. But the idea of being diligent to be an approved workman fits nicely with a lot of what Paul wrote elsewhere (such as his analogy of running the race, etc.) in his letters.

So what does this all mean? I've thrown a lot of information out there, with probably a lot more questions than answers. However, let me sum up a few bullet points of where I'm currently heading in my thinking:

Jesus' statement to the Pharisees in John 5:39 shows us the danger of making Scripture the focus of our study as opposed to Jesus Himself. The life does not come through the Scriptures, but rather through the One to Whom the Scriptures point.
As Paul mentioned to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15, Scripture is "able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus". In other words, it is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
The "word" that is referenced so often in the New Testament seems much more related to the actual message contained in the Scriptures, not the very Scriptures themselves. And specifically, it is the message of Jesus Christ. To whatever extent we teach or preach (regardless of church system), it seems to me that we must be preaching and teaching the message of Christ. And while it is true that Paul said Scripture is useful for teaching, doctrine, instruction in righteousness, etc., it is the relationship with the living Word, Jesus Himself, and the indwelling Holy Spirit that we are to move toward.

You see, Paul didn't say that Scripture was the only thing, or that it was "sufficient". He said it was "useful" (or "profitable") for these things. I challenge each of my readers to try very hard not to go beyond what the Bible says about itself in formulating our view of the Bible itself.

From that standpoint, I find it ironic that Dan Phillips accused me of being "fascinated and enthralled with the blank spaces in between the lines of Scripture." It would seem that those who elevate Scripture to the point of it being an end in itself (even claiming to have a relationship with the Scriptures) are adding their own thoughts in between the lines of Scripture.

Until next time,

steve :)

What Is the Proper View of Scripture?

2006-06-23T09:37:00.000-05:00

This is definitely going to be one of those "thinking out loud" posts. Let me set up the discussion with this information to bring my readers up to speed:

The other day, there was a post on Pyromaniacs entitled How we "do" Christianity, and the reverse. It dealt with a comment the author had come across which said basically that Christianity is not a relationship with a book, but is a relationship with God. Dan Phillips, the author of this particular Pyro post, wrote in conclusion:

So do we have fellowship with writings, or with God?

It's a false dichotomy.

God tells us that we have fellowship with Him by means of the words that He moved men to write.

To the degree that something else, some other method or direction, entralls us -- to that degree, we are no longer "doing" Christianity.

In the comments section that followed, I attempted to try to understand what role the Holy Spirit plays in all of this in the daily life of the believer. I was soundly ravaged by Mr. Phillips for apparently being a TBN-wannabe (TBN as in Trinity Broadcasting Network) fringe heretic who is "fascinated and enthralled with the blank spaces in between the lines of Scripture."

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I fully acknowledge that, in the past, I have been a part of a regular broadcast on TBN, albeit as a keyboard player and not a "theologian". But my appearance as a musician on that network does not, in any way, serve as my endorsement of all the teaching that comes from that network. In fact, I would have to say that, generally speaking, I do not endorse most of what is taught on TBN.

Even while I've been writing this post, Mr. Phillips has jumped in with more sweeping accusations against me, saying that I have demonstrated a "disdain" for the written word of God. Unfortunately, Mr. Phillips mistakes difference with his interpretation of particular verses to be disdain for God's word itself.

Despite all that, I think that this really is a legitimate discussion for us to be having, and in particular I wanted to respond to something written by Mike Young in our discussion there. Mike has definitely taken the level-headed approach in handling my questions, and I started to type a response to him. However, my response got so lengthy that I figured it was better to take it up here. Besides, I would like to get input from my other readers on this topic.

In one of the comments on that lengthy discussion, I wrote:

God does not hide behind a book. He does not limit Himself to only giving us a book.... The ultimate revelation of God was in Jesus. Yes, we learn a lot about Jesus through the Bible, but the goal (by Jesus' own words, as recorded in Scripture) is for us to be "in Him" and for Him to be "in us".

Like it or not, there is a danger of putting the written "Word of God" above the actual, living Word of God, which is Jesus. And if you want to hold to a belief that the only way the Holy Spirit works today is through pointing us back to the Word, I just don't see how you get that from Scripture itself.

Mike wrote the following in response to me (specifically in response to the very last sentence in my quote above):

You really are arguing against scripture, even if you don't think you are. And I'm really not trying to attack you on this, so I hope you'll be patient with my observation....Apart from scripture, how do we know we're in him? Again, 1John dealt with this and instructs us to test such spirits to see whether they're of God. I previously asked how we were to do this. Well, it's through the scriptures. John makes this clear in chapter 5. It was the purpose for even writing the epistle.

Following is the response that I composed to Mike.

Mike, thank you for your response. You and I actually are not very much in disagreement at all. In fact, I think any disagreement between us at this point on this issue may possibly be semantics.

There is one paragraph that I'm not positive I fully understand what you're saying, and so I would like to clarify, if possible:

Apart from scripture, how do we know we're in him? Again, 1John dealt with this and instructs us to test such spirits to see whether they're of God. I previously asked how we were to do this. Well, it's through the scriptures. John makes this clear in chapter 5. It was the purpose for even writing the epistle.

I don't disagree at all that the writing of the epistle was for the purpose of instructing in assurance of eternal life. But his epistle (to my reading -- correct me if I'm missing something else here) does not point merely to the written word. He says in verse 10 of chapter 5 that anyone who believes in the Son of God "has this testimony in himself" (NASB...the NIV says "in his heart"...Greek has just the reflexive pronoun).

Now, I may be way off base here, but it sounds to me a lot like what God talked about in the Old Testament when He said that there was coming a day when He would write His law on our hearts.

Again, this does not in any way negate the written word, because it is through that written word that we are introduced to Jesus (since none of us were alive at that time when He was physically here!), and we have some of His teaching recorded in the written Bible.

But it seems like the thrust of the biblical writers is that the life that comes through Jesus (actually, the life that is Jesus) becomes more than just studying written words on a page. It becomes a life within us. Simply put, the written word is not the end in and of itself, but the means to that end. (And to that extent, you are correct that the bulk of my argumentation has been against an incorrect elevating of the written word. We are in agreement on that.)

Now, I really do understand that this causes grave concern for many. But let me use your own analogy to show my side, too. You said that the KJVO folks unhealthily elevate the written word, specifically the KJV. Fully agreed. And you likewise cautioned against writing off the idea of living by the Scriptures based on their distortion of it. Again, agreed.

But the same holds true for an understanding of an indwelling Holy Spirit. Just because TBN and other "crazymatics" (as another blogger recently termed it) have gone overboard with "thus saith the Lord" should not negate the reality that we are to walk by the Spirit.

Let me explain a bit more what I mean by those words, because I do not believe that walking by the Spirit comprises a 1:1 relationship with simply following the "letter" of the written Word. (That is absolutely and positively a part of it.)

What I have a hunch is being taught in Scripture, and is sort of my "working hypothesis" in this subject (and please note the word "working", because I am not claiming to have all this figured out by any stretch of the imagination) is this: The process in which a believer/disciple of Jesus Christ grows in maturity is one in which the written word forms a foundational aspect to knowing the voice of Jesus and learning what life in the Spirit looks like. But, as a believer matures in their walk, and "practices" (not the best word) walking in the Spirit in their daily living, it seems to me that more and more of their understanding and guidance comes from the Spirit's voice within them, not only the written word.

In other words, when they encounter a situation or a decision or a question, it's not so much, "Well, let me search the Bible and see what God already said about it" as it is a sense in which they are so familiar with what God has already said that they can discern quite readily whether this new situation/decision/question is of God or not.

Jesus said that His sheep know His voice. By that, I don't really think He was merely saying that His sheep would have a correct doctrine of inspiration so that they would trust the written word.

So I open it up to Mike (if he comes over and reads this) or any of my other readers. What, if anything, does Scripture say about its own "sufficiency"? And what role should the Scripture play in the ongoing life of the believer?

Until next time,

steve :)

Cherry Cobbler and Simple Church

2006-06-20T09:47:00.000-05:00

Last Monday (June 12) was our second wedding anniversary. Two years of being married to God's gracious and wonderful gift to me named Christy. And to celebrate our anniversary, we were blessed enough to have the opportunity to get away to a quiet little cabin for a couple of nights. (I was very happy that our anniversary fell on a Monday this year, which is my only full "day off" from the theater productions I do during the summer. Additionally, since we are currently in production with a show, and not in rehearsals, I was off from 4:30 on Sunday until 7:00 PM Tuesday, so we were able to be away for more than just a day. When we're rehearsing a show, it's 10-6 Tuesday through Sunday, so I would have only had from 6:00 Sunday until 10:00 AM Tuesday. But I digress...)

One of the activities that we had decided to do on our little mini-vacation was to visit Levering Orchard near Ararat, VA. In recent months, we had read a book called Simple Living written by the owners of that orchard, Frank Levering and Wanda Urbanska. Since the orchard was only about a 45-minute drive from our cabin, we took time Monday morning to drive up there and pick sweet cherries.

After climbing tall ladders and picking about 21 pounds of cherries, we enjoyed a leisurely lunch and stroll in Mt. Airy, NC, stopped at the grocery store, and then headed back to our cabin. (Yes, there is a connection to simple church coming up in this essay. Bear with me while I enjoy remembering this fun vacation with my wife!)

Back at the cabin, we proceeded to pit a few cups of the cherries and use the other ingredients we had bought at the store to make cherry cobbler for that evening's dessert. That evening, we enjoyed a wonderful marinated london broil cooked on the grill, a delicious salad, and the freshest, yummiest cherry cobbler I can ever recall having in my life. It was so good!

As we ate all of that wonderful dinner and dessert, I began thinking of the alternative. We could just as easily (probably more easily, actually) gone to a nice restaurant somewhere for dinner that night. At that restaurant, we could have had a delicious steak, and perhaps even had some cobbler for dessert. But something about this meal we enjoyed far surpassed dinner at a nice restaurant. And I came to the conclusion that what made this dinner so much greater and more fulfilling was the fact that we had contributed quite a bit to the making of it.

The cherries that we were enjoying in our cobbler had still been on the tree a mere seven or eight hours prior. We had taken the time to climb the ladders, select the cherries on the tree, pick them ourselves, wash them, pit them, mix the other ingredients and bake it. We had put forth the effort to make a cobbler, rather than just eating one that someone else had made for us.

That thought made me realize what it is that makes simple church so much more meaningful and powerful for me. It's the idea of everyone contributing to the "meal" that makes it much better. And when I'm in a situation where someone else has already done all the "cooking" and preparation work for me, the "meal" is not as special. It may be really good, but not as personally meaningful.

Somewhere, once upon a time, I read something similar that I have often shared with other simple church folks. When we gather as a simple church, we usually share some sort of a meal together. And usually it's some form of a "potluck" where each family brings something to contribute to the meal. If only one or two families brought something, there would not be nearly as much food to go around, and it would not be as fulfilling a meal. It works best when each brings something for the group.

Likewise, with the spiritual "meal", if each one brings something to share with the group, there is more "to go around". It is those times together as a simple gathering of believers, when several are able to share, that I find the most fulfilling meals. And it is those meals when I am able to contribute something myself (obviously, it must be assumed here that I am talking about contribution under the guidance and leadership of the Holy Spirit) that I experience the most from the meal.

I haven't written this analogy in the most clear and elegant way, but I hope the metaphor at least comes across.

Until next time,

steve :)

1 Corinthians 14:26 -- Descriptive or Prescriptive?

2006-06-05T18:27:00.000-05:00

In a recent post on Spunky Homeschool's blog, the subject of house church came up. The comments section (viewable here) sparked some interesting discussion (still in progress) between myself and several other readers. Spunky gave me permission to "hijack" her blog comments for the discussion, for which I'm grateful. It's a subject I love talking about.

However, as I was talking in that discussion about biblical accounts of New Testament church activities being descriptive or prescriptive, a question came to my mind that I have not allowed myself to fully deal with in the past couple of years. It's one of those "am I really being honest with the text here" questions, and I thought I would throw it out here for discussion.

Many times in discussing principles related to simple church, I reference 1 Corinthians 14:26. Now, please understand that my beliefs about simple church do not all hinge on this one verse, so it's not a "make or break" issue for me. Quite honestly, open participatory meetings are described throughout the rest of 1 Corinthians 14. However, I want to be honest in my dealing with this particular verse.

Let me quote the verse here in various translations so that we can get a feel for it, and then I'll ask my question:

What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. (NIV)

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation Let all things be done for edification. (NASB)

So here's what I want you to do. When you gather for worship, each one of you be prepared with something that will be useful for all: Sing a hymn, teach a lesson, tell a story, lead a prayer, provide an insight. (The Message)

What then, brethren, is [the right course]? When you meet together, each one has a hymn, a teaching, a disclosure of special knowledge or information, an utterance in a [strange] tongue, or an interpretation of it. [But] let everything be constructive and edifying and for the good of all. (Amplified)

How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. (KJV)

Well, my brothers and sisters, let's summarize what I am saying. When you meet, one will sing, another will teach, another will tell some special revelation God has given, one will speak in an unknown language, while another will interpret what is said. But everything that is done must be useful to all and build them up in the Lord. (NLT)

Now, my question relates to the part where Paul says something to the effect of "When you come together...." Is this statement a description by Paul of what was currently happening in Corinth? Or is it what he is telling them should happen when they gather? In other words, were the Corinthians overemphasizing the idea that everyone could participate? Or was Paul saying that everyone should participate? Is it descriptive or is it prescriptive?

In favor of it being descriptive, there is a similar use of the "when you come together" phrase in this same letter. That is in 1 Corinthians 11, specifically verses 18 and 20. (It also appears in verse 33, but that actually falls under the next idea of being prescriptive, so hold that thought.) In 11:18,20 it is obvious that Paul is describing their current condition. In fact, he even says explicitly in verse 18 that he has received word to this effect ("when you come together...I hear..."). So, this would lend possibility to the idea that Paul is describing a current situation. In this case, he might be issuing a correction to them when he says, "Let all things be done for edification."

On the flip side, however, we have a prescriptive use of this phrase in 11:33 where Paul is correcting the problem identified in 11:18,20. In this interpretation, then, 14:26 would be seen as prescriptive. Additionally, we have the word "whenever" in 14:26, which does not exist in any of the uses in chapter 11. The uses in chapter 11 (from my very limited remembrance of Greek) carry the idea of "coming together...", whereas 14:26 is more of a "whenever you do come together..." idea.

An additional aspect of 14:26 which might possibly lend itself to understanding is the way the verse starts. Paul says, "What is the outcome then, brethren?" In other words, this verse ties in very much with what Paul had just discussed. In the context immediately preceding, Paul has discussed tongues and prophecy very specifically. And in the verses following 26, he is again going to speak about tongues and prophecy very specifically. Prior to verse 26, he uses the phrases "if all speak in tongues" (14:23) and "if all prophesy" (14:24). Verse 26 then provides a contrast very much in keeping with his discourse on the gifts in chapter 12. It is a description of the varied gifts that should all be exercised for the edification of the body.

I'm sort of answering my own question, but I want to leave it at that, and ask for your thoughts in return. Do you think Paul is describing (in 14:26) a current situation in Corinth that needed correction? Or is he prescribing for them the correct approach that should be taken? (This latter viewpoint would be consistent with most of the translations I quoted above. Not all the translations are very clear grammatically, though, as to the intended interpretation.)

Until next time,

steve :)

Prayer Update

2006-06-02T20:57:00.000-05:00

Thank you to all who prayed. I am writing this update tonight with incredible joy and gratefulness. The meeting that Christy had today with her superiors turned out to be a huge relief. Truth prevailed, and they saw these accusations for what they were: retaliation. (To be fair, they didn't actually use that word, but the manner in which they chose to deal with it shows that they understood that's what it was.) They went over each accusation with Christy and gave her a chance to respond to each one. Christy was able to tell them which ones were lies and which ones were innaccurate representations of actual events.

Christy is understandably worn out from all of this, and I'm sure it will take a while for the emotions of this week to settle down. And I'm sure some of the words of the accusations will continue to bounce around in her mind for a while, but I am praying that God will cause these memories to fade very quickly.

Thanks again to all who prayed. It is greatly appreciated!

steve :)

Please Pray for my Wife

2006-06-01T20:50:00.000-05:00

I don't normally post these kinds of personal things on this particular blog, but this is way too important to me to not post it here tonight. My wife needs a lot of prayer right now. She is just finishing up her teaching year in the public school before we start homeschooling our 9th grade son this fall (he just finished 8th grade today). She still has two more days of teacher work days to go.

These last couple of weeks have been extremely hard on her, because she had to deal with a situation with one of her co-workers. Unfortunately, this co-worker has retaliated against her, and has filed some very serious allegations against Christy with their school and district administration. Most of the charges are outright lies, and some are misrepresentations of actual events. None of the charges are warranted. However, it has caused deep hurt for my wife as she has had to face these allegations.

Tomorrow, she is to meet with her principal, and two other administrators in response to all of this. We have no idea how they will handle these allegations, or if there will be any repercussions from them.

Please pray for 1) truth to be revealed, 2) for Christy to remain peaceful and calm in the face of false allegations, and 3) for God to be glorified. Some of these allegations even revolve around Christy's expression of her faith in front of her co-workers, so there is an actual element of spiritual persecution to all of this (i.e., suffering for her faith in Christ).

I'm very proud of my wife for her testimony and faith, and it hurts me deeply to see her hurting like this. Please pray for her, and maybe drop a note on her blog to let her know you are praying. I (or she) will try to post an update soon to let you know how this all turns out.

Thank you very much.

steve

The Master Chess Player

2006-05-29T20:15:00.000-05:00

I must tell you before even beginning this post that this is definitely a "thinking out loud" post. I'm not at all set on this issue, but decided to write about it in order to see what feedback my readers might want to share. I'm open to positive and negative responses to this, but please keep in mind that I'm not actively promoting this line of thinking. Just working through it. OK? Thanks! :)

Sometimes I get frustrated at the way we try to put God in a box. It's so easy to go down a path of reasoning and think that we have God all figured out. It's not hard to find people who will confidently tell you exactly how predestination and election work. They'll throw some Scripture verses at you, redefine a few words for you along the way, and then sit back, cross their arms and say, "See? Now you understand."

But if you say, "So you're telling me that nobody has any say in whether or not they are saved?" then the arms get uncrossed again, they'll lean forward, and with the intent of a boxer sending his opponent tumbling to the mat, they'll say, "Do you not believe God is sovereign? Do you really want to say that man is sovereign? That's blasphemy."

You see, for a lot of people, that's the "hinge" argument they use to defend their viewpoint. It's the classic "Here are your only two options" false dichotomy. Either God is completely sovereign and gets every ounce of glory, or man is completely sovereign and gets every ounce of glory. And in the latter, according to some, God is left whimpering in the corner because He reallllly wanted to see someone get saved, and they just wouldn't accept His gift of salvation. And we all know that we don't want a God Who is left whimpering in the corner, sad that His great plan fell through, do we?

Time and again, I have tried to figure out if those really are the only two options. And while I'm not very clear on how to articulate a third option, I think that there is one, and I'd like to try this metaphor on for size with my readership.

I stink at chess. I mean, I understand the procedures of the game, and I understand the objective of the game, but I stink at it. I can beat my 13-year-old son at it, but that's not something a dad should brag about! And truth be told, I can only beat him because he probably thinks one move ahead, while I think an amazing two moves ahead! But if I were to play someone who had any skill at the game at all, my lack of chess ability would very quickly show. Picture with me, if you will, three possible scenarios.

Scenario 1: I'm seated across the table from the world champion of chess. The game begins. I make my first move and sit back to see what my opponent will do. The world champion chess player looks up at me with a warm smile and says, "Where would you like me to move?" I look at him with a puzzled look, "Huh?" He just smiles again. "You tell me where to move." This seems rather interesting, and so I reach over and move one of his pieces for him. He looks a little disappointed with the move I chose for him, but says nothing.

Once again, I take a turn, and wait for him to move. "That was an interesting move," he says. "Now what would you like me to move in response?" I'm liking this match quite a bit! And once again, I move one of his pieces for him. Before too long, I proudly announce, "Checkmate!" as my opponent's smile fades. A little whimper is heard as he begins to quietly gather up his belongings. The champion has been defeated!

Scenario 2: I'm seated across the table from the world champion of chess. The game begins, but before I have a chance to make my first move, my opponent reaches across the board and moves one of my pawns forward. "Hey, wait a minute!" I cry. "You can't move my pieces for me!" He smiles, "Listen, I'm the world champion chess player. I know a whole lot more about this game than you do. I'll move your pieces where I want them to go." And with that, he takes his turn.

Once again, before I even have a chance to think about my move, he reaches over and moves one of my pieces. Again, I am constrained from even having any input into the move. Eventually, he sees my frustration. "OK," he says with a seemingly sincere voice. "I'll let you move yourself, but you have to move that knight from there to here," as he points out a square on the board. "But I don't want to move that knight," I said. "You'll be able to capture it, if I do." His warm smile continues, "I know. That's my plan. Now take your turn." I reach for my bishop. "NO! You must move that knight," my opponent says forcefully. And with that, he grabs my hand, places it on the knight and moves it to the spot he had previously determined.

It doesn't take long for this game to end. And predictably, I have lost. Every move I made was determined by my opponent to bring about his desired outcome.

Scenario 3: I'm seated at a table across from the world champion of chess. Between us is a standard chess board and the game is about to begin. It all starts evenly enough. A pawn forward on my part. An answering pawn forward on his. But before very long at all, it is clear who is dominating this game. One by one, my pieces begin to leave the board. And very soon, my king is on the run. "Check", says my opponent confidently as he moves his rook parallel with my king. I quickly move my king out of danger. "Check", repeats my opponent as a bishop comes sliding in from nowhere. Where did that come from? With a little less energy, I move my king out of danger again.

And then it happens. Down the board comes his queen to corner my king. I frantically scan my options. If I move this way, I'll escape the queen for another turn. But, oops. That puts me in danger of the rook again -- can't do it. How about...nope. That bishop is waiting on the diagonal I want to move to. I've already figured it out when my opponent calmly and quietly says, "Checkmate," and the game is over.

Scenario 1 obviously represents the caricature of Arminianism that is usually portrayed by those who seek to preach against Arminianism. In that scenario, the master chess player (representing God) is incapable of winning the game because he allows me to make all the moves for him.

Scenario 2 represents the Calvinist viewpoint. In this game, the master chess player is not only capable of making winning moves, but completely determines my own moves as well.

But Scenario 3 is what I want to explore with you a bit. In this scenario, the master chess player is clearly the winner. There is not really any question that his purposes will win out over mine. That's why he's the master, and I'm not! He is able to analyze all of my possible moves, and no matter where I move, he's already figured out how to respond to it to suit his purposes. Yet he does not determine every move for me. I am free to move any of my pieces anywhere I choose to move them.

My question for you readers is this: Is this at all a reasonable analogy of how God is able to remain sovereign even while granting human beings a free will? See, from the Calvinist's perspective, if man has free will, God is powerless. Man becomes fully in control. And so, in order to preserve the character of God in their system, they feel the need to remove any trace of actual free will. "Choice" becomes re-defined to mean that you are free to choose, but God determines what you will choose. Ummm, does anyone else see a contradiction there?

Let's make one thing very clear: I do not know of anyone who believes in free will who also believes that God is not sovereign. Let's kill that straw man once and for all, please! I am trying to demonstrate in a very feeble way here that free will and the sovereignty of God do not have to be mutually exclusive.

There is more I could say about this, but for now, I'll just throw the analogy out there and see what you all think of it. Am I missing something? Is there a fatal flaw in the metaphor of God as "master chess player"? Obviously, there are areas in which the metaphor does not hold up. For example, we are not playing a game "against" God, if we are His children. God is for us, not against us! But are there problems with the metaphor that I'm missing? I look forward to your thoughts.

Until next time,

steve :)

The Danger of Arrogance

2006-05-23T18:28:00.000-05:00

Am I arrogant? Now, before my friends jump in the comments section to assure me that I'm not arrogant, let me clarify that this is a question that I am asking myself personally, and not posing to you, my readers. But a couple of incidents recently have caused me to realize this is a question we must all be willing to ask ourselves from time to time.

Sometimes, we're confident in something. That may come across as arrogant to others. Sometimes we're passionate about something, and that can come across as arrogant to others. I realize that we can't always keep others from thinking that we are arrogant, but we can make sure that we examine ourselves to make sure we aren't truly arrogant. Hopefully you'll understand what I mean as you read this post.

Several weeks ago, I had lunch with someone that I don't know very well yet. We've had some brief conversations, and decided to do lunch together. This brother in the Lord has a very sincere heart, and a maturity beyond his years. As we talked and he began to share some of his thoughts, I was impressed with the depth of his thinking. This is a guy who takes his love for the Lord seriously, and has a passion for ministry.

As the conversation continued, I began to share some of my thoughts about simple church. I shared some of my experiences and thoughts, and even tested the water with a few of my more controversial ideas. Just thinking outside the box. My regular readers know what I mean! And without realizing it, the more I shared, the more animated and passionate I got.

There were a couple of times where I had a small thought in my head, "Maybe I'm going too far here", but in my enthusiasm to share with someone so passionate about the Lord, I ignored the thought and pressed forward.

Finally, I took a breath, and he was able to get a word in edgewise. He sat back, looking a bit like he had just been run over by a Mack truck, and said, "Man, I feel like you're trying to sell me on something."

My heart sank. My mature friend went on. "I feel like you have animosity toward the church, and you're reacting against it." No, I wanted to scream. It's not that! But words came slowly.

I regained my composure and quietly said, "I'm sorry. I'm not trying to sell you on anything. This is such a passion for me that I get carried away sometimes. I'm so sorry."

The lunch ended peacefully, and I hope I get the opportunity again in the future to chat with this friend without getting so worked up at my own thoughts and ideas. But I came away from that lunch realizing that I had crossed the line into arrogance.

Here I was diagnosing all the ills of the institutional church, pronouncing the cure, and expecting everyone to just say, "Ohhh, but of course. You're right!" And meanwhile, I ignored the voice of the Spirit of God prompting me to back off and humble myself.

That's arrogance. Normally, I'm that way about it, as far as I can tell. But in that conversation, I was arrogant. And it grieved me to realize it.

You see, there's always a tendency, when we think we have the answers, to put confidence in our answers. I'm learning that there is a necessary humility, even when we are 100% certain our answer is right. (I'm not saying that I am 100% certain. I'm just saying that even with 100% certainty, humility is necessary.) It's not ever supposed to be about me. Truth comes from God, and I must recognize that every ounce of truth that I have comes from Him, and none of it is a product of a self-created ability to reason.

Another situation occurred just today that caused me to examine this issue again. This time, it wasn't me putting forth the arrogance, but it was what I perceived in others. And it reminded me that, once again, I need to watch out for the temptation to become arrogant myself.

The situation today was a post and resulting comments on another blog. Now, I realize that some who read this will know what I'm talking about, but I am not going to name names or link to the conversation directly. It was sparked by a March 5, Washington Post article about professor and author Bart Ehrman. If you haven't heard of Bart Ehrman, he is a theological professor who calls himself a "happy agnostic". He is the author of (at this time) 19 books, the best-selling of which is Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.

Now, let me interject a very, very important disclaimer here: I do not endorse all of Bart Ehrman's views! I must be very clear about that, for those who stumble across this post and misunderstand. My comments here have very little to do with Bart Ehrman's views themselves, and more to do with how we respond to them. And let me also add that I have no problem whatsoever with someone disagreeing with Ehrman (or me, or anyone) and saying that he is wrong. Pointing out error is not, in and of itself, arrogance. And while I'm adding disclaimers, let me also point out that, even though Bart Ehrman is a professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, and I am on the faculty of another university in the UNC system, this has absolutely no bearing on my opinions here! ;)

The post that I read in response to the Washington Post article, however, used the term "stupidity". In what I perceived to be a sarcastic, mocking (I guess you could say it was satirical) tone, the author of the post expressed his dismay that Bart Ehrman's views would even be considered novel. The things that Bart Ehrman questions have been raised by many others before him. And, in the opinion of many Christians, they have already been successfully refuted by many. So, this particular blogger felt that it was just plain stupid for Bart Ehrman to even make a deal out of the issues presented in the Washington Post article. And he stated that it was even more stupid for people to be swayed by Ehrman's questions.

Enter the wonderful comment thread following the article. Some commenters were very fair, so I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush here. But there were several comments that caused me to feel like it went too far. Consider some of the following statements:

• There are a few of us out there that actually LIKE Bible history and meaty teaching... but sadly, few.

• Oh, [Ehrman is] a well educated college guy? Well, then he is a well educated, willfully ignorant unregenerate block head.

• The intellectual arrogance of someone who assumes that "you'd see it my way, if you just thought about it" always baffles me.

• I look at [the list of issues raised by Ehrman] and I think "Well duh. I've known this stuff, like, forever."

These kinds of attitudes (and again, not all of the commenters were presenting this attitude, but the statements above represent four different individual comments), in my opinion, cross the line into arrogance. "[W]illfully ignorant unregenerate block head"? And ironically, one even refers to Ehrman's views as "intellectual arrogance" while demonstrating the exact same attitude Ehrman is being accused of having! And boasting about how long we have known a particular truth? Folks, this is not a Christlike attitude!

Contrast these comments with the gracious words of Darrell Bock, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, as quoted in the Washington Post article:

I think Bart is writing about his personal journey, about legitimate things that bother him....I can appreciate people feel differently. But sometimes I wonder if we are not all guilty of asking the Bible to do too much.

That strikes me as someone who is able to point out the error in Ehrman's thinking (as Dr. Bock did in the part of the quote not included above), yet do so without resorting to schoolyard mockery.

This all reminds me very much of the story Jesus told about a Pharisee and a tax collector praying in the temple. The Pharisee, as you may recall, prayed with a loud voice saying, "I'm so glad I'm not like that man over there." According to Jesus, his prayer accomplished nothing in his standing before God. The NIV interestingly identifies the audience of this parable as "some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else" (vs 9).

So, once again, I come back to asking myself the question: Am I arrogant? As I sit here and blog about the journey I've been on in the area of simple church...as I blog about my views on various theological topics...as I share with people over lunch...is my attitude one of humility and graciousness, or am I just so arrogant to think that anyone who doesn't see it my way is a "block head"? I pray that the answer will be that of humility in my life, to the glory of God.

Until next time,

steve :)

Myths About Simple Church

2006-05-21T21:10:00.000-05:00

In the two years (or more) that my wife and I have been exploring simple church concepts, we have encountered several consistent objections and/or concerned questions about simple church. I'm not just talking about one or two times that these issues come up. I'm talking many times for some of these. Recently, a couple of them have started to surface in comments here, and so I wanted to take this opportunity to address some of the myths about simple church that I have seen.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, and it may even end up spanning more than one post. For the time being, though, I'm just going to address the few that are on my mind right now, and maybe address more as time goes on.

These are not directed at any one particular person, but are being put out for discussion by any and all who wish to comment. Not every thought that I express in response is necessarily original with me, but I don't necessarily have the ability (due to lack of memory!) to credit the original sources on all of these. They have, however, become my own thoughts as I've lived out some of the responses myself, and as I've wrestled with these myths in my own mind.

Myth No. 1: People who are involved in simple church have been hurt by the institutional church, and are reacting to that hurt by leaving church altogether.

While I will not deny that many of us who are in simple church have been hurt in situations in the past, I must say that my motive for pursuing simple church is not to run away from any particular situation. It may be true for many that a hurtful situation was what prompted the questions they asked themselves about church, but that is not necessarily true of everyone.

For me, the questions came separate from any hurtful situation. I had been hurt several times by abuse of authority in the institutional church, but those hurtful situations had been put to rest long before I considered anything outside the institution.

What led me to look outside the institution was much more related to a frustration with feeling like we were just going through the motions each week (I was in leadership at the time) without making any significant impact in people's lives.

Myth No. 2: Simple Churches are more susceptible to heresy

I will admit that I have no statistical evidence to support my conclusions here, but I have to say that I have yet to run across a simple church that is any more susceptible to heresy than an institutional church. There is a presupposition behind this myth that is very hard to dislodge sometimes. That presupposition is that heresy is hard to come by in a setting where you have an authoritative leader (such as in the institutional church). I don't think history would agree, however. Many times, when heresy is found, it is being taught from the pulpit or the seminary/university lectern. The reason that this is possible is because the model of leadership where one man is at the top is a situation where that one man is usually unable to be adequately questioned on his teaching.

I remember sitting in a church service where the preacher spoke something that was clearly and absolutely contrary to the Word of God. I sat there, stunned by what I had heard, and looking around to see if anyone else was uncomfortable. It seemed that no one else was. I had visions of standing up and yelling, "Heretic!" while ushers scrambled to drag me out. But, instead, I sat glued to my seat. The glue that held me down was fear. The forum offered no freedom to challenge what was being taught, and so the heresy went forth uncorrected.

Contrast that situation with times when things have been spoken in our simple church gatherings that seemed questionable or even contrary to the Word of God. In those situations, I have been able to graciously say, "But in such-and-such a passage, we read this. Wouldn't that be different than what you are saying?"

I frequently reference 1 Corinthians 14 in these discussions, because I believe that Paul has given very clear instructions on what types of activities should be happening when we gather together. And one of those principles spelled out by Paul is the "weighing" of prophecies. I interpret that to mean that when someone speaks, others have the right (the responsibility, even?) to challenge what is spoken if it appears to be in error. The flip side of challenging error is also affirming truth, and I believe this is just as necessary.

I believe that a forum such as that, where others are given the opportunity to speak actually helps prevent heresy, as opposed to promoting heresy. If all have the right to speak, and all have the right to ask questions about what is spoken, heresy can be weeded out very quickly without having any effect. Had I even been successful in speaking to that preacher in private, it would not have changed the fact that hundreds had heard the incorrect word spoken and taken it at face value. This blanket acceptance of what is spoken from the pulpit is, in my experience and opinion, much more common (and much more dangerous) than most would like to think.

Myth No. 3: Simple Churches are dangerous because they are not accountable to anyone

In all actuality, I have rarely come across any institutional church that was truly accountable to anyone. This myth seems to be somewhat of a red herring. It is true that denominational churches are somewhat accountable to their denominational leaders, but I have not seen where that accountability really plays out unless there is some blatant, public, or grievous sin being committed by the pastor. So, even in the institution, churches operate pretty autonomously. This is even more true for non-denominational churches. (When pressed for accountability, leaders of these churches often refer to some organization or leader that is not even locally located. These are generally organizations or leaders who would merely side with the local church leadership in any potential dispute, anyway, so it offers no accountability from the standpoint of the congregation being able to express concerns.)

What is missed in this myth is the understanding that all of us, whether simple or institutional, are accountable to Jesus Christ. He is the true Head of the Church, not a board or pastor or denominational heirarchy. And we have the written Word of God to be a plumbline for accountability.

Myth No. 4: Simple churches do not have biblical leaders

I can't speak for every simple church here, obviously. But, again, in my experience, I have not found a simple church yet who didn't understand the concept of elders. The major difference is that most simple church people understand that the function of the whole body is rather organic, and the guidance of mature believers (elders) happens very naturally as the body grows and matures.

With regard to the position of "pastor", it is true that most simple churches do not hire a person to function as "pastor", but this does not in any way mean that pastors do not function. On the contrary, a lot of people exploring simple church seek to see all gifts (or at least most gifts, if they're cessationists!) function in the body, not just a handful of "elite" gifts.

In other words, simple church sees pastor as just one gift among many which needs to function. And a simple church may have more than one person functioning in a pastoral gifting.

For the simple church model, it's all about function, not an office. If you're shepherding people, you're functioning as a pastor. If you frequently share thoughts from the Word and apply it, you're functioning as a teacher. If you are mature in the faith, and are able to watch over the flock and lead by example, you're functioning as an elder. Etc., etc., etc. The simple church model sees no need to hire someone to do most of the work when the body is fully capable of organically working together to get it all done.

Myth No. 5: Simple church people are "forsaking the assembling"

This myth usually surfaces if a simple church meets sometime other than Sunday morning, or meets less than once a week. However, this is completely a straw man argument. The reality is that neither the frequency of meeting, nor the type of meeting, is specified in this command not to forsake the assembling. This myth assumes that "assembling" is a particular type of gathering, but the text does not support this conclusion. My experience with simple church is that people who truly are seeking this expression of the body of Christ love to gather together, and do so in multiple ways and various schedules. In Acts 2, we read that the believers met together daily. I'm not proposing a daily meeting routine, but I simply want to make the point that by that standard, even the institutional church "forsakes the assembling" for five or six days a week (depending on whether or not they have a midweek service)! Obviously, I'm saying that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think you can see my point.

Simple church adherents are not "lone ranger Christians", but neither do we operate by a "checklist" of certain schedules we must uphold in order not to be "forsaking the assembling". Again, the key word in my mind seems to be "organic". We meet in various ways, at various times, on various schedules -- sometimes quite frequently, sometimes not so frequently. I have been part of simple church gatherings that met weekly, and I have been part of simple church gatherings that met only once or twice a month. But even between those times of gathering, there were various "assemblings" taking place in various places.

These are just five of the myths that come to my mind right now, and I think this is a good place to stop. I hope that, for those of you who are not in a similar situation as mine, these paragraphs will have shed some more light on what is going on in the simple churches. And if you have found yourself believing or repeating any of these myths, I hope this will have shown you another perspective. Any follow-up questions, comments, criticisms, contradictions, etc.?

Until next time,

steve :)

Multiplication Ministry and Maturity

2006-05-16T08:40:00.000-05:00

There has been some great discussion in the comments section of my recent post about preaching/teaching and the resultant maturity of believers. While commenting over there, I had some thoughts that got way too lengthy for a comment, and so I am going to turn it into a post here.

The idea of multiplication is not a new one to ministry. It was one of the buzz words of the whole "church growth" movement. But I never saw it actually play out in the megachurch concept. It seemed to be something that was merely a cool word to sound superior. However, I have done some thinking about it in the past, and came back to it today in talking about the difference between a model with one preacher and lots of long-term listeners and a model of teaching with the purpose of the learner becoming a teacher themselves.

Imagine this possible scenario: New believers are taught (maybe with some preaching, maybe interactive teaching, probably a combination of both) and discipled with the goal that they would soon be able to teach others. As they reach this point of maturity, they then move into a sense of partnership with their teacher in teaching others.

The reasons I think this model fits the biblical text in so many ways are many. I don't want to spell them all out here, but maybe as the conversation continues, I'll share some of those.

There are pragmatic reasons that I think this model is better, though. Let me share some of these:

The pressures that are put on a pastor today (as Gordon has identified very well in the comments of the previous post) are outrageous. When one cracks under the pressure, the fallout sometimes is horrible. The bigger the church (i.e., the more people following "the man"), the bigger the fall. "De-centralizing" the teaching reduces the pressure on any one person, and also reduces the number of people directly under his teaching.
In contrast to the seemingly foolish reduction of people under anyone's teaching that I mention in the above point is a rapid, multiplication model of ministry as the teacher replicates himself. Some fun math:

Model 1: One pastor starting with 50 people.

Let's say this guy is phenomenal in his ability to draw new people to the church, and the church doubles each year (very unreasonable, wouldn't you think?). In just 10 years full of exciting building programs, rocking good music, books being published, and maybe a TV broadcast, the church would have 25,600 people (50, 100, 200, 400,...,12,800, 25,600). Assuming in a perfect situation that no one ever left, etc., that's 25,601 (counting the celebrity pastor!) people in the Kingdom. But that's assuming that the rate of growth stays at the unbelievable rate that we proposed, etc.

Model 2: One teacher starting with 2 disciples

Now, let's say that, instead, that one single person teaches just two other people for one year. The following year, they have both grown enough to be teachers themselves. Now, let's be continue to be conservative and say that each one only teaches two other people. After a year, those people are mature enough to teach others, and they, in turn, take on two themselves. It would be a fairly unglamorous situation. In fact, it would take four full years to even match the original 50 of the other model. There's no fancy building, no flashy worship band, no TV deal. But, after the same 10 years as we looked at the other model, how many would disciples/teachers would there be?

39,366

OK, doesn't seem like much more of a success, does it? It's not shabby, but it doesn't seem huge in comparison to the megachurch. But now, here's where it starts to really take off. In just one more year, our original megachurch with the celebrity pastor has 51,200 people coming to hear him speak, while the "just teach two a year" model yields 118,098!!

Two years later, the simple model has over one million disciples maturing in their faith and teaching others, while the megachurch hasn't even reached a quarter million.

Now, it's not all about numbers in one sense, and yet no one today would think a megachurch of a quarter million was anything but a booming success. I'm just trying to put it in perspective of how we tend to think today. But the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Imagine for a moment that the celebrity pastor of our quarter-million-member megachurch burns out and falls into some awful sin. What happens? Devastation. Disillusionment. Public scandal. The name of Christ is slandered in the news and around the water cooler. Many are feeling lost and confused.

But if our original teacher in the simple model...well, first of all, he's not going to get burned out discipling two people a year! But even if he does fall into some grievous sin, what happens? There would probably be a few of his close friends gathering around him and supporting him through repentance and recovery. Because he's got solid relationships like that. And, at the most, the two people he's currently discipling, and maybe a handful of the ones from previous years, feel hurt and upset. But the effect is minimal.

And even more importantly, the maturity of those million-plus believers would be potentially far superior to the quarter million attending the celebrity megachurch. We would have over a million teachers vs. a quarter-million pew-sitters.

There's much more I would love to write about this, but I'll just put it out there for feedback.

Until next time,

steve :)

More on Teaching and Preaching -- Hindrance to Growth?

2006-05-14T10:57:00.000-05:00

As I continue to look at the role of teaching and preaching in the church, I continue to wrestle with some thoughts about the role that these two activities hold, if any, in our church experience. I have not definitely proven anything in my previous posts, but I have headed in the direction of seeing preaching as more geared toward evangelistic purposes, and teaching toward discipleship. It doesn't bother me to admit that my study is inconclusive, at least as far as absolute principles being derived. And I don't want my continued use of as-yet unproven theories to be a hindrance to my readership's appreciation of these posts. But please understand that, for the time being, that is still my basic premise.

In this post, I want to examine a little more deeply the relationship of preaching (and certain types of teaching) in the church to the potential maturity of the listeners. A couple of days ago one of my dear friends, Raborn Johnson, wrote a post entitled "Who's the Priest?". In it, Raborn talks about the "clergy/laity" distinction, and the problems associated with such a distinction. A particular comment he made caught my eye. He wrote:

It seems to me that the role of a professional minister impedes the growth of the rest of the Body and contributes to many believers remaining in an infantile state of Christianity. Instead of letting God flow through me to others (and vice-versa), I pay someone to "do the work of the ministry" in my place.

It is this hindrance to maturity that I believe expresses my biggest concern about the structure we often utilize in our institutional approach to church. And, like Raborn, it was this observation that led me to first question what we are attempting to accomplish in church. Let's unpack this whole thing a bit, and see what we can find.

For the purposes of this post, I am sort of muddying the waters between "preaching" and "teaching" because this is the current state of the institutional church. Much as I have tried to separate the two (and several commenters on my previous posts have agreed that there should be a distinction), the reality is that for the most part, they are used interchangeably in the context of the institutional church. And so, in the typical "Sunday morning sermon", the congregation believes that they are being "taught", and that this teaching is crucial to their sense of maturity in Christ. And, to be fair, many preachers do more "teaching" than "preaching" in their sermons.

However, what does the Scripture say about the role of teaching in the ongoing life of the believer? Let's look at two Scripture verses that mention this.

First up is Hebrews 5:12. In the context of verses 11-14, we read (with verse 12 in bold):

We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.

There are a couple of things I want to point out about this analogy. First of all, the author of Hebrews seems to believe that maturity in Christ means that one is able to be a teacher of others. This is something that I rarely see emphasized in our churches today. We are told that we must evangelize others, but usually the emphasis is on getting them to come to church with us. In that sense, we fail to become teachers ourselves, but rather rely on the preacher teaching the newcomers or new converts.

Another thing to notice in this Hebrews passage is the progression from milk to solid food. I don't want to stretch the analogy too far here (or at least not further than is warranted by the text), but I do think that perhaps we can learn something from the analogy being used. When a baby is born, he is incapable of eating/digesting solid food. That baby requires milk. Everyone understands this part. As the child begins to grow, eventually his mother is able to feed him solid food, and the young child is capable of digesting it. Everyone understands this part, too. And I'm sure all of us agree on the need for Christians to move past being fed milk to being fed solid food.

However, this is where I want to point out something in the analogy. As a child continues to grow, he becomes (or should become) capable of feeding himself. Is that too much of a stretch for this analogy? Why else would the writer say that by this time his readers should be teachers?

Let's look at another verse that says something similar, but gives us even more insight. Here is 1 John 2:27:

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

Again, we see the idea that we "do not need anyone to teach" us. John says that the anointing that we have received from Jesus will teach us all things. This sounds a lot like what John wrote in his gospel (John 16:13) when he wrote, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth." So, it seems to me that there should be a maturing process whereby the believer learns to receive teaching from the Holy Spirit and does not have to rely on teaching from a man in order to live life in Christ.

Teachers are originally taught by others, but there is a real point where a teacher needs to "own" the information himself before he is capable of effectively transmitting that information to others. Both of the passages being referenced here indicate a point of maturity where the one being taught begins to "own" the information, and is then able to teach others.

How would we view the maturity of someone who never completed their high school diploma, yet day after day attended high school classes and sat through the material being taught? Would we think of them as mature, simply because they were in their 20th year of going through the 12th grade? Hardly! Yet, we view Christians that way. They can sit in a pew for all their life, listening to the same sermons from the same preacher, over and over, and yet we will call them mature, just because they've been doing it a long time! They may be fully incapable of teaching others, though.

It is this true maturity (the ability to teach others and not require constant teaching themselves) that I believe is hindered when we operate within a system that emphasizes the word of one man (human preacher) and gives it center stage and full spotlight on a very regular basis. And it is the stunting of the growth of the individual believers that should cause us to question whether or not we should be highlighting such a practice as monologue-style preaching week in and week out.

Now, several of my regular commenters (and Gordon and Ray, you know I have a great deal of respect for both of you, and love you as my brothers) have said in past comments that they believe there is a place for this kind of preaching in the church. So let me open it up to you guys and anyone else who wants to answer. What is the place of preaching in the church, and how can we free people up to grow in maturity beyond the point of regularly sitting under someone's teaching? Or, for that matter, do you think I'm way off base in even implying that we should not be spending many years of our lives listening to another human teacher? Lengthy comments are not a problem, but if any of you would prefer to post a reply on your own blog, that's fine, too. Just post a link to your reply in one of the comments here so we all know to come read it!

Until next time,

steve :)

The Rights and Privileges of Sonship

2006-05-07T21:30:00.000-05:00

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God. -- Romans 8:15-16 (NIV)

These verses took on a whole new meaning for me this past week. On Wednesday, May 4, I received a notice from the Clerk of the Superior Court of Watauga County informing me that my stepson is now legally my son. As of May 1 (which also happened to be my birthday -- what a great birthday present!), the adoption process that we had begun last August was completed, and the notice I received on Wednesday was a copy of the court order.

Apart from the excitement that I felt from knowing it was finally complete, and the joy that came from knowing that this adoption was something my son had requested, there was a new awareness of a spiritual truth that swept over me.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, chose the metaphor of adoption to describe the relationship that we have to our heavenly Father. Now, that is nothing new to those of us who have grown up in Christian environments. I've known for years that I was "adopted" by God. But I have to admit that I never really thought about all that was meant by that.

I've known people who were adopted. I have a niece and a nephew who both are adopted. And while I've understood it as something special, I didn't fully realize the ramifications. I saw it as parents loving a child enough to take care of them and provide for them, but didn't look at it from the child's perspective. Until now...

Allow me to quote a portion of this Decree of Adoption that I received in the mail:

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the Court:

(1) That from the date of the entry of this Decree herein, the said minor is declared adopted for life by the petitioner(s) ... and the State Registrar of Vital Records shall make a new birth certificate for said child...;

(2) That the Decree of Adoption effects a complete substitution of families for all legal purposes and establishes the relationship of parent and child, together with all the rights, responsibilities, and duties, between each petitioner and the individual being adopted;

(3) That from the date of this Decree of Adoption, the adoptee is entitled to inherit real and personal property by, through, and from the adoptive parents in accordance with the statues on intestate succession and has the same legal status, including all legal rights and obligations of any kind whatsoever, as a child born the legitimate child of the adoptive parents;

(4) That the Decree of Adoption severs the relationship of parent and child between the individual adopted and that individual's [father]....

Now, in the midst of all that legal language are some really awesome things that I want to point out here and draw some spiritual parallels.

Note that my son will actually receive a new birth certificate that reflects his new name. This is the part that excited me so much in thinking of my relationship to God. Think about it. My son is 13 years old. I have only been in his life since he was 10. He has been my stepson for a little less than two years, and as of the writing of this post, my son for only six days. Yet his birth record will now show my last name! It's as if we are able to go back in time and I actually am his father at his birth. A verse that we recently looked at on this blog seems very fitting here: 2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV) says, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" When we place our trust in Christ, God issues us a new birth certificate (in fact, Jesus referred to this in John 3 when he told Nicodemus that we must be "born again").

Secondly, note the establishment of the relationship between me and my son, and the final separation of the relationship between him and his biological father. (The rights of his biological father were terminated over a year ago, but this decree affirms that to an even deeper level.) Specifically, there is a "complete substitution" of my son's position from his former father's family to my family. Before we came to Christ, who was our father? John 8:44 tells us that it was the devil. But once we have been "born again" and adopted into God's family, John 1:12 tells us that we are now children of God. There has been a "complete substitution of families"! Praise God!!

The final element I want to note is that my son now is "entitled to inherit" from me. Now, this is rather comical at this present point in time, because I have very little for him to physically inherit! ;) But the spiritual truth of it is profound. In Christ, we are heirs with Christ to all that the Father has to give.

I'm so grateful for the privilege of adopting my son. But I am even more grateful for the privilege I have of being adopted by God. What an awesome privilege that is!

Until next time,

steve :)

Welcome to a New Blogger

2006-05-02T10:33:00.000-05:00

One of my dear friends "in real life", Raborn Johnson, has recently taken the plunge into simple church. I'm excited for him! And I'm even more excited (if that's possible) to welcome him to the world of blogging.

Take a moment to visit Ray's X-Change, if for no other reason than to see a crazy picture of him on Monday Night Football! But seriously, add him to your Favorites or Bloglines, or whatever, so you can read his thoughts in the days/weeks/months to come.

Raborn, welcome, bro. I hope you'll start commenting here, too, in addition to your own writing.

Until next time,

steve :)

Prayer Request for Ray

2006-04-27T21:46:00.000-05:00

Regular readers of my blog are probably quite familiar with frequent commenter, Ray, although Ray has been silent for the most part in the last month, or so.

I should have posted on this a long time ago, but back on April 9, Ray wrote a post on his blog about some eye difficulties and resulting surgery. This week, Ray posted another update about his recovery, which is slow-going.

Ray is a tremendous and wonderful brother in the Lord, and his comments here and his own blog have been a great encouragement to me. Would you please take a moment to lift Ray up to our Lord, the Great Physician, for his complete healing and recovery? And while you're at it, maybe swing over to Ray's blog and let him know you're praying for him.

Hurry back, Ray. We miss you!

Until next time,

steve :)

Mixed Messages on Eternal Security

2006-04-25T06:30:00.000-05:00

I definitely haven't forgotten the preaching/teaching series, and I apologize for the delay in posting my thoughts on teaching, but I want to open up another topic for discussion. This isn't going to be as much of me writing my thoughts as just questions that are running around in my mind.

First, a little background to the questions. I was taught eternal security when I was growing up. The so-called "once saved, always saved" teaching says that once a person is saved, they can never lose their salvation. There are Scripture passages used to defend this position (such as John 10:29), as well as appeals to the nature of God (i.e., because God is sovereign, it would be impossible for someone to thwart the work of salvation that has been done by God in that person).

Of course, there are people who believe otherwise, citing the many references in the New Testament that seem to indicate the possibility of falling away (e.g. Hebrews 6:4-6) or even being cut off by God for not abiding in Christ (John 15:6).

While it is not the purpose of this article to defend one position or the other, my questions are more targeted at the "can't lose your salvation ever, for any reason" thinking. (By the way, "lose your salvation" is a poor phrase, because it sounds like salvation is something that can be misplaced by accident! Even if one believes that it is possible to fall away from salvation, this should never be something that is used to cause people to fear unknowingly offending God and incurring His wrath.)

And here's where my questions start. Recently, in several different blog interactions, I have seen certain doctrines mentioned (the Trinity, inerrancy of Scripture, etc.) as things that don't need to be affirmed in order to respond to the call of salvation, but can't be rejected later on. For example, here is a quote from the Chicago Statement of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy:

We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

We deny that such a confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and the church. (Article XIX)

Notice that the statement clearly denies it is necessary to "confess" the inerrancy of Scripture in order to be saved. Granted, this statement does not say that one cannot be saved if they deny the inerrancy of Scripture later on, but it does predict unspecified "grave consequences" if one does, in fact, deny the inerrancy of the Scripture at some point in their life post-salvation.

Others have gone further in their statements, though. Consider this comment made by Steve Camp in the discussion following a post on his blog:

Can someone not believe in the Trinity but yet still respond to the gospel of grace of Jesus Christ and be saved? Yes. Can someone claim to grow in their walk with the Lord, study the Scriptures and continue year after year to deny the Trinity and be considered a true believer in the Lord? Of course not.

Now, this introduces a very interesting dilemma, in my opinion. On the one hand, Steve (being fully Calvinistic in his doctrine) teaches very clearly that one cannot lose their salvation. Yet here, he states that, while a belief in the doctrine of the Trinity is not necessary for salvation, one cannot later deny the doctrine of the Trinity and still "be considered a true believer".

This sends a very mixed message on the subject of eternal security. How can one be saved, but then later not be considered to a "true believer" because they later reject a particular doctrine that wasn't necessary for salvation in the first place? Either the doctrine is absolutely essential for salvation, or it's not. I don't understand this.

I'm just curious if any of my readers have any thoughts on how to understand this mixed message.

Until next time,

steve :)

Insecurity in the Believer -- A Response to Michael Spencer

2006-04-21T21:34:00.000-05:00

Several times over the past six months or so (I'm not really certain), I have interacted with Michael Spencer, aka The Internet Monk. Michael has a very down-to-earth style of writing that, in many ways, I enjoy reading. Several months ago, however, I felt a certain amount of confusion regarding what I perceived to be a common theme in Michael's writing. Rather than approach it publicly on his blog, I emailed him privately. My concern was that while Michael was very accurate in pointing out difficulties in the human existence (even for Christians), he seemed to focus strictly on the negativity of those situations without expressing the true hope that can be ours in Christ.

Michael was very gracious to respond to my email, and a very interesting exchange took place. The conclusion on Michael's part seemed to be that I could not be honest about life's struggles because of my charismatic bent, and that his view is a "realistic" view of life based on certain passages of Scripture. At the time, we debated the relationship between Romans 7 and Romans 8. Michael's position, as I understood it, was that Romans 8 (as it relates to being set free from sin) is a truth that is not yet realized in its fullness, and that Romans 7 (the struggle of the "wretched man", as described by Paul) is the current state of the believer.

I attempted to argue from the context of the entirety of chapters 6-8 that I saw Paul emphasizing the freedom from the power of sin, and no longer a need for us to experience that "struggle" with sin as part of the "normal" Christian life. In the end, we could not come to an agreement, and I dropped the subject.

Recently, Michael wrote a new post entitled "The Echoing Prelude: Insecurity and the Christian Life". In this essay, Michael very accurately (and eloquently, I might add) describes the insecurity that is a natural part of all of us, and the games that we play to cover up our insecurities. And the essay then turns to insecurity within the Christian with the following paragraph:

I see this when I see my students, but I also see it in myself, and particularly in the Christians I’ve been around my entire life.

Michael goes on for a number of paragraphs to talk about how insecurity resides in the believer alongside the hope of future security (cosmic redemption, as expressed in Romans 8, being the final solution). And he makes some statements that talk about the work of the Holy Spirit and how we are not left in our insecurities.

We are not left to lead the same lives of insecurity we lived before. The Spirit of God is at work in us, at work in the church and at work in the world. We taste the firstfruits of the Spirit’s application of Jesus’ resurrection in our own assurance. This assurance comes alongside us as the Gospel calls us to renounce worldly securities, personal fears and the myriad ways we seek to repair our own uncertainties.

But then, in the same way that I always felt like there was a big "but" in the essays that had previously prompted me to email Michael and express my concern, this essay went on to say:

So what should we see when we are among Christians? Are we to see the same insecurities as we see in those who do not know Christ? The answer is both yes and no. We are still human, we are still fallen, we are still part of a fallen world. There is never a time in this life when we live without that reality.

Remember the correct meaning of a verse: Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. (2Co 5:17)

This verse means that to be in Christ is to be part of the new creation. It does not mean that all aspects of that new creation are operating at present. Our "new creation" experience is the "groaning" experience of Romans chapter 8. Our insecurities battle with the life of the Spirit and the birth of cosmic redemption. Jesus has won, and Jesus will triumph in a regeneration and renewal of all things.

In conclusion to the essay, Michael offered seven suggestions as to how we should respond to issues of insecurity in a Christian.

1) Those who are experiencing insecurity should not be condemned and shamed as sinners and unbelievers.

2) The human experience of insecurity is part of the Gospel story, and it should be put into the context of the Gospel story.

3) Worship should utilize the Psalms and all of scripture to hear the voices of insecurity that are part of the human encounter with God and the Gospel of the Incarnate Word.

4) Christians ought not to pretend that they have been delivered from all insecurities. Christian leaders should never lead from the manipulation of insecurity or the promise of deliverance from all fear in the present.

5) The life of the Spirit should be cultivated and grown through an organic, relational and honest community of Jesus.

6) Christians whose primary presentation of the faith is one of providing undeniable and absolutely certain answers should consider if they are not, in fact, manifesting their own insecurities.

7) The relation of insecurity and idolatry should be a subject of ongoing growth, prayer and teaching. The Gospel calls us to continually consider how we are seeking comfort and certainty in idolatrous ways.

In the comments section following the essay, I took issue with Michael's use of 2 Corinthians 5:17. Michael immediately expressed his feeling of being "more than a little annoyed" at my comments, and a few comments went back and forth with frustration and annoyance being expressed. Finally, Michael wrote:

Part of my evidnt frustration- which sounds pretty rude, I admit and apologize- is because I really don’t know what we are talking about.

I absolutely believe Christ Jesus changes lives now. I believe he breaks the power of canceled sin. I beliee the process of transformation begins. I believe we were slaves to sin but no longer.

I do not believe sanctification or any aspect of experienced salvation is perfect in this life. I do not believe we are delivered from sin in such a way that we are not tempted or still deal with a fallen nature.

I do believe we have breakthroughs and that God answers prayer. I believe drug addicts are delivered and marriages are healed, etc.

Ever since you first wrote that you found no hope in my writing, it has been frustrating to try and understand what you think I am preaching and teaching that is inconsistent with scripture.

I started to write a response, but realized that it was going to be quite lengthy, and so I am choosing to post it here instead of adding such a lengthy response on Michael's site. Here is my response:

Michael, your apology is readily accepted. And I'm sorry that it's frustrating for you. I really am. It is not my intention to frustrate or hurt you in any way, Michael. As I mentioned to you, my questions are very sincere ones. Let me see if I can try to help bridge the understanding gap. If not, I'll be happy to shut up for a while (I did try to give you a break from my questions for quite a while!!) :)

We have sinful natures. And we have this great and glorious gift of new life in Christ. The question is, which are we going to focus on? Are we going to dwell on our insecurities, our failures, the times we fall down? To me, part of the answer (and I think a big part) is the repeated instruction by Paul to "set our minds on things above", to "consider [ourselves] dead to sin", etc.

This is the whole "hope" discussion that I was trying to have with you before. Rather than continue to dwell on our failures, our sins, our insecurities, and just accept them as "reality", it seems to me that it is of greater profit to our spiritual maturity to look forward to what we already have by faith. Even if it's part of a "not yet" understanding, we live by faith and hope in what is to come. That is a faith and hope that encourages, that causes us to live more and more consistently in the life that is ours through Christ. Hope doesn't tell people to just grit their teeth and hold out for the afterlife. There are benefits to being part of that new creation here and now.

This has nothing to do with what some in previous comments on this thread have suggested as part of some selfish motivation to get what I want, or to accept only the things that we want from God. Nor does it necessarily lead to fringe charismaticism, as you implied in an earlier comment in this thread.

When Paul talks about his struggles, his persecutions, his difficulties, he doesn't stop at the point of saying "I'm insecure" or "This is depressing." He expresses great hope and moves on (like he does in Romans 8, regardless of which interpretation [already vs. not yet] you take of it) to talking about what he knows to be true in Christ. Even when, in Romans 7, he says, "O wretched man that I am. Who will rescue me...?", he immediately turns his focus to say, "Thanks be to God" because he realizes that reality in Christ (as he goes on in chapter 8 to explain) gives him that very rescue for which he cries out.

That's why I often think about the phrase "walk by faith, not by sight." I look around me sometimes and I see a lot of hopelessness and despair. People constantly want to speak negatively about life. Even Christians want to remind us that things are going to be very tough for us in our lives. But that's not what we need to set our eyes on! Those are the things we see with our human eyes. But we are to walk by faith. That is a faith that says, "I know this is what I see, but I know a truth that supercedes all of this." And that truth is what enabled all of the people mentioned in Hebrews 11 to rise above what they were "seeing" and keep their eyes fixed on God.

Now, I think you believe all that I have just said. But look at your conclusions -- the final thoughts of your essay. Let me respond, if I might, to each point.

1) Those who are experiencing insecurity should not be condemned and shamed as sinners and unbelievers.

Right! They should never be condemned or shamed. But they need to be reminded of who they are in Christ, because then it helps them see that their insecurities are unnecessary in Christ. Security in Christ (Eph 1) is in direct contrast to our insecurities (which have more to do with putting our eyes on ourselves) because it is all about Him. We must take our eyes off of who we think we are (or aren't) and consider our lives "hidden in Christ", as Paul says.

2) The human experience of insecurity is part of the Gospel story, and it should be put into the context of the Gospel story.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this, but human insecurity is only part of the Gospel story to the extent that we must acknowledge that apart from Christ, we have no security whatsoever. But the beauty of the Gospel (which is definitely "good news") is that Christ came to preach freedom to the captives. Is insecurity not a captivity? Captivity to false expectations or false understanding of who we are.

3) Worship should utilize the Psalms and all of scripture to hear the voices of insecurity that are part of the human encounter with God and the Gospel of the Incarnate Word.

There's an obvious response of "why?" that I want to give here, but I'll move beyond that. The "voices of insecurity" that we would hear as Christians are no different from the very first temptation which began with "Did God really say...?" Those are voices, not from God, but from the enemy of our souls. And his words do not need to be given voice in our worship. If I am not mistaken, the voices of insecurity in the Psalms are still connected with expressions such as, "Yet I will praise Him". In other words, the Psalmist understood the need to counter those "voices" with the truth of what he knew by faith.

4) Christians ought not to pretend that they have been delivered from all insecurities. Christian leaders should never lead from the manipulation of insecurity or the promise of deliverance from all fear in the present.

There's no pretending necessary. Living in the reality of what God has given us requires no pretending. This statement assumes the false dichotomy that I have tried to point out in your writing. It is a dichotomy that says either you admit that you are struggling and that you have some real deep issues, or you must be pretending. This dichotomy is completely and utterly false. With regard to "the promise of deliverance from all fear in the present", the Scripture tells us very clearly that God has not given us a spirit of fear. We are also commanded not to be anxious for anything. Jesus tells us not to worry about tomorrow. We must acknowledge that fear stands in opposition to these commands.

5) The life of the Spirit should be cultivated and grown through an organic, relational and honest community of Jesus.

Absolutely. There is nothing here to be disputed. However, when you say "honest", and I interpret that word in the context of your other essays, I think that is probably a very loaded word. "Honesty" in Internet Monk writing seems to only focus on admitting negative things, not speaking positively about victory.

6) Christians whose primary presentation of the faith is one of providing undeniable and absolutely certain answers should consider if they are not, in fact, manifesting their own insecurities.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but one can speak of the "undeniable and absolutely certain answers" revealed in Scripture without it being based in insecurity. I would say that this point is really a red herring.

7) The relation of insecurity and idolatry should be a subject of ongoing growth, prayer and teaching. The Gospel calls us to continually consider how we are seeking comfort and certainty in idolatrous ways.

Idolatry is definitely a serious issue. But if we actually do find "comfort and certainty" in the person of Jesus Christ and in our relationship to and with Him, what is the problem? Yet, I think that you have been trying to explain to me that we will not have "comfort and certainty" in this lifetime. It is a "not yet" principle in "the Gospel according to the Internet Monk".

Part of what frustrated me in this discussion, Michael, is that you insist that the statement of 2 Corinthians 5:17 that the old things have passed away and all things have become new is something that is still future. While I am willing to consider that there is a fuller realization of that still to come, there is an awful lot of past and present tense in Paul's writings that I have yet to see you honestly engage. You read statements like 2 Corinthians 5:17 and tell us that we must remember the "correct" interpretation, which ultimately means that it doesn't mean what it says.

I don't mean this illustration to insult you, but it reminds me of how Oneness Pentecostalism deals with the text of the New Testament. The teaching of the Oneness teachers is that when the Bible says "son", you should substitute the word "flesh". When it says "father", you substitute the word "spirit." Therefore, they read John 3:16 to say, "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten flesh...." This is absurd, and I'm sure you would quickly concur with me on that point.

But is that any different than taking any of the following statements of Paul and saying, "The correct interpretation is that this hasn't happened yet"?

"We died to sin"
"You have been set free from sin and have become slaves of righteousness"
"...now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God..."
"the law of the Spirit set me free from sin and death"
"You...are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit."
"You did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear"
"In all these things [trouble, hardship, persecution, etc.] we are more than conquerors through him who loved us."

You expressed frustration that you don't know what it is I think you're "biblically inconsistent" in. Let me put it this way, Michael: What you teach is generally biblically true. But the whole basis of my question regarding your hope and my comments to this post on insecurity is based on a sense that you're not telling the whole story.

I don't know if that clears anything up, but if I am missing something significant, hopefully others will be able to see it and point it out to me.

Until next time,

steve :)

A Blogger's Version of 1 Corinthians 13

2006-04-07T23:06:00.000-05:00

Note: This is not meant to be disrespectful to the biblical text in any way. Just an attempt on my part to remind myself of what this is all about.

If I blog with words that impress greatly and have the most beautiful blog template, but have not love, I am only a bunch of meaningless pixels scattered across the screen. If I have large numbers of readers coming to my blog, and hundreds of comments on every post, but have not love, I am no better than the blogger who has no readers at all. If I can exegete Scripture impressively and convince others of my theological perspective but have not love, I gain nothing.

A loving blogger is patient and kind. Love does not envy other’s site statistics, it does not boast in its own viewpoints, it is not proud of what it writes. Love is not rude to those who comment, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered by disagreements, it keeps no record of wrongs. A loving blogger does not delight in speaking or reading evil but rejoices with speaking the truth. He always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are blog hosts, their servers will fail; where there is heavy blog traffic, it will be reduced to nothing; where there is impressive writing, it will all be deleted from the file system. For we know in part and we write blog posts in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a beginning blogger, I wrote about trivial subjects, I jumped to conclusions about other viewpoints, I paid no attention to how I talked to others. When I became a mature blogger, I put beginners’ ways behind me.

Now we see but a basic representation of our words as on an old monochrome monitor; then we shall understand all of this theological truth in its fullest. Now I only understand a little bit about which I write; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: site statistics, creative writing and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Biblical Words for "Preach" in Context

2006-04-02T21:35:00.000-05:00

We've been spending some time on this blog looking at the concepts of preaching and teaching and how they relate to the church. If you are new to this series and have not seen the former posts, let me point you to them here:

The comments on these posts have been really great, and I appreciate the involvement of all who have chosen to interact. I've been saying for some time now that I really want to look at the differences between teaching and preaching in the New Testament. The basic thrust of this series is that I have a hunch that the current model of church that we see here in America (and I know other western countries are very similar, too) is not a healthy one, and is not as biblically-based as many would like us to think. The concept of preaching is one area where I feel that we have missed the mark. Consider some of the following points that are rather common among most evangelical churches:

Church is viewed as a place where lost people can come and be led to Christ (read 1 Corinthians 14 to see what perspective the gathering of believers has with relation to the unbeliever)
The church service is almost always geared around a lengthy monologue of some sort from the same person who preaches every service
People are expected to join a church and sit under the preaching of that one man (or whomever is preaching) for their entire lives. The only ones who get a "get out of jail free" card (don't take that too seriously!) are people who end up pastoring their own churches, or missionaries who travel to another country to evangelize and preach.
A church is pretty much known by who its "pastor" is, and that pastor is viewed as the spiritual head of the church, as well as of each individual member, regardless of the size of the church and the corresponding ability for an actual personal relationship between the pastor and each member.

Since I've already attempted to show that Nehemiah 8 is not the model we should be using, it stands to reason that we need to look at what actually is talked about with regard to preaching and teaching in the New Testament. And with that, I'd like to first of all examine some uses of the word "preach" in the New Testament.

Please note that the nature of this blog is such that an exhaustive word study is not being presented. I am merely scratching the surface here to challenge your thinking and possibly cause you to search more on your own. If you have any questions about what I've included or what I've left out, however, feel free to address those questions in the comments section, and I'll answer them.

There are several different Greek words translated as "preach" in some versions. I have chosen to use the King James version for this word study, because I think it is through that version that a lot of our concepts of preaching have come. There are two words that appear more than any others. Those are the words kerusso (I'm using transliterations here since not everyone may have the same Greek font that I use) and euaggelizo.

Kerusso is basically defined as "proclaim" or "herald". This word is most often used in conjunction with the proclamation or heralding of the Kingdom of God. Throughout the Gospels, this is the word translated as "preach", with the two exceptions of Luke 4:43, which uses euaggelizo and Luke 9:60, which uses diaggello (defined as "to publish abroad").

Euaggelizo is defined as "to bring good news", and is used one time in the Gospels and translated as "preach". That is, as I just mentioned, in Luke 4:43. Throughout Acts and the epistles, however, both euaggelizo and kerusso appear in almost even numbers. In the vast majority of the verses where these words appear, and where context gives some indication of the purpose of the "preaching" being done, it seems to be clearly related to actual evangelism. Admittedly, it isn't as clear in every situation as we might hope (for the purpose of drawing distinct conclusions), but there are a couple of instances where it is most definitely referring to evangelism. Those are Romans 15:20 and Galatians 1:16.

Romans 15:20 says, "I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." Here, Paul clearly states that his "preaching" was not a weekly task in a church full of believers, but evangelism in unreached places. Likewise, Galatians 1:16 says, "...that I might preach [Jesus] among the heathen...." Much as some pastors would admit that their congregation members seem like heathen (hehe), I don't think that's what Paul was talking about.

In the passages where evangelism is not clearly understood from the context, it is almost impossible to narrow down the purpose of preaching. While some passages are clearly evangelism, others are not clear at all. This includes 2 Timothy 4:2 which says, "Preach the Word". Context is not entirely clear in that passage, but Paul does exhort Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist", and I think that might give us a clue. Paul is seeming to be asking Timothy to carry on the work that he (Paul) had been doing, since his time was about gone in this life.

Regardless of how we interpret these "less clear" passages, one thing that I found is that there is never a clear example of "preaching" being done in the church gathering. One particular passage, however, that I have heard many times used to justify preaching in the church needs to be addressed. That is the story in Acts 20:7-12. Here, we read that Paul preached to them until midnight. In today's modern churches, it is easy to imagine that Paul must have stood up at a pulpit in the front, and preached to the people, monologue-style, for hours on end. I've been in some churches where that has pretty much happened! But something very important needs to be pointed out here. This word for "preach" is not kerusso. It's not euaggelizo. It's dialegomai. Does that word look like any English word you know? I'll give you a hint. It's different from our English word "monologue", and rhymes with "buy a log"! :) That's right. Paul "dialogued" with them until midnight. It was most certainly interactive teaching taking place.

So what about preaching, then? Does it have any place in the church? Well, quite honestly, it's hard to say. But I can say this: There is no clear example of a regular, weekly sermon being given in the New Testament church. And even if there were regular "sermons", it is not at all evident that the same man gave them every time. In fact, 1 Corinthians 14 deals with the fact that everyone can contribute something to a gathering of believers.

Many have suggested in the past that "prophecy" in the New Testament equates to our modern practice of preaching. I don't think that is the case, though. Note a couple things about the instructions Paul gives there. First of all, he says that there should be two or three that speak. Secondly, he clearly instructs that if one gets a revelation while another is speaking, the first should be silent and let the second speak!

Preaching is clearly used in the New Testament (this much we do know) in an evangelistic environment. In other words, regardless of whether or not you agree with his theology (that is not under debate in this context), Billy Graham preaches in a way that is consistent with the New Testament. He preaches publicly, with the intended audience being unbelievers (Acts 2, Acts 4, etc.) and preaches the basic truth of the Gospel to them, basically proclaiming the Kingdom of God. I believe there will always be a need for that kind of preaching.

Next time, we'll take up the words translated as "teach" and see what we can find.

Until next time

steve :)

Titles of Leadership

2006-03-31T21:34:00.000-05:00

I'm going to interrupt my series on preaching and teaching to touch on something that came to my mind again this evening while I was skimming through the news feeds that I get delivered to my blog aggregator (Bloglines). Apparently, there have been some people frustrated that the murdered minister in Tennessee has been referred to in the media as "Pastor Winkler". I was not aware of this, but it seems from some sources that the Church of Christ (in which he was a minister) uses the terms "preacher" or "minister" to refer to the main teacher in the church, but not "pastor".

Now, I have no idea what their thinking is behind this, but it reminded me of something that I had thought of a couple years ago. That is the subject of titles for any leaders in the church. Now, before anyone misunderstands, please note that I am not talking about words that refer to what the person does. For example, I may say, "Bob is a pastor." That tells me what gifting is part of the contribution Bob makes to the Body of Christ. As such, it is a descriptive word. But to refer to someone as "Pastor Bob" takes on a whole different issue, and one which I would like to examine briefly. (Can I actually stay brief?!)

But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. --Matthew 23:8-12 (NIV)

Jesus made some interesting statements with regard to leadership in the Church, and it seems to me that the one above is so often overlooked. What was the point of what Jesus was saying here? In context, he is criticizing the Pharisees, saying that even though they were teaching the right things, they were doing everything to be noticed, and doing everything for public praise. He said in the verses immediately preceding the paragraph above that they loved to be called "Rabbi". It made them feel important. It put them on a level above the people.

Then Jesus tells His own disciples that they should not be called "Rabbi". And what was His explanation as to why? "You have only one Master and you are all brothers." (emphasis added) Do you see the significance of this? Who is the Master? Jesus. And what is the relationship of believers to each other? Brothers.

I think it's interesting that Jesus doesn't only say "Don't call others this." He actually puts the responsibility on the shoulders of the leaders not to be called by special titles! I take that to mean that if someone actually comes up to you and calls you "Teacher" that you should correct them!

So how we have gotten to the point in our churches today that we boldly refer to our leaders as "Pastor So-and-So"? Or, how about "Reverend So-and-So"? What does "reverend" mean? Well, according to one online dictionary, it means "deserving of reverence" (no kidding!) which is defined as "A feeling of profound awe and respect and often love; veneration." Does this sound like it squares with the instructions of Jesus?

Furthermore, if we look at the fact that "pastor" is just one "gift" given to the Church, that sheds some more interesting light on the issue. While it is true that only four or five gifts are mentioned in Ephesians 4:11 (the only use in the New Testament of "pastor" as a part of the Body of Christ), some of those same gifts, including "teacher" are mentioned in 1 Corinthians in a list of many other gifts. So, if we are going to call someone with the gift of pastoring "Pastor Bob", why don't we then call someone with the gift of healing, "Healing Jane"? Or perhaps someone with the gift of mercy could be "Mercy Mark".

No, unfortunately, what has happened is that we have done exactly what Jesus told us not to do. We have elevated certain gifts above others and used those gifts as titles. Jesus made it clear that we are to humble ourselves, not exalt ourselves. We are to serve, not be served. Inasmuch as the titles assigned to our leaders today do nothing but exalt them, I think it's high time we take the words of Jesus seriously and get back to the flat organizational chart He described in the above passage. Jesus is our Master and Teacher. God is our Father. Let none of us usurp the titles clearly delineated for use by God alone.

Don't let people do that to you, put you on a pedestal like that. You all have a single Teacher, and you are all classmates. Don't set people up as experts over your life, letting them tell you what to do. Save that authority for God; let him tell you what to do. No one else should carry the title of "Father"; you have only one Father, and he's in heaven. And don't let people maneuver you into taking charge of them. There is only one Life-Leader for you and them--Christ. Do you want to stand out? Then step down. Be a servant. If you puff yourself up, you'll get the wind knocked out of you. But if you're content to simply be yourself, your life will count for plenty. --Matthew 23:8-12 (The Message)

Until next time,

steve :)

By the way, as a bonus, can anyone tell me how the Roman Catholic Church priest system gets around this command not to be called "father"?

Preaching in the Church -- continued

2006-03-28T07:46:00.000-05:00

In my previous post, I examined a good portion of a sermon given by Dr. Steve Lawson at the Shepherds Conference, as live-blogged by Tim Challies. I dealt with some of what I consider to be misapplications of Nehemiah 8 with relation to the modern practice of preaching. Some very interesting discussion took place in the comments of that post, and I encourage you to read the post and all the comments, if you haven't done so already.

Today, I want to touch briefly on the remainder of Dr. Lawson's points in preparation for moving on to a more general discussion of preaching and teaching. I apologize that it's taking as long as it is to get through this. Lately, I've been spending time interacting with Steve Camp on his blog with regard to the Reformed doctrine of the "active" and "passive" obedience of Jesus Christ vis-à-vis the righteousness that is imputed to us. It's been an interesting discussion, and I must commend Steve for his graciousness in dealing with my "nitpicking"! The whole discussion reminds me of a post I wrote last August called "Whisper Down the Lane" Theology about our tendency as believers to believe what a "trusted source" tells us about Scripture, rather than searching the Scriptures ourselves. And in a way, it relates to this topic of preaching.

There were some comments in the discussion on the last post with regard to "pew-sitters". Those of you who know me, and who have been reading here, probably understand that I am very passionately against "passive Christians". I do understand that there are some who sit under a pastor's teaching who do diligently check the Word for themselves. It can happen, and I don't want to give the impression that I don't think it ever does happen. However, and this is the point that I feel cannot be emphasized enough, we cannot overlook the fact that the very nature of our institutionalized "church" experience fosters passivity. Diligent Berean searching continues to be the exception, rather than the rule. Additionally, with a rather disturbing predictability, most who discover something in their Berean searching that causes them to question the doctrine being taught are treated badly as a result.

We do not see in the New Testament a pattern of "passive" listening and accepting. We see, rather, a pattern of active participation by the members of the Body and instructions to that effect. Certainly, we should respect those who are elders (by definition, those who have earned that respect by their diligent faithfulness to the Word and to the Lord) and their words should carry more weight with us. But I can find no evidence in the New Testament where believers were exhorted to receive without question the teachings that were being presented. Why else would the Bereans be spoken of so positively?

So, having said all that, to wrap up my response to Dr. Lawson's sermon, I will pick up where I left off. Last time, I shared the three major points of Dr. Lawson's sermon, and dealt with the first one and part of the second. The second point (characteristics of biblical preaching), had five subpoints, of which I dealt with three. Picking up, then, with the fourth point, I will use the same format as last time, where Tim Challies' words are in italics, and my response is in plain text.

A God-exalting thrust: Ezra blessed the Lord and there was an unveiling of the Word of God. We are to be exaltational expositors. Ezra blessed the Lord and the people cried out "Amen!" bowing low before God. Expositional preaching should be elevating God and lowering man. The more you lower God and raise man, you are trivializing the grace of God. But when God is put in His rightful place, you are magnifying the grace of God.

This point has much more weight with regard to the entire Christian life than just to preaching. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:17, "And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." Anything that we do, anything that we say, should be with the intent of God being glorified. I love the words of John the Baptist when he said about Jesus, "He must become greater; I must become less." Should this not be the focus of every believer?
An [sic] precise explanation: Until you have given the true meaning of the text, you have not given the text. Christianity is concerned primarily with the mind, not with feelings or relationships, as important as those may be. It is all about truth - God’s objective revelation interpreted rationally. A pastor explains the text and gives the author’s intent for that text. He explains the text, exhorts with it, and moves on to the next text.

I don't know if Dr. Lawson gave any support for his statement that "Christianity is concerned primarily with the mind, not with feelings or relationships" when he presented this sermon, but none is given here. I have to say that I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Jesus told us that the greatest commandment was to love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. I'm not sure that one can extract from that commandment that any of those is of greater importance than the others. Much is said in the New Testament about relationships as they relate to Christianity. (For example, what does it mean to be "in Christ", if not to be in a relationship with Him? See John 15:1-17.) Christianity is not merely an intellectual exercise. To imply that there is a divide between our minds and our relationships is a bit difficult to defend, in my opinion.

Again, however, that point being put aside, we have here the emphasis on "the pastor" being the one to explain the text, give the author's intent, etc. As I pointed out in the last post, Ezra was not actually the one explaining the text anyway. It was a group of thirteen other men who explained what Ezra read aloud. That may seem like a nitpick, but I think it's a significant point that we should not overlook.

There also is a bit of danger in the term "true meaning". I may be overshooting here, but this gives an impression to me that we can't read the text for what it says, but rather have to make sure we find the "true meaning" behind the text. Now to be fair, I don't believe that Dr. Lawson is here encouraging a liberal interpretation of Scripture that reads everything as metaphoric and allegorical. But we have the subtle implication, once again, that the pastor will be able to share the "true meaning" with the passive laity, who must come to the pastor (see my comments in the last post about the idea of crying out "Bring me the book", which I have since found out was the title of this sermon by Dr. Lawson) and ask for the interpretation.

With that, I will end my critique of Dr. Lawson's sermon. I mentioned in the comments of the last post that I had emailed Dr. Lawson and given him the opportunity to correct my understanding or submit a rebuttal. As of the writing of this post, I have not received anything from Dr. Lawson in reply. However, if he does reply, I will be sure and post his response publicly so that it can get just as much visibility as my critique.

I must say, however, that this is not anything personal against Dr. Lawson. Frankly, I don't even know Dr. Lawson. I've never heard him preach, and here I'm only going on what Tim Challies chose to type as he listened. But the topic itself was one which I was already addressing, and this gave a rather straightforward way of presenting the rationalization that is commonly given for "biblical preaching" in our churches today.

Next time, I hope to get further into the distinction between various words translated as "preach" and explore some theories with regard to the difference between preaching and teaching. But for now, I toss it back to you, my dear readers. What are your thoughts?

Until next time,

steve :)

Preaching in the Church -- Is Nehemiah 8 the Model?

2006-03-17T08:57:00.000-05:00

So much for my plans to post heavily this week while I had extra time! But I'm finally ready to start taking a more detailed look at the subject of preaching. Preaching has definitely taken central focus in our churches, and it begs the question: Is this how it was in the early church? And the obvious follow-up question is, should it be the way it is in our churches today?

I'm amazed at the way in which people not only assume that preaching is meant to be a central part of our gatherings, but that it is absolutely essential. Many include "preaching of the Word" in their understanding of what truly defines a "church". In other words, if the Word isn't being preached every week, the gathering is not truly a church.

I've already attempted to define a local church, which in my definition does not require "preaching" per se. However, that often causes people to think that I'm describing a social gathering only. As I deal with this issue, I want to draw a very clear distinction between "preaching" and "teaching".

I think that some of the confusion, and why we often use "preaching" and "teaching" interchangeably is because Ephesians 4:11 refers to "pastors and teachers". Given that this is the only time the word "pastor" is used in the Bible to refer to a gifting in the church, and given that we have termed the leader of the institutional church a "pastor", and given that one of the primary roles of that "pastor" is to stand up on Sunday morning (and Sunday evening in some churches, and even Wednesday evening in some churches) and preach, it makes sense that we have combined "preaching" and "teaching" into one concept. This is sad, though, because it unnecessarily encumbers our thinking.

Interestingly, just one day after I posted my introduction to this topic, Tim Challies (live-blogging at the Shepherds Conference at Grace Church led by John MacArthur) detailed a session taught by Steve Lawson. I say "interestingly", not that Tim wrote that post, because Tim was live-blogging that whole week. But what was interesting to me was that Dr. Lawson's text for that session was Nehemiah 8, which I had already mentioned as being used by some as a defense of modern, expository preaching.

At the risk of once again appearing to be a small chihuahua yapping at a great dane, I would like to examine what Dr. Lawson taught from that passage. Besides the danger inherent in using Old Testament passages as a model for New Testament behavior (we can discuss that more, if anyone wishes to) without any cross-reference to the New Testament's truth (specifically, the work of Jesus Christ), there are some glaring errors in Dr. Lawson's presentation that perpetuate the myth that it is not only necessary, but biblical, for one man to stand on a platform preaching to a crowd of listeners in the church today.

Dr. Lawson's main topics, neatly alliterated for us, are:

Call for biblical preaching
Characteristics of biblical preaching
Consequences of biblical preaching

The second point is the one that Dr. Lawson apparently spent the most time on, and so I will spend the most time critiquing that. However, just briefly, I want to comment on the first point.

Tim wrote that Dr. Lawson commented, with regard to the call for biblical preaching, "The people in your congregation who know God and love God are crying out to the pastor, 'Bring the book! Bring it to me!'" I do not doubt that this is true. But, this illustrates one of the big difficulties facing Christianity today. People are still extremely focused on getting God's revelation from a man. Our institutionalized system of church, with its professional clergy, fosters this mentality. We pay someone to study the Bible and then tell us what it says.

Why did the people gather (in Neh. 8:1) and ask Ezra to bring the book to them? Quite simply, they did not have access to the Word of God themselves! We cannot underestimate the fact that God has not only chosen to give us His Word in our language, but that He also has given us the Holy Spirit to open that Word to us. Now, I'm not downplaying teaching here. I'm referring here to the idea that people have to come to a pastor and ask for the Word of God. Teaching does, as I hope to demonstrate through this series, play a part in the body of Christ as it matures and grows (Eph. 4:11-12). But this type of preaching that is being described should not be assumed to be the way in which people get the Word of God delivered to them. (Or at best, it should not be presumed to be the primary method.)

Moving on to Lawson's second point (characteristics of biblical preaching), he gave five subpoints. Below are the first three of those five points in the words of Tim Challies (in italics), with my commentary following each point (in plain text).

A biblical reading: A reading of the Word of God. Ezra read from the Law, beginning his exposition of the Word of God with a reading of the Word. He simply read the book, knowing that the Bible is living and active and sharper than a two-edged sword. This word "read" means "to cry out." He called aloud, roared, proclaimed the Word. This is how a pastor begins the exposition of the Word of God in which the pastor makes a statement that everything that is said will originate from this text of Scripture. "I will be the mouthpiece of this passage of Scripture to this congregation."

I am certainly in favor of the reading of Scripture. And I'm certainly in favor of the public reading of Scripture in our gatherings. So this point doesn't cause me much concern. However, this idea of "I will be the mouthpiece of this passage of Scripture to this congregation" moves toward the unhealthy dependence on a particular person being necessary to speak God's Word to His people.
A lengthy treatment: Ezra read from early morning until mid-day. All the people, despite the length, were attentive to the Word of God. "This was not a sermonette for Christianettes." This was an adult standing in the pulpit, preaching the Word of God using adult language. Through this passage we see that there is to be a full treatment of the Word of God. There needs to be a full disclosure of the truth of the passage and a connectedness fo [sic] their lives.

This point involves a subtle (and unintentional, I'm sure) twisting of what the text says. It does not say that Ezra expounded the words he read in order to teach the people. It only states that Ezra read from the scroll. Where the "exposition" comes is from thirteen others (listed in Neh. 8:7) who "explained the law to the people". While the point about the attentiveness of the people is accurate, and while the point about the length of time spent reading and explaining here is accurate, there are a couple of things to note.

First of all, these are not people who had been coming weekly to hear Ezra preach. These were people who had been in exile for seventy years without someone to read and preach the Word to them. Nor do we have any evidence that they regularly gathered together to have the Word taught to them in this manner, to this extent. This was a sermon (if you want to use that term) to make up for seventy years of spiritual drought! That hardly can be compared to our weekly gatherings.

Second, as I mentioned above, it fosters an incorrect understanding of this passage to imply that Ezra was the only one reading and explaining the Word to the people. He read, while others explained to the people what it all meant. I would imagine that probably what happened was that Ezra would read a portion, and then the other thirteen teachers explained to various groups of people that were gathered. Then Ezra would read another section, and the cycle would repeat itself.
An authoritative posture: Ezra stood at a wooden podium. There is an authoritative posture - he is not sitting on a stool sharing. He is not walking around gabbing. He is standing at a pulpit because the Word of God is on the pulpit. Ezra mounted the platform in order to be seen and to be heard. You cannot get the Bible open soon enough when you walk to the pulpit. That Ezra stood above the people was intentional for there was a transcendence about this. It showed the superiority of the Word of God and the position of the people.

I really don't want to be harsh here. But how does one say this delicately? When the text is silent on something, and especially when the text does not state the significance of something, we must be very careful not to put too much emphasis on a detail. It is entirely possible, and I dare say more probable, that Ezra stood above the people simply so that he could be heard. This type of justification for a preacher standing on a stage at a wooden podium does damage to the text. Practically speaking, there was no microphone or sound system for Ezra to use. There was a rather large group of people who wanted to hear the Word being read. How best to accomplish that, then to have the speaker elevated?

And as for the wooden podium (contrasted with sitting on a stool or walking around), let's bear in mind that Ezra wasn't reading out of a nice, leather-bound KJV Bible that can be held in his hand! He was reading from scrolls -- possibly old and fragile scrolls. A wooden podium makes sense if for no other purpose than to hold the scrolls as he read. Yet in this particular point by Dr. Lawson, thousands of pastors were made to feel justified in standing above their congregation to preach.

To avoid the risk of this post turning into one of the "books" to which "flutemom" referred in a recent comment (hehe), I'm going to pull it to a close there. There are two other subpoints that I did not cover above, but I will touch on those in my next post.

For now, let me summarize in this way. Nehemiah 8 recounts a very moving and powerful story in Israel's history. It shows the need for the Word of God. It shows the hunger that was deep within the Israelites after seventy years of exile from their land and religious practices. It shows the wonderful way in which their hunger and thirst (spiritually speaking) was quenched by the Word of God. There is a lot to be learned from this passage.

Unfortunately, Dr. Lawson's applications are not the lessons to be learned. This passage cannot, and should not, be used to justify any particular model of our gatherings together. If anything, the use of this passage to defend the modern practice of preaching in church shows how closely tied the institutional church is to Old Testament models. This represents a severe danger, in my opinion, of underestimating the change that the life of Jesus brought to our relationship with God and with each other. If we believe in the "priesthood of all believers" as something that was brought in by the New Covenant, then we should be very careful to eschew any model which places one person above the rest as the voice of God and His Word to that people.

Until next time,

steve :)

Why Don't We See the Miraculous?

2006-03-09T09:17:00.000-05:00

I will get back to the preaching and teaching topic in my next post, but I started to reply to a question that Larry Who asked in the comments of my last post, and my reply got so lengthy that I decided to just post it here. Somehow, the comments section of the last post took a turn from talking about preaching and teaching to talking about revival. And in that context, Larry wrote: In other parts of the world, these types of miracles are happening. Why not here?

I can't say for certain, Larry. However, lately, I have been intrigued by the comment that the Scripture makes that Jesus could not do many miracles in a certain region because of the lack of faith there. (Forgive me for not looking it up right now)

My question is: Is there faith in America to the same extent that faith is being exhibited in China, certain nations of Africa, etc.? I believe, and very sadly so, that American Christianity is largely faithless.

I tend to listen to a lot of Christian music (or, to be more accurate, music produced by labels who use the term "Christian"!) and Christian preaching on the radio -- I'm not sure why, because it invariably ends up frustrating me! But one thing that I continue to notice is that we really don't believe God wants to move in our lives in that way. The common thread is that God is probably going to just allow lots of tragedies in our lives, when in reality, we know nothing of true suffering for Christ. When the New Testament talks about suffering for Christ, it's talking about persecution, not getting cancer.

No offense to a well-respected preacher, but when John Piper comes out with the revelation that he has prostate cancer and then tells people that this is God's design (not just that God allowed it, but that God designed it) for his life, who wants to interfere with God's design by praying for miraculous healing?

Update 3/16/06: A very astute reader emailed me privately and pointed to the fact that Piper does say in the italics at the top of the article to which I linked that he believes praying for healing is the correct approach. While he doesn't believe that it is always God's will to heal, I do stand corrected on my implication that it would be hard to pray for healing for someone of the belief that God designed this cancer. My sincerest apologies for misrepresenting Piper's words in that way.

The New Testament is clear that we can expect to suffer persecution (even from religious leaders) if we take a stand for our faith in Christ. This happens daily in China. And they "get it" there. They understand that it's their privilege to suffer that persecution for Christ. But here in America, we define "suffering" as any kind of hardship in our lives. And we just tell people to ride it out and not to try to thwart God's "design" for our lives.

Sorry for the rant here, but that is really how I respond to Larry's question. I'm not upset at you, Larry, so don't misread the tone of this response. But I do believe that as long as a large percentage of Christians in America continue to hold such a strange view of God (reference the way people explained Hurricane Katrina, or the devastating tsunami in Asia as a direct act of God), we should not then expect to see the miraculous events that other countries see.

I sincerely hope I'm not stepping on too many toes with this. I once wrote a post called "Quit Blaming God!" which garnered a bit of disagreement in the comments section. I realize in retrospect that I probably didn't articulate my point as well as I should have (and probably am not here, either!!), but I still believe that there is a difference in the way we will handle things in our lives between trusting God through any circumstance and believing that God actually designed/caused/wanted this circumstance to happen. Back then, frequent commenter "ded" responded with some very thoughtful replies, basically questioning why it needed to be defined the way I defined it. And I certainly respect my brother's disagreement with me on that. But I guess I'm still pretty convinced that ultimately it does matter. I just can't seem to convince people why ;) hehe

I better quit now! ;) I may be getting myself in too deep.

Until next time,

steve :)

The Role of Teaching and Preaching -- an Introduction

2006-02-28T13:32:00.000-05:00

First of all, please allow me to apologize for the length of time that has passed since my last post! Tonight (actually in just 4 1/2 hours!) I am presenting a piano recital at Appalachian State University (where I'm working on my masters, and where I also do my "day job" of accompanying music students), and preparation for it has pretty much consumed my time over the last few weeks. For those of you with interest in classical music, I'll let you know that this evening's program consists of just two works (about 45 minutes' worth of music):

Ballade No. 3 in A-flat, Op. 47 by Chopin
Sonata No. 3 in f minor, Op. 5 by Brahms

With my apology out of the way, I want to get back to the topic of this blog, which has nothing to do with classical music! Today, I'd like to take up the subject of preaching and teaching, and what role I see those playing in the church.

During my absence here, Ray posted a great essay on his blog about didactic teaching. Ray and I have talked about this subject some in the comments section of this blog, and it was great to see a lengthier treatment of the topic by Ray. Ray's observations on the topic come from his Jewish background, and so he draws on the practices of the Jewish synagogue. This was greatly informative to me, because I don't have the background Ray does, and so it is good for me to learn from that.

I think it is very important to understand the Jewish background of Christianity, and so Ray's background really helps there. When the first Christians became...well, Christians...in Jerusalem, it is obvious from the book of Acts that they were Jewish believers. In fact, the first part of the book of Acts deals heavily with the church in Jerusalem, and we see in Acts 15, especially, the difficulty of the transition from mostly Jewish believers to a truly mixed bag of believers from other races as well. It seems obvious from the teachings of Jesus (and this can also be seen in the Old Testament prophets -- especially Isaiah -- if you read them carefully) that God's plan was exactly this "worldwide" body of believers. Jesus talked about the need to tell the good news of the kingdom in "Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the world."

Now, this obviously brings up an important question as to how much of the Jewish heritage gets retained in Christianity, and how much of Christianity was a "new thing" that Jesus inaugurated. Again, I think it's very important to understand the Jewish background of it all, especially when we understand that God showed us a lot with Israel, and ultimately, the understanding of what took place in the nation of Israel should lead to an understanding of the events leading up to the Messiah, Jesus.

However, when it comes to "church", I'm not positive that the Jewish model is a necessary analogy to be drawn. To understand where I'm going with this, I think it's important to understand how my grid and presuppositions will influence my direction and conclusions. While I don't have a full understanding of what Paul wrote in Romans 9-11 with regard to the Jewish nation ("All Israel will be saved", etc.), I believe that there is a compelling argument to be made for the Body of Christ (the "capital C Church", if you will) being a fulfillment of God's design for Israel. Or, to state it the other way, I believe that God's plan for Israel itself was a type (a foreshadowing) of what He would accomplish in the Church. I, together with all believers Jewish or Gentile, am part of the Body of Christ, the people of God, etc. I no longer subscribe to the dispensational view of a distinction between Israel and "the Church". I won't bore you with all the details of how I came to change my views on that, but suffice it to say that I used to be a full-blooded dispensationalist, but I have concluded that dispensationalism is in error.

Basically the reason I share all of that is to say that while I understand the need for Jewish background information, I think it can lead us down a misguided path when it comes to the subject of teaching and preaching. For example, I recently read an article that used Nehemiah 8:8 as a "biblical basis" for expository preaching. The basic premise of the article was that because the Scripture was read, expounded upon, and then applied to the lives of the hearers, this is justification for the same kind of preaching in the New Testament church. The article also went on to mention some New Testament examples of the same kind of preaching being commanded.

I believe there are some weaknesses in argument here, and so I hope to develop these ideas more in forthcoming posts. (This post is serving just as an introduction to the topic.) Let me give you an overview of some of the points I will be attempting to make:

I believe that "preaching" and "teaching" should not be used interchangably. I believe that they serve two different purposes, and I will attempt to show support for this conclusion from the Scripture.
Related to the above point, I believe that there is a difference between evangelism and spiritual teaching, and that these two have often become enmeshed in ways that cause confusion with regard to preaching and teaching.
I still maintain, and will continue to support Scripturally, the idea that the arrival of Jesus and our subsequent indwelling of the Holy Spirit made significant changes in the way that we relate to God and His Word.
I believe that teaching still has a very relevant and important role in the Church today. I also believe that preaching is still very relevant, but not in the sense that we often think it is.
I do not believe that every church "service" must have a monologue style sermon (or "didactic teaching" to use Ray's much nicer-sounding term) in order for a group to be considered a church.

Now, I realize that some of these points will require some thought and dialogue to fully establish, so I hope that you will join in through comments so that we can interact. I hope to establish these and other points to a degree that, even though we might not all agree, it will help to dispel some of the myths of simple church and even some of the extra-biblical definitions of church that keep popping up in discussions such as these.

And hopefully, you won't have to wait 3 weeks for the next post!! :) Now, I'm off to get ready for my recital...

Until next time,

steve :)

Internet Explorer 7 and Protection Against Heresy

2006-02-07T08:49:00.000-05:00

Today, Tim Challies briefly mentioned Internet Explorer 7, which is available in beta form right now, and I went to take a look at it. I found a very interesting list of features, which caused two thoughts to immediately pop into my mind:

Microsoft is a genius at copying other people's work (the features listed sound very much like the Firefox browser I'm currently using!)
Microsoft's approach to creating a browser creates a striking parallel in my mind in the discussion about the institutional church and whether or not simple churches are more susceptible to heresy.

The nature of this blog is such that I'm not going to even spend time on point 1. But point 2 is something I wanted to flesh out for you and give you some food for thought. Conventional wisdom says (and some comments on my previous posts have touched on this) that without pastors, elders, and other "authorities" in the Church, a particular fellowship leaves itself more susceptible to heresy. After all, the thinking goes, who is going to be able to step in and say, "Wait a minute! That's not correct. If you look at the Greek word here, which I did in seminary, you'll see that it really means this, and therefore, this is the correct interpretation"?

Now, one of my usual disclaimers here: I am not bashing higher education in theology. I have a bachelor of science in Bible, and I also did about 30 credits toward a master of theology degree (including 5 semesters of Greek). So don't misunderstand my approach here. If you have studied theology at that level, I have nothing against that.

But let me draw the parallels that I saw with regard to Internet Explorer 7 (IE 7), and maybe you'll understand where I'm going with this. Take for example, the common internet problem of "phishing". IE 7 includes a new "Phishing filter", about which Microsoft writes:

[The Phishing Filter] proactively warns and helps protect you against potential or known fraudulent sites and blocks the site if appropriate. The opt-in filter is updated several times per hour using the latest security information from Microsoft and several industry partners about fraudulent websites.

Now, for months, we've been telling people, "Be careful about clicking on links in emails. If it looks like it is an email from a bank or some other financial institution, be extremely careful. That link may actually redirect to a malicious site which will then steal your password and account information." But now, what does Microsoft basically say? "Relax! We've got your back. We'll do the research for you, and every couple of hours, we'll update our list so that you can safely browse the internet. If you happen to click on one of those phishing links, we'll even block the site for you."

Instead of encouraging people to think for themselves, Microsoft claims to do the thinking for you. You don't have to be so careful now, because The Knowledgable One will watch over you and make sure you don't go off into danger.

Or, take the "Fix My Settings" feature. Again, Microsoft does all the thinking for you. Here's their description of the feature:

To keep you protected from browsing with unsafe settings, Internet Explorer 7 warns you with an Information Bar when current security settings may put you at risk. Within the Internet Control Panel, you will see certain critical items highlighted in red when they are unsafely configured. In addition to dialog alerts warning you about unsafe settings, you will be reminded by the Information Bar as long as the settings remain unsafe. You can instantly reset Internet security settings to the 'Medium-High' default level by clicking the 'Fix My Settings' option in the Information Bar.

So, if you happen to change a setting and it puts you at risk, Microsoft will warn you about it, and allow you to click an option that might as well be labelled "Let Microsoft Set My Security to Their Definition of Safety". That's their way of helping the internet community stay safe and out of danger.

Now, I want to clarify here (again!) that I'm not against these types of safety features in principle. In the same way, I'm not against the idea of people in the body of Christ having the wisdom and maturity to hold up a red flag and caution people about their doctrine, their behavior, etc. In fact, as you all probably know, that's a biblical function of elders! They definitely have their place in the body of Christ.

But, and herein is the rub, if this function of elders is presented in such a way that discourages or even stifles the maturing and development of an individual's own ability to listen to the Holy Spirit and seek discernment, it is not healthy. This is true, even if it is done unintentionally. And this is where my concern comes in with regard to too much institutional structure and heirarchy.

First of all, I do not believe that structure and heirarchy prevent against heresy any more than structure and heirarchy prevented financial fraud from happening in Enron. Who was John writing to in 1 John? Was he merely writing to the elders of the church? No. And yet John exhorts all believers to test spirits, to discern true teaching (even gives them a litmus test of whether or not a prophet is truly one of them), etc. It is the responsibility of each and every believer to become so fully rooted in the vine of Jesus Christ that they can spot heresy a mile away.

Ephesians 4 clues us in as to how that happens. Basically, to boil it way down, the more mature and gifted believers are to equip the newer and less mature believers -- with the stated goal of maturity -- to do the work of the ministry. What's the result of this: Disciples breeding disciples. Teachers breeding teachers. Maturity breeding maturity. If anything that we are doing, or any structure we create, or any heirarchy we define gets in the way of that maturing process, then we must very carefully examine whether or not we are doing the right thing.

My sense is that a heirarchical structure of "leadership" and "authority" (not using those words biblically, mind you) does much more to prevent growth and maturity than it does to promote it. Is that anecdotal? Yes, admittedly so. I do not have statistics to back it up. However, I would encourage us all to look at the fruit that has been borne out of the institutional church and ask if there is something that is missing from the overall picture.

For example, as I take a very quick drive-by of history: The church developed very quickly from the NT time into an institution of bishops and priests and "leaders" that "watched over" the congregation. And very quickly, the idea of a congregation member being able to think on their own was squashed. This got to be such a problem (in the Roman Catholic Church) that finally, over 400 years ago, some men stood up and said, "Where did we get so off track?" And they sought to return Bible reading and common-language understanding to the people. Martin Luther spoke out about a "priesthood of believers" that was nowhere to be found.

But what did we end up with? Please don't find me too harsh in saying this, but what differences really genuinely exist between the structure of the RCC and our Protestant institutions? Oh, I know that no Protestant leader claims out loud to be a direct descendent of the authority of Peter. And I know that no one actually claims that what they speak as a Pastor or other leader is on equal footing with Scripture (cf. the Pope's ability to speak ex cathedra). But how does it all function? Frankly, my experience both as a pastor in the institution and as a lay member in the same doesn't show much difference.

With the exception of frequent commenter Ray, I know of very few pastors who handle questions from their congregation very graciously. I have, however, spoken with many, many pastors in my own ministry experience who have talked about people "questioning their authority", "undermining their ministry", etc. In fact, in the interest of full disclosure, I will share that on several occasions, I have been that person accused of undermining someone's ministry. But I can honestly tell you that I was not undermining anything. I was merely trying to ask questions about why certain things were being handled the way they were.

This is not, in any way, meant to be a rant against the Institutional Church. I am not anti-Institutional. And to the extent that many may have pure hearts and motives in the institution, I bless them. But at the same time, I continue to sound the question of concern. Are we really producing mature, able-to-teach, disciple-making disciples of Jesus Christ? Or are people merely encouraged (either directly or tacitly) to accept our word as God's word? Our interpretation as the right interpretation? Our maturity as their maturity?

Let me conclude by referencing a quote that Bill Streger posted on his blog recently. The quote is one by John MacArthur, so I realize I'm like a chihuahua yapping at a great dane in the eyes of many right now! (And to be sure, if anyone at Pyromaniacs stumbles on this, it will spell the end of my ability ever to interact on that blog, since Phil Johnson is an associate pastor with MacArthur!) I don't say this to criticize MacArthur (and I definitely am not criticizing Bill Streger), but to take exception to the perspective given here. This is what MacArthur recommends as the way a congregation member view their pastor. Or, maybe I should say how he recommends they treat their pastor. Rather than make you click over to Bill's post, I'll reprint the entire quote here:

Fling him into his office. Tear the "Office" sign from the door and nail on the sign, "Study." Take him off the mailing list. Lock him up with his books and his typewriter and his Bible. Slam him down on his knees before texts and broken hearts and the flock of lives of a superficial flock and a holy God.
Force him to be the one man in our surfeited communities who knows about God. Throw him into the ring to box with God until he learns how short his arms are. Engage him to wrestle with God all the night through. And let him come out only when he's bruised and beaten into being a blessing.

Shut his mouth forever spouting remarks, and stop his tongue forever tripping lightly over every nonessential. Require him to have something to say before he dares break the silence. Bend his knees in the lonesome valley.

Burn his eyes with weary study. Wreck his emotional poise with worry for God. And make him exchange his pious stance for a humble walk with God and man. Make him spend and be spent for the glory of God. Rip out his telephone. Burn up his ecclesiastical success sheets.

Put water in his gas tank. Give him a Bible and tie him to the pulpit. And make him preach the Word of the living God!

Test him. Quiz him. Examine him. Humiliate him for his ignorance of things divine. Shame him for his good comprehension of finances, batting averages, and political in-fighting. Laugh at his frustrated effort to play psychiatrist. Form a choir and raise a chant and haunt him with it night and day-"Sir, we would see Jesus."

When at long last he dares assay the pulpit, ask him if he has a word from God. If he does not, then dismiss him. Tell him you can read the morning paper and digest the television commentaries, and think through the day's superficial problems, and manage the community's weary drives, and bless the sordid baked potatoes and green beans, ad infinitum, better than he can.

Command him not to come back until he's read and reread, written and rewritten, until he can stand up, worn and forlorn, and say, "Thus saith the Lord."

Break him across the board of his ill-gotten popularity. Smack him hard with his own prestige. Corner him with questions about God. Cover him with demands for celestial wisdom. And give him no escape until he's back against the wall of the Word.

And sit down before him and listen to the only word he has left-God's Word. Let him be totally ignorant of the down-street gossip, but give him a chapter and order him to walk around it, camp on it, sup with it, and come at last to speak it backward and forward, until all he says about it rings with the truth of eternity.

And when he's burned out by the flaming Word, when he's consumed at last by the fiery grace blazing through him, and when he's privileged to translate the truth of God to man, finally transferred from earth to heaven, then bear him away gently and blow a muted trumpet and lay him down softly. Place a two-edged sword in his coffin, and raise the tomb triumphant. For he was a brave soldier of the Word. And ere he died, he had become a man of God.

What message does this send? The only way you can get a good word from God is if you require your pastor to focus completely on God, deny him any access to anything outside the study, and basically beat him into humility and self-denial until all that comes out of him is the word of God. And when he reaches that point, sit at his feet and learn what God wants you to know.

I'm sorry, but I cannot accept that as God's design for His church. If what MacArthur writes is correct (and I see no biblical precedent for this kind of perspective), then we have no need for the Bible in our own language. Martin Luther wasted his time and his life. And putting a pastor in that sort of position is no different in concept (although much worse in result!) than assuming that I can browse the web safely without discernment or caution as long as I use Microsoft IE 7.

Respect the elders. Listen to them. Allow yourself to be persuaded by them.* But do not put them in the position of God in your life. Do not allow them to be the only voice of the Holy Spirit that you choose to listen to. And don't depend solely on them for preventing you from drifting off into heresy! If they happen to get off course, how will anyone know? But if all are doing their homework, a leader off-course will stick out like a sore thumb, and the whole group will remain on course by following the ultimate Leader.

Any group of believers, gathered in the name of Jesus, have access to the ultimate protection against heresy there is: the Holy Spirit. Let's not punt to human structure to create a false sense of safety and protection.

Until next time,

steve :)

* The link there shows the Greek word that has been translated as "obey" in Hebrews 13:17.

Defining the Local Church

2006-02-04T12:27:00.000-05:00

I'm not sure exactly where this is going to head, but I want to begin to focus again on some Simple Church ideas in my next few posts. This actually relates to the discussion we've had here on prophecy, spiritual gifts, etc. in some sort of way, because that discussion has brought to the surface some questions about "preaching", Sunday morning worship, and other related issues. There are so many different directions we could go in this area, and I hope to be able to blog frequently enough to touch on many of them without making my readers wait until sometime in November! ;)

One of my Christmas presents from my wife this past Christmas was the book Revolution by George Barna. My wife and I read that book together over the weeks following Christmas. I had intended to write a review of it on this blog, but that just hasn't happened. Rather than just review the book, however, I've decided to talk about some of the issues that are surfacing as a result of the publication of this book.

Before I get into that, I'm going to make a prediction. No, this is not a "prophecy", and I'm not in any way claiming this is from the Lord, so put the stones down and relax! ;) But this is just a personal thought and prediction as to what I think we're about to see here in America. Ready? OK, here it is:

I predict that we will begin to see increasing tension between the institutional church and alternative expressions of church, specifically the Simple Church (or House Church) movement. This tension will develop into many bitter debates, including statements by high-profile leaders.

Now, having made that prediction, I want to take yet one more step aside before getting into today's topic, and make a very serious and passionate plea to those who are on the Simple/House Church side of the issue. I'm making this plea to one side of the debate because many on the institutional side have already come out with their "fighting words". So, before any more discussion takes place, I'm making this simple plea to my brothers and sisters who have already begun to explore church outside of the institution: Please, please, please speak lovingly and with a heart toward partnership and reconciliation. Resist the urge to bash all things institutional. Resist the urge to argue based on emotion or poorly-reasoned arguments. Resist the urge to become defensive. Don't match fire with fire. Don't match accusations with accusations.

Now, those of you who know me know my passion and heart for Simple Church. But I hope that what you see in my writing here is more of a passion for the Body of Christ, regardless of how it is manifested, and for biblical guidelines. That's why I want to start with the area of defining what "local church" means. Some are standing up and proclaiming loud and clear the words of Martin Luther, "Apart from the church, salvation is impossible." And in doing so, they are teaching that anyone who is not a member of a local church (save in the case of being "between churches", whatever that means in their way of thinking) is at best in rebellion against God and at worst, unsaved completely. (The link I gave is just one representation of this discussion. My goal is not to target specific people with my comments, but to give an idea of what I'm talking about. One can read more specific reactions to Barna's book at this discussion.)

There are obviously a lot of presuppositions behind these kinds of statements. And one major presupposition is that the church is defined as a particular type of organization. For example, in this post here, James Spurgeon defines church in this way:

I am referring to an organized local body of believers in Christ who assemble together to worship, administer the ordinances, and carry out the great commission.

Now, this is the definition that is used when he goes on to state:

The individual who can claim to be a Christian and yet think it unimportant to join a congregation must never have read the New Testament. The Bible does not just command us to be a part of a church, it assumes that we will be--and just about every other command for us in the Christian life assumes church membership, also, in order to be carried out.

Recently, I read an article on House2House which offers a similar definition to James Spurgeon's. However, this definition seems to go even more in depth by defining the structure of leadership more distinctly (ironic, considering this is an advocate of house church concepts writing this definition):

church (ekklesia) is any gathering of believers irrespective of day, time or location, for the purpose of worship, fellowship, mutual ministry and the equipping of one another for the work of service, overseen by elders, served by deacons and ministered to by an identifiable five-fold ministry of apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

Personally, I didn't have any problem with the first part of this definition. That is, I am comfortable from a biblical perspective saying that church "is any gathering of believers ... for the purpose of worship, fellowship, mutual ministry and the equipping of one another for the work of service." But I think that as soon as we go beyond that, we begin to force a definition back into Scripture that goes too far. Let me explain what I don't mean first, and then I will more constructively explain what I do mean! :)

I do not, in any way, mean to undermine the biblical role of elders. In fact, I hope to demonstrate at some point in my thoughts on these topics that I believe elders are a very essential part of a mature fellowship.

Here, then, are my concerns, in no particular order, with the definitions that have been proposed above.

If elders are absolutely necessary for defining a church, then a couple passages of Scripture present some issues for us. For example, Acts 14 shows Paul and Barnabas travelling to different cities. In verse 23, we read that they "appointed elders ... in every church...." Yet, it seems clear from the context that these were churches already existing in cities to which the apostles had previously ministered.

If elders are necessary for a definition of "church", then how could there have been churches in those cities prior to the appointment of elders? Similarly, we read in Titus 1:5 that Paul left Titus in Crete so that Titus could go to the different cities in that region and appoint elders. While this passage is not as explicit as Acts 14 (i.e., referring to appointing elders in the "church", but rather the "city"), it still would appear from the qualifications for elder presented in Titus 1 that the church was already established in such a way that men could be seen as being faithful, knowledgable, etc.
If deacons are absolutely necessary for defining a church, then we have an even more difficult problem with some passages. For instance, the same Acts 14 passage mentions that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders, but doesn't say they appointed deacons.

I'm definitely not fond of arguments from silence, but it seems reasonable to me that if both were necessary for a church to be a church, Acts 14:23 would say that they "appointed elders and deacons...." Strange oversight on the part of Luke, if it's a requirement for the church.
The "five-fold ministry". Where do I start on this one? Well, a nitpick argument would be to say that not everyone is in agreement that Ephesians 4:11 references five specific ministries. Grammatically, it is possible to read "pastors and teachers" as one gift, not two. But apart from that little nitpick, I have a bigger issue with the concept of "five-fold ministry" from the way that Paul references some of these same gifts in a different passage.

1 Corinthians 12:27-28 talks about gifts in the same type of language that Paul used in Ephesians 4. But interestingly, in verse 28, he says: "And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...."

Wait a minute. What about evangelists? What about pastors? In other words, if Ephesians 4:11 is meant to create a specific set of gifts that are required in the church, then something seems to have changed when Paul wrote to Corinth. (Or maybe this is why Corinth had so many problems. God neglected to give them two very essential gifts! Just kidding!) I find it very unconvincing that Ephesian 4:11 is any particularly defined set of gifts that must be present in every expression of the church.
"Administering the ordinances" is something that is frequently referred to in defining the church. (Some use the word "sacraments" instead of "ordinances".) This is especially noticeable among Reformed believers -- i.e., Calvinists. It is not deniable that the Reformers talked about the ordinances and valued them highly. But again, I see little Scriptural support for some of the ways in which these things are discussed.

By way of definition, the "ordinances" to which many refer usually include communion (the Lord's Supper, Eucharist, etc.) and baptism. Some also include marriage as an ordinance that is given to the Church, too. However, let me give some thoughts on each of these.

When Jesus instituted communion in the upper room, it is true that he distributed the bread and the wine to his disciples (I assume he probably just handed it to the one next to him and it was passed around the table). However, we find no other specific references to communion being "administered" in the churches. Paul talks about the Lord's Supper in 1 Corinthians 11, but makes no reference to how it really was handled with regard to "administering" it.

Likewise, with regard to baptism, Scripture is not entirely clear on whether only certain people "administered" baptism. The practice today of churches only having their pastor baptize people seems to be more restrictive than Scripture warrants. Besides, baptism seems more tied in the New Testament to evangelism, not to church gatherings.

Jesus told his disciples to make new disciples and baptize them. Unfortunately, we have relegated evangelism primarily to the institutional church in many situations, and seem to function in a way that implies that people must come to the church in order to be saved and baptized. This unnecessarily muddies the water (no pun intended!) with regard to the function of baptism.
"Carrying out the Great Commission" is not only vague (in consideration of all that is involved in the Great Commission), but again, we don't see this tied to any particular function of the local body so much so as being tied to our responsibility as part of the Church universal. The Great Commission really outlines a process which is not "carried out" in one type of program. The Great Commission tells us to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them.

Of necessity, the first step in making disciples is sharing the Good News of the Kingdom with the lost. It is my sense that this is best carried out in two ways, as demonstrated in Scripture: 1) Public proclamation of the Gospel (i.e., Acts 2, Acts 3, Acts 5, et al.) and 2) Individual teaching of the Gospel (Acts 8 where Philip shared with the Ethiopian eunuch).

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul references the possibility of unbelievers being in the gathering and being convicted of their sin by the prophesying taking place. However, in the way in which Paul describes this situation, it sounds as if the effect on the unbeliever is rather peripheral to the focus and purpose of the gathering. Once a person has listened to the Good News and chosen to believe it, the Great Commission instructs us to baptize them and teach them all the Christ commanded. This is part of "making disciples".

As Philip's encounter with the eunuch shows us, baptism can take place wherever and whenever. One does not need to be taken to a church in order to let some "official administrator of the sacrament" do the work of baptism. (One may argue that, as a leader in the church, Philip was able to carry this out, but again, Scripture is completely silent on the idea that only certain "qualified" individuals can administer baptism.) There are other accounts of people being baptized in their own homes immediately upon conversion (i.e., Acts 16 with the jailor and his family).

I really must draw this post to a close and allow some comments before continuing on. I hope that I have adequately demonstrated some of my concerns with the definitions used as examples here. Going forward in these posts, then, I would like to use the working definition that follows, derived in part from those above, but really representative of where my thoughts were already before reading other thoughts on it:

A "church" is any group of believers who gather for the purpose of worship, fellowship, mutual ministry and the equipping of one another for the work of service

For those of you who want to engage in this discussion, how would you define "church"?

Until next time,

steve :)

Update on Luis Palau's Comments

2006-02-01T07:08:00.000-05:00

Back in November, I wrote a post that took issue with the statements of Paul Crouch and Luis Palau regarding house churches in China registering with the Chinese government. In that post, I expressed frustration that these gentlemen seemed to misunderstand the effect of registration on house churches in China and that they painted a picture of the house church Christians as being the ones breaking the law.

By way of update, I felt the need to follow up on this because of an article in the most recent Christianity Today magazine. The article can be found here. Mr. Palau has now backed down on his statements regarding house church registration and expressed regret over them.

[In his previous statements] Palau spoke positively of religious freedom in China, saying that the way house churches register in China "is similar to the way churches must register in the U.S." He also said, "You don't get arrested unless you break the law."

Palau has since said he regrets making the remarks. "It's not my role as an evangelist to suggest that churches in China should register," Palau said in a press release responding to criticism. "My role is to proclaim the Good News of Jesus Christ."

In an interview with CT, Palau declined to elaborate on his views. "I expressed my views in a moment of exuberance, thinking it might be helpful, but it turned out not to be helpful," he said. "My goal is to protect, encourage, and bless God's people."

I'm very grateful to read about this. Apparently, according to this BPNews article, the retraction was issued November 28. I would have posted this sooner had I known.

Until next time,

steve :)

Update on End of the Spear

2006-01-31T08:34:00.000-05:00

I regret that my first post in over a week is going to be 1) short, and 2) about a topic that I never intended to deal with at length. However, a note on Tim Challies' blog tipped me off to an excellent article by Randy Alcorn regarding the way the End of the Spear controversy has been mishandled by many.

As is often the case in situations like this, misinformation abounds and has been forwarded and repeated all over the place. So, I felt that the fact that I did previously post on this topic necessitated that I link to the article by Randy Alcorn in order to give my readers a better view of the controversy and our role in it.

While I did not take part in this controversy (in terms of repeating misinformation), it does make me sad to see what it has done to some people and the way it has been handled by some others. (I do not, in any way, mean that to be prideful or condescending to those who might have passed on some of the misinformation.) There is a huge lesson to be learned by all of us in this.

The Alcorn article is long, but well worth the read, so please take the time to read it when you get a chance.

I hope to be back blogging very soon with some more food for thought and discussion on some of the other topics we've dealt with recently.

Until next time,

steve :)

Review: End of the Spear

2006-01-21T16:14:00.000-05:00

Last night, my wife and son and I went to see the newly-opened movie End of the Spear. I had only heard about the movie two weeks ago when I happened to catch a radio program on which Steve Saint (one of the main characters in the movie) was being interviewed. I decided almost instantly that I wanted to see the movie.

For those of you unfamiliar with the true story on which this movie is based, fifty years ago, five young missionaries lost their lives to the vicious spears of the Waodani tribe in Ecuador. These five men were attempting to make peaceful contact with the tribe for the purpose of sharing the Gospel with them. For years, I was familiar with the story of Jim Elliot, one of the five who gave up his life. His widow, Elisabeth Elliot, has been an author and a speaker for most of the fifty years that have elapsed.

This movie, however, is based on the story of Nate Saint and his son, Steve. It also focuses on Mincayani, the tribesmember who personally speared Nate Saint. Without telling the whole story, I'll tell you that Nate's sister (Rachel) went to live with the Waodani after they had murdered her brother and the other four men. Steve spent many summers visiting Rachel there. It wasn't until after Rachel's death in 1994 that Steve finally found out many of the details surrounding his father's death (he was about eight years old at the time his father was killed).

Following Rachel's death, the Waodani insisted that Steve and his family come live with them. After much discussion and prayer, Steve agreed. Mincayani now is like a father to Steve and a grandfather to Steve's children.

This is a story of grace, forgiveness, sacrifice -- in a word: the Gospel.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I began to see rather heated arguments around the Christian blogosphere with some well-meaning folks even calling for Christians to boycott this movie! The controversy revolves around the fact that Chad Allen, who plays both Nate Saint and the adult Steve Saint in the movie is an outspoken homosexual. The outrage has been extremely vitriolic as some people try to outdo each other with their "stand against homosexuality". Comments have been made along the lines of how Christians are beginning to accept homosexuality because we are allowing a gay man to play the part of a martyred missionary.

If it is necessary to clarify this point, allow me to say publicly that I do believe that homosexuality is sin. I do not, for one moment, endorse homosexuality. My opinions stated here should not be mischaracterized or misrepresented as implying that I approve of homosexuality, or think that it's "ok".

I have read these arguments (I'm intentionally not going to link to them, because I don't think it's necessary. If you want to find them, it won't be hard for you to do so.) with a mixture of emotions. On the one hand, I want to applaud those who believe that we cannot compromise our values for the sake of entertainment and profit. But on the other hand, something does not seem to add up in the arguments. The question that remains is: Where do we draw the line? If we say that a movie that tells a wonderful story, contains elements of the Gospel in it, and is exactly the kind of "entertainment" Christians have been crying out for -- the sense that some folks can never be pleased is rather frustrating -- cannot star a homosexual, do we need to also eliminate adulterers? What about liars? What about divorced people? Are these not all things that God hates?

When others have posed similar questions, the answers frequently pointed out the fact that Chad is apparently an "activist" regarding his homosexuality. So, from that I conclude that others believe that secret sin is acceptable (if nobody knows about it, it's ok), but if someone is open about their sin, then we should not let them be in the movie. I guess that's where we draw the line. Or so the argument goes. Never mind the fact that Chad does not claim to be a Christian. (He claims to have a relationship with God, but also says that his "religion" draws from elements of many world religions, so from the perspective of biblical Christianity, I would have to say he is not a Christian, and to my knowledge, he has not claimed that particular label.) To expect a non-Christian to embrace the laws of God, however we might define them, is to put the cart before the horse. Chad Allen is, as far as I can tell, hell-bound regardless of his sexual orientation. That should be what we focus on.

With that in mind, it's possible that the very same compassion that Nate Saint felt for the Waodani (deemed to be the ones to avoid by many other Christians and non-Christians alike) may be what has motivated Steve Saint to approve of Chad Allen for this role (and it has been noted by Every Tribe Entertainment, the producers of this film, that Steve had a very active role in approving Chad to play him and his father). From what I have been able to gather, it seems that Steve has even befriended Chad, taking him to visit the Waodani in preparation for the movie, and continuing to have contact with him after the movie was made. Is this not the essence of Jesus' ministry? Reaching out to the "untouchables" and showing them love?

Well, I'm not trying to get sidetracked in this post with the controversy. I really want to review the movie. But I say all of the above to set the stage for my review. When I watched the movie yesterday, I was not seeing a homosexual activist. (I would not have even known that Chad was gay if I had not heard so beforehand. I even thought his onscreen kiss with his onscreen wife was very convincing!) I saw the Gospel lived out in so many ways. And I am not ashamed to say that in many places of the movie, I was moved to tears. Not just tears, but outright crying. Sobbing. The story was that powerful.

The movie has been criticized for "down playing" the Gospel, but you would have to be very blind (or be boycotting the movie!) in order not to see the Gospel message throughout. You have a modern-day example of exactly what God did to reach us. The Bible says that while we were still enemies with God, He reconciled us through the death of Christ.

The Waodani were the enemies of everyone. They mistrusted foreigners. They assumed that foreigners only came to kill them. They assumed foreigners were cannibals and would eat them. So they struck first. One of the most powerful questions in the mind of the Waodani (they asked this question of Steve Saint after Rachel's death) was, "Why did they not shoot at us?" They saw that Nate, Jim, and the others had guns. And yet when the warriors speared them, there was no attempt to fight back. Earlier in the movie, the Waodani were told that these men had not come as enemies. They came to tell them that God had a Son who was speared. And He did not spear back.

The Waodani way of life was revenge. One of their enemies would spear one of them. The Waodani would, in turn, take revenge against the family of the one who did the spearing. They would spear back. This vicious cycle of revenge was almost a "normal way of life" for them. It was all they knew. So, to hear that God had seen His own Son be speared and still loved those who speared His Son...this was amazing to them! They fully expected Steve to avenge the death of his father. Yet Steve showed love to them, even accepting Mincayani as the grandfather to his own children.

Another powerful moment in the movie is near the very end when Steve explains to Mincayani that no one took his dad's life. His dad gave his life. This is the message of Christ. Through the death of those five martyrs, and the ensuing love shown to them by Rachel, and then by Steve, the Waodani gave up their murderous way of life and trusted in Christ. They allowed the truth of God to change them.

This is also shown in the movie in a very touching way. One of the men in the tribe trusted Christ before the others did. In the movie, some of the men are discussing the changes they see in Kimo (the one who was saved). They said, "Kimo has changed. You can see it on his face." And Kimo, when given the opportunity to participate in spearing, took a stand for his new way of life and said, "No. God doesn't want us to spear anymore. I will not do it." Through his boldness, the rest of the tribe eventually followed suit.

All in all, I recommend this movie. There were a couple of times when it was hard for me to keep up with who was whom, but overall, it was a great movie. And a couple of concepts that were discussed (the Waodani talked about dying in terms of "jumping the Great Boa") were not really explained very well. But I was able to piece together what they were talking about. In terms of production quality, I would probably give it 3.5 stars out of 5. It was the first major release for Every Tribe Entertainment, and I expect that they will get better. But overall, with the story itself taken into consideration, I would probably give this movie 4.5 stars out of 5.

If the controversy surrounding Chad Allen's work in the movie bothers your conscience, then by all means follow your conscience. I would not judge you for that, and would never want to encourage you to go against your conscience (see Romans 14). But if you are like me, and do not see that as an issue over which to boycott the movie, then I highly recommend you go see the movie. It is one I will not soon forget.

Until next time,

steve :)

Prophecy and the "Office" of Prophet

2006-01-16T13:55:00.000-05:00

(Previous entries in this series are found at the following links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)

In the comments to my previous post, Ray and Libbie have both brought up the question about the "office" of prophet, and whether or not it has vanished. The most obvious problem with this question, though, is that (as far as I can see in my study) prophet is never mentioned in Scripture with relation to being an office. However, for the sake of discussion, let's run with the definition that Ray and Libbie have given in the comments: one is recognized FUNCTIONALLY and OFFICIALLY as a prophet; in other words -- not one who has had a prophetic utterance, but one who is fully functioning 24/7 in that role.

Obviously, we do see this concept in the Old Testament with prophets such as Samuel, Elijah, etc. In those days, someone could say, "Where is the prophet of God?" and people would refer them to these men. These are men who spoke the words of God to the nation of Israel (and occasionally to other nations, as well). If you wanted to know what God was saying, you asked the prophet.

Now, in understanding what has happened to that "office", we need to first look at the origin of the prophet. I think this will help us understand how to relate to prophecy in the New Testament, and what the purpose of prophecy is.

When God led the Israelites out of Egypt, He called all of the Israelites to the mountain. He wanted them to hear Him speaking to Moses and His desire was that the entire nation would be a kingdom of priests. However, the people became frightened and told Moses they did not want to hear the voice of God. Rather, they asked Moses to listen for them and tell them what God had said.

It is out of this request from Israel that the voice of God became one step removed from the people. (At least, this is what I see out of the passages there. Any other ideas are welcome.) In a previous post, I contrasted the Old Testament prophets with Jesus. This is where Hebrews 1:1,2 comes in to our discussion. We see Jesus as, to put it one way, the culmination of this "office" of Prophet by removing the "barrier". (Hebrews also deals with the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus to the OT priesthood, not just the ministry of prophet.) God no longer restricted His communication to us as being through another mere human being. He spoke directly to us in the Person of Jesus Christ. And we now, according to Peter, have become the "kingdom of priests" that God originally desired in Israel.

Now, as I've mentioned in the earlier posts in this series, we obviously have prophecy being mentioned in the New Testament church, so what is this prophecy, and what is its purpose? For this, we turn to 1 Corinthians 14. Paul states in verses 3 and 4 that prophecy exists in the church to encourage, edify, comfort, and strengthen the church. Here, we see that it is not an issue of God speaking to us through a particular 24/7 "prophet", but is something that all believers can pursue as a means of edifying the church.

We can easily complicate this concept of prophecy by trying too hard to understand it in Old Testament terms only. I believe that as believers come together, the Spirit speaks through various people to encourage and strengthen the church. This could be a matter of reminding others of what they already know, or shedding new light on a Scripture through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I believe this is consistent with Paul's instructions. It is, as Paul mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:10 and 2:16, part of us together as a body of believers being of "one mind" and having the "mind of Christ."

So what does it means to weigh the prophecies? Paul indicates that other prophets are, presumably, to judge whether or not the words spoken really are the words of God to the body. It is ironic to me that the Greek word used for "weigh" here is more often used in the New Testament (such as in James 1:6) in the sense of "to doubt"! So, perhaps what Paul is saying here is to be very discerning in accepting what is spoken, not just buying it all wholesale.

The prophecy is to be given with an understanding that others will weigh it, and it also seems implied to me that a consensus must emerge among others gifted in prophecy as to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the prophecy spoken. Without that consensus, the word likely should be set aside or ignored.

I think one very critical point to note here is the plurality of both prophets speaking and prophets weighing. At no point is this to be one person claiming to have a word from God and not being open to that word being evaluated by others.

At this time, I think it is important to once again pause and allow comments. I probably will try to wrap up these thoughts in one more post, unless the questions are sufficient to require more than one additional post.

Let me conclude with this thought, though: We must learn as believers to trust the Holy Spirit. By that, I mean that we need to trust that we do have the ability as a body of believers to stay on track with the Holy Spirit if we are not all individualistically trying to control the flow of knowledge.

This seems to really have bearing today in our modern concept of one pastor being the teacher without dialogue taking place during the teaching. No one person in the body of Christ has a monopoly on the mind of Christ! And none of us should ever be so presumptuous as to think that we are exempt from correction by others.

Having said that, I am now ready to receive your criticisms and disagreements with what I've spoken here!

Until next time,

steve :)

Prophecy vs. Closed Canon

2006-01-15T11:25:00.000-05:00

(See here for part 1 of this series, and here for part 2)

Continuing on with the prophecy discussion, I want to take the time to dismantle a frequently-taken rabbit trail with regard to prophecy and "Scripture". I think the rabbit trail is a red herring. Specifically, I'm speaking of the idea that one who accepts that God still speaks through prophecy today must necessarily accept that prophetic words are on the level of written Scripture, and therefore must disagree with the idea of a "closed canon".

For those who are not familiar with the concept of a closed or open canon, the "canon" refers to that body of writings which are accepted by Christians as being the Bible. A "closed canon" means that no more writings will be added to our Bible, and an "open canon" means that, in theory at least, more writings could be discovered or composed which could be accepted as part of the Bible.

I really feel like this is a red herring for several reasons. Most compelling for me is that there are references in Scripture to the fact that God would speak to people of all ages and both genders, and yet those are not all recorded as Scripture. Joel prophecied in chapter 2 of the book that bears his name:

It will come about after this
That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and daughters will prophesy,
Your old men will dream dreams,
Your young men will see visions.
Even on the male and female servants
I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

We know from Peter's sermon in Acts 2 that this prophecy was being fulfilled during his (Peter's) time period. (I'm not saying at this point whether or not that prophecy is still being fulfilled. That is a different issue than the main point being made here.) So, in this prophecy, we see that sons, daughters, old men, young men, male and female servants will all participate in the dreams, visions, and prophecies. Cross-reference Numbers 12:6 where God says that when a prophet is among us, God speaks to him through visions and dreams.

We also have recorded in Scripture at least two instances of people prophesying, and what they prophesied was not recorded in Scripture. The first example is Saul in 1 Samuel 10, where we find recorded that he, along with others, prophesied. But no written record is included there as to what the content of the prophecy was.

Another example is Anna, who was in the temple when Jesus was brought as a newborn baby. She is described in Luke 2 as a prophetess, and it mentions that she spoke to those there in the temple regarding the baby Jesus, but it does not record what she spoke. Even if we decide that what she spoke at that time was not a prophecy, the fact that she is called a prophetess and Scripture records no specific prophecy from her seems to support my argument that prophecy does not always equate to "canonical Scripture".

One could also look at Acts 21:8,9 which references four prophetesses who prophesied, yet does not record their prophecies. And, of course, we come back to the instructions in 1 Cor 14 regarding prophecy in the church, and to my knowledge, none of the books of the New Testament were written by members of the church in Corinth!

I must draw this post to a close, even though I haven't had a chance to move into more productive "positive" reasoning with regard to prophecy. But I hope that I have at least demonstrated that prophecy can exist outside of the canon of Scripture without forcing an "open" canon.

Until next time,

steve :)

A Biblical Definition and View of Prophecy

2006-01-13T10:22:00.000-05:00

In my most recent post, I blogged my introductory comments regarding Cessationism and Continuationism. Libbie and Ray have both weighed in with good responses, and in this post, I would like to try to lay out a biblical definition and view of prophecy. I think that perhaps this can help us put some of this debate into perspective and shape the direction of it.

Now, many people have mentioned what Ray and I have both observed: namely, it seems from Scripture that there are two types of prophecies. To use the familiar terms, there is foretelling (telling the future, which is most commonly associated with the word "prophecy") and there is forthtelling, or speaking the mind of God.

Biblically speaking, how do I arrive at the conclusion of these two aspects of prophecy? Moses is referred to as a prophet in Deut 18:18. And yet what he was speaking to Israel was the word of God for their present tense, not a predictive statement of the future. To be sure, there were predictive statements (such as what would happen when they got in the land, etc.), but through Moses came the entire Law, a "forthtelling" for their day.

Additionally, many of the prophets recorded in the OT are speaking the words of God, just as Deut 18:18 predicted. While Isaiah, Ezekiel, and others told about things to come (most notably the arrival of Jesus), they also were speaking to the people about the present conditions of idolatry, spiritual adultery, etc. They were speaking appeals to repent and turn back to God. They were the very mouthpiece of God.

Now, as Ray pointed out in another discussion, we know that Hebrews 1:1,2 shows us that Christ was a very key figure in that line of prophets. But He was much greater than a mere prophet. Consider this:

The prophets spoke the word of God, but Jesus is the Word of God.
The prophets said, "Thus saith the Lord", but Jesus said, "Verily, verily I say unto you."
The prophets were men representing God, but Jesus is a man and God.

To underestimate the importance of Jesus in the subject of prophecy is to overlook a major element. But, we must look, then at the relationship of prophecy to Christians in the New Testament. If Hebrews 1:1,2 means that prophecy ceased with the coming of Jesus, then we have a bit of a difficulty. 1 Corinthians 14:29-32, which outlines the way in which prophecy should function in the church gathering, would be completely unnecessary if there were no prophecy after Christ. Hebrews 1, itself, would be unnecessary. In fact, most of the New Testament (other than the Gospels and Acts, which are mostly historical records and testimonies) would be unnecessary because we would have everything we needed from the words of Jesus.

Now, don't think that I'm heading off into heresy by implying that we need "Jesus plus..." for salvation. Absolutely not! But we are given instructions regarding prophecy within the New Testament, after the ascension of Christ, and so we must examine what that prophecy is. Is it foretelling and forthtelling? Or is it one or the other? Or is it something else entirely?

I think I'll pause at this point and see if anyone wants to interact so far. I'll post more later with regard to examples of prophecy in the New Testament, and then we'll get into whether it was limited to the "Apostolic Age". We'll also talk about what we can determine it means to "weigh" a prophecy and how to handle false prophecy.

I'll show my hand a little bit here in advance to say that I don't think anything has changed over time with regard to how we should view prophecy, how we weigh it, and what we do with false prophecies/prophets (although I'm not going to advocate literal stoning!). And one final point I hope to touch on in this discussion is how the idea of "speaking the mind of God" today relates to sola Scriptura, and whether this is a true conflict or a false dichotomy. Everybody still with me?! ;)

Until next time,

steve :)

Cessationism vs. Continuationism -- an attempt to take it piece by piece

2006-01-12T21:26:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to link again to the discussion that is prompting this post because my linking to it in the previous post apparently was misunderstood! But, as you know, there is a discussion taking place again in the blogosphere regarding cessationism vs. continuationism.

This topic is a really good one, in my opinion, but has unfortunately sparked a lot of emotional debate and a lot of anecdotal arguments on both sides. Unlike others who have tried to mask their position while stating their arguments, I'm going to just tell you up front where I'm coming from. I think it will help you analyze my writing on this topic better, and hopefully we can think through this together. I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong, and maybe someone will post a comment that will help me see where I'm mistaken.

So, for the record, I am not a cessationist. I am a continuationist. Personally, I just heard the word "continuationist" recently, and I love it. Because prior to that, the only terms I heard were "cessationist" and "charismatic." The term "charismatic", unfortunately, has a lot of baggage associated with it, and so I am glad to be able to use a different term!

Now, in case you are not familiar with these terms, in a nutshell, this is what they refer to. The position of cessationism says that some (not all) of the spiritual gifts discussed in Scripture were only in existence during the time of the Apostles, and they have ceased (hence the term "cessationism") to exist. Usually, the gifts relegated to this concept of cessationism are: tongues, healings, and prophecy.

In contrast to cessationism, continuationism asserts that all of the gifts still exist, and are valid. Because the gifts include tongues/interpretation, healings, and prophecy, this belief is usually associated with Charismatic and Pentecostal believers.

Now, I'm not sure how exactly to approach this discussion, but I'm launching off of some comments made on the other blog between myself and Ray. We got into a bit of a discussion regarding prophecy in general, and I think we'll start there.

What I would like to do over the next few posts is take some bits and pieces of the debate and approach them from a biblical perspective. What does the Bible say about prophecy, and how does that relate to the evaluation of the gift of prophecy today? Some seem to want to use the fact that false prophecies have been uttered by famous people in our day as evidence that the gift of prophecy no longer exists. I disagree, because false prophecy has been around as long as prophecy has been!

One of the points I have tried to make in other discussions is that people have always been given the responsibility to judge prophecies and act accordingly to whether or not the prophecy is true. For example, in Deuteronomy 18, God tells the Israelites that if a prophet claims to speak for God but isn't really speaking for God, they can ignore him. The text anticipates the question "How will we know?" to which God replies, "If what they prophesy does not come true, it wasn't from Me." (I'm paraphrasing) I think there is a parallel between this instruction in Deut 18 and what Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 14. Specifically Paul says that after two or three have prophesied in a meeting that the prophecies should be weighed.

Now, as I'm typing on this, I have come to the realization that we can begin to define prophecy a bit clearer by thinking through what Paul is saying. If a prophecy in the church can be weighed "on the spot", then we can't be talking about foretelling the future, can we? How would you know if it came true or not at the moment it was given?

So, let me try to bring this post to a close by suggesting that the term "prophecy" in the New Testament usage (with regard to spiritual gifts) is not merely foretelling the future. Therefore, I would suggest that it has more to do with speaking the mind of God (which OT prophets also did). While it is entirely possible that it could relate to foretelling an event (and we can look at some of these examples in the New Testament as we go), the instruction to weigh it seems to imply something other than that.

And how would they weigh the prophecies? By comparing them to what God has already revealed. In other words, by holding them up to the Scriptures and seeing if it "fit". This is what the Bereans did when Paul preached. They "weighed" what he taught against the Old Testament Scriptures, and found his teaching to be true.

I realize I'm rambling here, but am trying to build bit by bit an understanding of what it is we're even talking about. Ray brought up in the comments on "the other blog" a mention of Hebrews 1:1,2 as a suggestion that perhaps prophecy has ceased with the advent of Jesus Christ -- THE Word. He also talked about how "sign gifts" in general were always to authenticate and validate a new leader or new ministry and raised the question, "If these gifts are active today, what are they validating?" These are great questions, and we'll dialogue more about them in the next post.

Until next time,

steve :)

Of Theological Wars and Such

2006-01-05T09:38:00.000-05:00

I love discussion and debate. I enjoy the challenge of trying to think through a particular position and consider its strengths and weaknesses. I love analyzing arguments and figuring out if they are solid or not. It's a positive and a negative for me, though.

On the one hand, it's great intellectual exercise and makes me feel more convinced about a particular issue once I have taken the time to think through it. On the other hand, it can lead to a lot of frustration because I often feel like many people debate issues solely on what they feel about it or what someone else says about it. This is especially true for me in reading blogs.

Frequently, I get involved in the comments section of other blogs, only to get frustrated at the lack of real solid defense of arguments. If you've read my blog at all, you've seen me reference this from time to time. I either get accused of being a heretic or people dismiss me as just not as theologically equipped as they are to speak to an issue. For a sensitive guy like me, that can be hard sometimes! But I'm learning to deal with it.

Here's an example of the type of debate I'm talking about: Phil Johnson, aka Pyromaniac, is an enormously popular blogger. And yesterday, he revived a charismatic/cessationist debate. This debate had begun during the fall, but had simmered down for a while. Now, Phil is arguing heavily for cessationism, specifically in this case as it relates to the gift of prophecy. And the comments section is jumping with fiery debate already.

While I think that the topic can be discussed among Christians to great benefit, the debate has already been polarized into false dichotomies and inaccurate presuppositions. It sometimes seems that in these situations, no one takes the time to lay out logical, rational, and peaceful arguments. So, a potentially good discussion gets lost in the midst of party lines and "my theology is better than your theology" finger-pointing.

Update on 1/6/06: The comments section on Phil's post has continued, but the tone has taken a very notable change for the better. Several people have called for civilized and biblically-based discussion, so there is hope! I felt it only fair to point that out as an update.

But I'm not convinced that is the biggest problem. Today, I read a post at one of the more recent blogs to make it onto my "must read" list, Cerulean Sanctum. In that post, Dan Edelen laments the surge in "theological wars" amongst Christian bloggers, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. We seem to spend way too much bandwidth and energy simply arguing without any real Kingdom benefit in sight.

Update on 1/10/06: It appears that the main intent of this post has been misunderstood, specifically by Phil as mentioned in this post. Let me clarify for all that I am not calling for the end of debates such as this. Far from it. I continue to enjoy, look for, and participate in discussions that will help me either firm up my own stance on particular issues or help me see reasonable evidence for a different conclusion. I used Phil's post as an example of what happens in these debates, but did not mean anything here to be construed as an attack on Phil or a call for him to cease his discussion. My agreement with Dan was not intended to be a full endorsement of the "white flag" that Dan threw up. It was simply on the nature of the debates. I hope that clears things up a bit...

I have to agree with Dan on this one. And I agree as well with Adrian Warnock, Michael Beasley, and Bob Kauflin, who all wrote similar posts recently. While I'm not exactly sure what the answer is, I know that I personally will endeavor to limit the intensity with which I engage in debates going forward. I still like to think through arguments, and I still like to attempt to make the case for my viewpoint, but not to the point of developing feelings of animosity or participating in mudslinging. If any of you observe me doing that here or on other blogs, please email me personally and speak a word of correction to me. I will listen humbly.

I'll conclude this post with the words of Paul to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:23-24:

Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful.

Until next time,

steve :)

Amazing Quote

2005-12-29T10:04:00.000-05:00

I subscribe to an email newsletter and a print newsletter from Voice of the Martyrs. It helps me stay aware of what is going on in other parts of the world where people really know suffering for the cause of Christ.

(As an aside, I get a bit frustrated when people here in America talk about "suffering", because I think that we really know very little about what it means to suffer. Perhaps isolated cases do occur in our country, but by and large, we have it very easy here as Christians.)

At any rate, recently I received a card in the mail from VOM asking me to confirm that I still wanted to receive the printed newsletter and offering me a copy of a book written by the late Richard Wurmbrand, founder of VOM. The card included this quote by Wurmbrand. Read this and think about it. I'll resist the urge to comment too much on it.

"It was strictly forbidden to preach to other prisoners... It was understood that whoever was caught doing this received a severe beating. A number of us decided to pay the price for the privilege of preaching, so we accepted their terms. It was a deal: We preached, and they beat us. We were happy preaching. They were happy beating us, so everyone was happy."

This was obviously not a man who was self-focused in his suffering, moaning about how miserable it was. When I read this, it reminded me very much of the attitude of Peter and John, when they were painfully flogged for preaching the name of Christ:

"They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Christ." (Acts 5:40b-42 NIV)

Until next time,

steve :)

Music in the Simple Church

2005-12-21T09:43:00.000-05:00

I don't really have time to deal with this topic in its entirety right now, so I'll just tease you with it, and hopefully come back to it after the New Year and give some more of my thoughts. However, Bob Kauflin posted an entry on his blog today that I found very thoughtful with regard to the usage of pre-recorded (canned) music in a church service.

This is a topic that I think can be very important to the Simple Church concept because generally, we are talking about churches that are very small and informal. When people want to sing (and I think singing can be a great part of worship together, although I don't believe it has to happen every single time we gather), how do we handle that?

I participate frequently on a discussion group on the House2House site, and several months ago, we talked some about this topic. Because so many of us have come out of the institutional church experience, we often bring with us a mentality of what music has to be like. I think this can be problematic.

At any rate, I hope to dive into this topic more in the future, but wanted to link to Bob's blog today while his post is fresh. He anticipates dealing with it tomorrow, too, and if so, I'll post an update here with a link to the second entry as well.

By the way, Bob is not blogging from a simple or house church perspective. However, his thoughts on this topic can equally apply, I believe. And, as I said, I think this subject actually can have even more importance when discussed in the context of a simple church setting.

Update: Actually, I misread the date on Bob's post, and didn't realize he had already written part 2 of it today! Part 2 can be found here. He actually does tie his thoughts into small group worship, as well, and not just "big church" corporate worship, so it's very relevant to our discussion.

Until next time,

steve :)

Is There Really a War on Christmas?

2005-12-19T08:57:00.000-05:00

Anyone who lives here in America surely has heard the term "War on Christmas". It's all over FOX News and Christian radio programs. Books have been written about it, and it's the new bandwagon to jump on. Well, maybe not so new. It seems to come up each year. This year, though, it seems more pronounced.

Now, it will probably strike some as really odd that I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon. (Then again, maybe it won't, if you've been reading this blog!) But I have some points that I want to make about this whole thing, as well as some commentary about the larger picture.

First of all, is there really a war on Christmas? What defines this war? What are the sides, and who is winning?

It seems that the "war on Christmas" is identified by Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, and others as a push by "secularists" for retailers in particular to use a phrase such as "Happy Holidays", rather than "Merry Christmas". If a retailer opts for the more generic phrase, Dobson recently said on one of his broadcasts that he would refuse to shop there. Not only that, but the President of the United States has been soundly criticized for not saying "Merry Christmas" on the White House's annual holiday card.

Now, let's pull back for a moment and see what we really have here. There may, in fact, be some legitimacy to the idea that Christmas is not as publicly accepted as it once was. But what is the issue at stake? This seems to go along with Dobson's idea that we must legislate all of our Christian beliefs in order to save this country. This assumes that God is pleased with outward symbols of faith, rather than a heart that is set on Him. And if you read the Old Testament prophets, you'll find that this is entirely not the case at all! God is no more pleased with America's fake Christianity (I'm talking culturally here, not the individual hearts that may be sincere) than He was with Israel's ritualistic continuance of sacrifices.

There seems to be an underlying set of presuppositions at play here:

America was, is, and must always remain a "Christian" nation
Because of the previous point, Christian holidays must be observed by everyone, regardless of their own personal faith.
If a retailer does not recognize my personal faith and holiday, then that retailer should be boycotted and, by extension, put out of business.
If the Republicans want "the Christian vote" again, they must specifically support Christian holidays.

Now, this whole logic seems flawed on many levels. Consider this:

President Bush is president of the United States of America, not the National Association of Evangelicals. As such, he is the president for Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Buddhists, etc., etc., etc. So, why should he wish all those other people a Merry Christmas? If Joe Lieberman were President, would we expect him to wish the country a Happy Hannukah? And would it be acceptable to Dobson if he did? Instead, President Bush gave a greeting that is appropriate to the various groups of people over whom he has his position.
Likewise, if a retail establishment is owned by a non-Christian, does it make any sense for them to wish us a Merry Christmas? If James Dobson owned a restaurant, would it make sense for him to wish people a Happy Kwanzaa?

My final thought in this rambling reactionary post is this: Does my culture's rejection of Christmas (if indeed, that is what is happening) diminish Christmas at all for me personally? No! This is where my frustration really comes into play. The idea seems to be that, in order for Christmas to be considered valid, it must be recognized by all.

Now, I do concede that sometimes, there appears to be a move toward a "freedom from religion" in our culture, but the solution is not public expressions of Christianity. The proper perspective on this country's history is that we should have freedom of religion. And there is a big difference! I still have the freedom to worship as I please and to celebrate Christmas. Why should it make a difference to me if someone who does not know Christ personally wishes me a Merry Christmas or not? I don't need them to wish me a Merry Christmas in order for me to have a merry Christmas! In fact, to go a step further, their greeting would really not mean anything if it doesn't come from the heart.

Once again, I find myself at odds with the way in which "Christian leaders" are presenting their arguments. Dobson actually was encouraging his "army" (his word) of listeners and supporters to boycott stores that would not use the word "Christmas" in their holiday decorations. Again, I have to ask, if the store is owned by a Jewish person, does it make sense to boycott them for not saying "Christmas"? And a follow-up question: would Dobson boycott this store at any other time of the year since they did not share his religious beliefs? What about a store that is open on Easter Sunday? Or what about a store that does not put a cross in their window on Good Friday? Where does it end?

Freedom of religion is a wonderful thing, and as long as we have it in this country, we are fortunate. But I will continue to state that I do not need the government's endorsement of my beliefs in order for me to celebrate those beliefs. And to try to force others in our country to celebrate, participate, or in any other way endorse my beliefs is to put the cart before the horse. That is not evangelism, and it is certainly not doing anything to advance the kingdom of Christ.

I hope some of this makes sense. I realize I'm ranting a bit, and I have not taken the time to form a very cohesive, logical progression of arguments here. But I do feel that the point needs to be made, and I did not want to delay posting any longer on this issue.

Until next time,

steve :)

Typepad is down

2005-12-16T15:07:00.000-05:00

This probably won't mean anything to most of my readers, because I use Blogger, but I exchanged some emails today with David Wayne (JollyBlogger) when I noticed that his blog suddenly lost the last week's worth or so of blogs and comments. He uses Typepad as his blogging host, and apparently there are issues with Typepad today.

David asked me to post a note here letting my readers know about the issue, so that you will be aware that there are problems with other blogs today. I recently linked to a couple of David's posts in the previous entry about Sunday services on Christmas Day, and one of those is now lost in (cyber)space! Hopefully, all will be back to normal soon.

Since I'm giving David this free press, let me add a comment to say that David's is one of the more sane blogs I read on a regular basis. David and I have respectfully disagreed with each other on some issues, but I have found him to be very fair and kind in his analysis of others' opinions. If you haven't already checked his blog out, do so, and especially do so when Typepad appears to be working again!

Update (12/17/05): In this post, David informs us that it appears the problem is mostly resolved. Welcome back, David!

Until next time,

steve :)

Christmas on a Sunday Spells Controversy

2005-12-13T10:55:00.000-05:00

Well, a huge firestorm has erupted over the issue of churches cancelling services on December 25 this year. I've read a lot, commented on a couple blogs, and thought a lot about this topic before finally taking the time (more like finding the time!) to post here about it.

Here's the issue: It seems that some rather large, well-known churches decided to cancel their Sunday services because they felt it would be better to let their staff and volunteers spend time with their families on that day. I'm sure it's not just those big churches. I would guess that a lot of churches, even smaller ones, have faced the question of whether or not to hold regular services on that day. But for some reason, this has touched a huge nerve among a lot of bloggers. And for me, it has highlighted some of the concerns I have about the institutional church's mindset.

First, the bloggers that are talking about it. The Internet Monk, of course, put his thoughts out there. JollyBlogger (one of the ones I regularly read) posted two posts about it: This one, and this followup. (Update: I'm not sure what is happening with JollyBlogger's blog, but today [Dec 16, 2006] several of the recent posts were suddenly missing and the "followup" link I posted claims the article doesn't exist. Very strange...) In his posts, David Wayne (JollyBlogger) references several other blogs who have dealt with it. A Google blog search shows over 2,000 blog entries talking about this! I have no idea what the ratio of positive to negative posts is, but it gives the impression from the sampling I've read that about 98% of the posts written on this topic are coming down against the churches who have chosen to cancel. Comments are being made such as these representative quotes:

I think those three quotes right there give a pretty good indication of what is being said. And each time I read quotes like that, I get a very uneasy feeling inside. Not a feeling like "maybe they have a point", but a feeling like "something is terribly wrong with this picture." And it's not the cancelling of services that I feel is terribly wrong. It's the debate itself.

I'm not sure if I'm just not cut out for these online debates, or if my concerns really are legitimate, but I always get the feeling that when blogs put out these sorts of topics (primarily, I'm referring to Christian blogs here because that's the world I spend my time reading), issues are presented as extreme dichotomies of choices.

Now for those of you who know me, that may sound odd because I'm not normally a "gray area" kind of guy. I'm a right/wrong, black/white, either/or. However, it really is important to me that the choices being presented are accurate representations of the choices available. And that is what I feel is lacking here in this discussion about cancelling church services on Christmas Day.

The choices that are being presented in most discussions about this topic are: Either worship Christ at a formal church service, or sell out to the secularization of Christmas. But those are not the only valid options in this situation, and we do a great disservice to the dialogue by presenting it as such!

There are several presuppositions behind this issue that need to be addressed:

Worship can only take place in a church building
Worship must take place on a Sunday
Cancelling a worship service that is normally scheduled means that one will not be worshiping
Corporate church experience must be put above family worship experiences and interaction
Cancelling a church service means that the Gospel will not be preached, and souls may be lost for eternity as a result (this point was made in the comments section of the Internet Monk post I linked to above)

These are not the only presuppositions at play, but they do comprise the bulk of the issue that I have seen. I think that these presuppositions illustrate much of what is faulty about the instituational church mentality. With the exception of number 2 above (the importance of Sunday worship) -- I understand the basics of how some believers arrive at the conclusion that Sunday is the Sabbath for Christians, and I respect their views on that -- I find that these presuppositions are not derived from reading of Scripture, but are mere traditions of men.

Jesus said it very well in John 4 when He said that God was seeking those who would worship Him in spirit and in truth. The context of that comment, in a discussion with the Samaritan woman at the well, was the issue of whether or not people should worship in a particular location. The Samaritan woman noted the different beliefs of Samaritans vs. pure-blooded Jews, and Jesus said that a time was coming, and now was, in which the location was not the issue, but the heart. (Actually, the Old Testament prophets made it clear that the heart was always the issue, but it became more apparent through Jesus's teaching, in my opinion.)

So worship can, and should, take place outside a church building. If we believe that we can only truly worship with the Body of Christ in a church building, we have missed the whole message of Christ being "God with us" -- Emmanuel. Jesus said that whenever two or more are gathered in His name, He is there with us. This was a very different relationship with the Almighty than people experienced in the Old Testament. They did not have the indwelling Christ. We do. That is a fact that is often overlooked in our churches that are built on the model of the Old Testament system of worship.

Well, I've written enough about this for now, I think. Perhaps I'll follow it up at a later point, but for now, I'll throw it open to you for comments. Am I missing something? Have I overlooked a key aspect to this debate? What are your thoughts?

Until next time,

steve :)

Religious Freedom in China? Hardly!

2005-11-29T07:35:00.000-05:00

Recently, President Bush visited China and talked about religious freedom there, attending a "legal" church. Also recently, TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) founder Paul Crouch talked about religious freedom in China and emphasized that house churches in China need only register with the government to enjoy freedom "much [like churches here in] the USA". Evangelist Luis Palau also caused quite a stir by encouraging house churches to register with the Chinese government!

Update 2/1/06: Luis Palau issued a statement apologizing for his remarks. You can read about it in my update here.

I don't have time to comment on this in depth, but I did want to make the point that many reputable organizations, such as Voice of the Martyrs can tell you that there is no such thing as true religious freedom in China. And for someone like Paul Crouch or Luis Palau to suggest that a house church registering with the government in China is no different than a church in the USA registering with the federal government for tax purposes (a whole 'nother topic in itself!) is outrageous!

Let's be in prayer for our brothers and sisters in chains (both literally and figuratively) in places like China.

Added comment: By the way, after posting this, I had a thought: Does anyone else see a similarity between someone telling the house churches in China, "All you have to do is register with the government and all this freedom can be yours" and Satan telling Jesus, "All you have to do is bow down and worship me, and all these kingdoms can be yours"?

Until next time,

steve :)

What Defines a Church: A Response to Arch Van Devender

2005-11-20T16:57:00.000-05:00

In recent weeks, while I didn't have time for writing much in my own blog, I have been involved in commenting on a couple other blogs. One of the discussions that came up over at Theologica was regarding how we can know a "true church" from (I presume) a false one.

To bring my three readers up to speed, the topic came up when Mike Russell posted an article entitled "To be a church or not to be a church; That is the question". The response that followed was:

Arch Van Devender posted an initial response, claiming Mike was quite wrong in his use of "love" as the criteria.
Less than an hour later, David Wayne also entered his response, which also claimed Mike was wrong and identified love as an insufficient criteria, based on our modern sense of love being a "warm and fuzzy" subjective feeling.
I joined in the comments on all three posts, but Arch apparently decided my comments were worth dealing with more in depth, so...
In two different entries last week (Part I and Part II), Arch took the time to address my comments specifically and to further defend his position.

I finally have had a chance to sit down and more thoroughly digest what Arch has written, and am taking the time to formulate a more thorough response here on my own blog to contribute more to the conversation.

In reading, I am struck by a few thoughts that perhaps Arch (or any of the three readers here!) may want to help me with:

I'm still having trouble understanding why, when Jesus pointed out love as the identifying characteristic, Arch is trying to explain that it's not a good standard to use. He explains that there can be "loving actions" without "love" and that love is something that will not automatically be present in a Christian. Based on Arch's presupposition ("loving acts" can exist without love), I understand the logical progression of his arguments, but I don't agree with the presupposition. The presupposition that one can have "loving actions" without love seems flawed to me. I think that's the entire point of 1 Corinthians 13. There is no such thing as a "loving action" minus the love. There are actions which would have great merit if accompanied by love, but which mean nothing without the love. Actions cannot be defined as "loving" unless accompanied by love.
I don't feel like Arch adequately defended the three particular criteria he presented (right preaching, right use of the sacraments, right discipline) as being the three that are necessary for measuring a body of believers. While it is definitely true that Christ commanded us to celebrate communion and to baptize believers, and while it is true that Paul was instructing Timothy to preach the Word, and while it is true that Paul corrected the Corinthians (or at least attempted to!) on their lack of discipline, it still remains that these three things are not given as "criteria" any more than any other command in Scripture, such as "bear one another's burdens" (which is the passage that mentions fulfilling the law of Christ).
The idea that these things can be present without love and yet measure a "true church" seems very shaky to me. Again, 1 Cor 13 seems very clear on this that if you don't have love, you can be doing all these things, and it counts for nothing. As I pointed out in an earlier comment in the same subject, the whole discussion about defining a "true church" came about in reference to the mention of losing a lampstand in Revelation. The reason Jesus gave for losing the lampstand was that they had lost their first love. He doesn't say that they stopped preaching, observing sacraments, or disciplining. Is it possible that's what He meant? Yes, it's possible. But without any clearer explanation, we must tread carefully on putting that requirement in there.
I found it very interesting that in a similar manner to the way Arch explains away Jesus' own use of "love" as the criteria for identifying disciples, he explains away love being "the greatest of these" and instead emphasizes faith. The more clear explanation in Scripture, I believe, is that faith will result in love. Love is the goal as Arch said, yes. But to imply that it's somehow "optional" in defining a church doesn't make sense to me.

Let me make one thing clear: I do not believe that love can be demonstrated in any way other than actions. In the words of those great theologians DC Talk (hehe), "Luv is a verb". That's why Jesus said, "Greater love has no man than this: That he lay down his life for his friends." But again, why the emphasis on love in Scripture, if not to say that it is the defining characteristic? We can preach 'til we're blue in the face. We can celebrate communion seven days a week. We can baptize thousands of converts. We can discipline people right and left and make sure sin isn't in the ranks. But if we have love, nothing else matters. Those deeds will do nothing for our standing before God.

Jesus said that in the end, people will recount all they did for Him, and He will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you" because they did not do the very things that showed they loved Him. In other words, they didn't love Him!

Arch, you're very easy to read, so I commend you for your writing style and presentation. But with all due respect (to paraphrase your response to Mike Russell), it's not your style that needs adjusting. It's your content. ;) (I do mean that in a teasing way)

Let's not try to explain away what the Scripture actually says in order to make something seem to be more "objective". There's a good reason why God chose to emphasize love above all else, and I think we needn't (and shouldn't) put that aside.

Until next time,

steve :)

Shameless Self-Promotion

2005-11-01T20:11:00.000-05:00

I sincerely apologize for the length of time since my last post. Things have been very busy on the work front, and I have not had the chance to sit down and type out my thoughts in a while. Hopefully, very soon, I'll be able to get back to blogging on a semi-regular basis!

In the meantime, I would like to take this opportunity to let you know about my new piano CD which was just released this past week. This third CD is a Christmas project, entitled "Christmas Solitude". You may hear some of the tracks and find out more information, including how to order it, at my Worship Keys music website.

Also, I haven't actually gotten a chance to see it yet, but today was the release date for Phillips, Craig, and Dean's new live DVD. I was privileged to play keys on that DVD (we recorded it back in July at Regent University in Virginia Beach, VA) and am looking forward to seeing the finished product. If you get a chance to see it, you might catch a glimpse of me playing!

I hope you can forgive the self-promotion here, but I thought the five or so of you who are reading might want to know about it! ;)

Until next time (which hopefully won't be too long!),

steve :)

Blogs -- Can't Live With 'Em, Can't Stop Reading 'Em

2005-10-12T08:45:00.000-05:00

I am fairly new to the world of blogs, relatively speaking. It's probably only been about six months at the most since I first started reading blogs. After reading for a few weeks, I hesitantly put my toe in the water and began actually submitting comments to some blogs. Then I took the plunge and started my own, which you are reading at this very moment.

I'm by no means well-known among Christian bloggers -- I generally only get about 10 hits per day, or so. But I have interacted on some of the better-known, more widely-read blogs, and I have noticed some disturbing things.

Actually, this isn't limited to blogs at all. I remember the "good ol' days" of AOL's Christian chat rooms (anyone remember "Fellowship Hall"??) and the amount of junk that filled our screens back then by "Christians" judging, throwing mud, slandering, gossiping...you get the picture. But for some reason, the extended nature of blog posts (and the comments that accompany them) seems to lend itself to even more difficulties when it comes to Christian interaction.

In the interest of Christian "protocol" here, I'm not going to point fingers at specific blogs or people, because that's not really the point. But I am concerned about how we all come across online. In a recent post, I engaged Mike Russell (I mention him specifically, only because it's already public here on my blog and his) in response to one of his posts, and we actually were able to comment in a civil manner back and forth. I didn't necessarily get my questions answered, but at least I feel like Mike and I were able to leave the conversation as brothers and not enemies. That was a relief. I hope Mike feels the same way.

Other blogs, however, have not turned out so nicely for me. The other day, I read a post on a blog whose author claims to write "all from a Christian worldview." I found the post to be anything but Christian in its tone. In it, he referred to certain types of people as "idiots", "morons", "dolts", and in many other ways spoke in derogatory terms. Without trying to jump all over the guy, I simply posed the question "How does a 'Christian worldview' influence this post?" or something to that effect. His response? "I'm sorry. I forgot that since I'm a Christian, there are no idiots in the world." Tongue-in-cheek? Perhaps. Sarcastic? Probably. Appropriate? Hardly. Then another commenter jumped in with even more scathing "semi-sarcastic" (per his words) remarks about me. Today, I noticed that he (the additional commenter) even ridiculed me further in a completely unrelated thread on the same site, asking the author in a mocking tone how he could attend a baseball game while claiming to have a "Christian worldview".

My question to that particular brother was a sincere one, and it remains unanswered in relation to a lot of what is put forth as "Christian blogging". A greater writer than I once posed the question "How should we then live?" I would like to pose the question: "How should we then blog?" I'm not sure I have the answer completely, but I have an idea that we're not really anywhere close yet. Nor am I the first person to pose this question.

Cold, hard, black-on-white (or whatever colors a particular blog uses) text can be pretty harsh. And yet, I am reminded that this is exactly how the New Testament was written. Consider the writings of Paul. Some of his letters included in our Bible are actually responses to letters that were written to him. For example, in 1 Corinthians, he mentions things that they wrote to him in a letter that is lost to our 21st-century world. There were some very tough things written to him, apparently, and he wrote some very tough answers. Not all of 1 Corinthians is complimentary to the readers. And yet, somehow, it's very hard to miss the deep love Paul felt for these believers, and his passion for them to become more Christlike.

So, I don't think we can simply blame the medium, as many wish to do. I, myself, have often complained that it is so hard to carry on these types of conversations online because of the lack of facial expressions, tone of voice, and other body language. But I realize that is merely an excuse for the poor treatment of each other that takes place. We are responsible for how we communicate, whether we like it or not.

Does that mean that feelings won't get hurt? Nope. Not at all. I'm sure some were hurt by Paul's reprimands in 1 Corinthians. We can't stop people's feelings from getting hurt. But there is responsibility on both sides to make sure that the communication honors Christ, if we both claim to be brothers and sisters in the Lord.

For my part, I need to develop a bit more thick skin, I'm afraid. I take things personally way too often. I will admit that it hurt to see my comments ridiculed by someone, and brought up again in a different (unrelated) post with no merit but to continue the ridicule. But more than anything, the whole exchange left me sad. Sad that this kind of ridicule is actually tacitly accepted by many who claim to be Christians. There were many things that I would have liked to have said in response, but felt that it was better to just walk away and not engage any more in that particular situation. The Bible warns us against engaging in futile debates, and I felt this one fell into that category. What could have been a beneficial discussion about "Christian worldviews" (can anyone even define what that buzzword means?!) got trashed by mockery and sarcasm.

As a writer of a blog, I want to be very careful how I react to people. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, there are things I write about that I actually expect will be disagreed with by many. I write to get my own thoughts out, to see what others think, and to maybe challenge others to think outside their particular box. But when I do post with regard to someone else's blog, or respond to something here and link to the original, it is never meant to be judgmental or slanderous.

Until next time,

steve :)

They Know His Voice (part 2 of at least 3)

2005-10-10T20:41:00.000-05:00

I'm finally back with part 2 of this topic of hearing the voice of our Shepherd. Many thanks to Michael Rew and ded who responded to the previous post with some further thoughts. It has been fairly noted that charismatic believers often cloud this issue of hearing God's voice by claiming the voice of God dictates everything, whether or not the action really is guided by God. Even more bluntly, this sometimes happens even when the supposed "word" contradicts the teaching of Scripture.

So, how does one hear the voice of God? And if it is true that we, as the sheep belonging to Jesus, know the voice of our Shepherd, what should we expect in the way of hearing Him? Let's first of all look at how God spoke to others as recorded in Scripture. To put it another way, how did people learn what God was trying to communicate to them? This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a representative one.

God walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8). In the course of walking in the Garden, God spoke to Adam.
God spoke to Noah (Genesis 6:13). Like with so many other examples that I could give, this passage does not say specifically how God spoke, but with the details of the ark given, it is presumed that God spoke audibly to Noah.
God spoke to Abraham (actually Abram was his name at the time -- Genesis 12:1). This, again, does not specify the method, but a very specific promise is being given to Abraham, and so again, God presumably spoke audibly to Abraham.
God spoke to Jacob (Genesis 28:13). In this instance, God spoke to Jacob in a dream. We don't know if this was how God spoke to others mentioned above, but in this case, it is specified.
God revealed the interpretation of dreams to Joseph (Genesis 40:12). This example is interesting because it doesn't record God speaking at all. According to the narrative, Joseph tells the two men that interpretation of dreams belongs to God, the men tell him their dreams, and Joseph then interprets them. How did Joseph know the interpretation? The same thing happens in Genesis 41 when Joseph appears before Pharoah to interpret his dreams. In this instance, Joseph specifically says, "I cannot do this, but God can." Then he proceeds to speak the interpretation. In these cases, God wasn't so much speaking to Joseph as He was to the ones having the dreams, and He spoke through those dreams and the interpretation spoken by Joseph.
God spoke to Moses through the burning bush (Exodus 3). In this case, God got the attention of someone supernaturally (a bush was on fire, but did not get consumed by the fire) and then spoke audibly to them.
God spoke through Moses to the people of Israel (Deuteronomy 5). In this instance, God wanted to speak directly to the Israelites, but the Israelites were fearful, and asked Moses to speak to God for them and relate whatever God said.
Throughout the remainder of the Old Testament, we have numerous accounts of God speaking to people (individually and as a nation) through prophets. Sometimes the prophets appear to have received an audible word directly from the Lord; other times they had dreams from God that they related to the people.
God spoke to some through angels (e.g., Gabriel spoke to Mary in Luke 1). These angels delivered God's message verbally to some and in dreams to others.
God spoke through Jesus (all throughout the Gospels). This one is in a category all by itself, because it represents the One called "God with us". I will address this one more specifically later on because I think it is significant.
God spoke to Peter through a vision (Acts 10). In this vision, God speaks audibly to Peter.
In Acts 15, the apostles make mention in a letter to the Gentile believers that it "seemed good" to both the Holy Spirit and to them to communicate freedom from the Law. No mention of God speaking audibly is present here, and yet there is a confidence presented by the apostles that they were discerning the will of God. The fact that they said it seemed good to the Holy Spirit shows this confidence.
God spoke through the writings of the biblical authors. For example, in 1 Corinthians 11:23, Paul says, "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you...."

Many more examples abound, but I wanted to share the above list to make two simple points:

God speaks
God speaks in various ways

But beyond that, we are compelled to examine the evidence of Scripture to determine what that means for us in our lives. Not too many of us have had the experience of hearing the audible voice of God. In fact, it's probably safe to guess that almost everyone reading this blog is unfamiliar with that experience. I'm not sure that I could point to a time when I heard the audible voice of God. But, I have heard God in many other ways listed above. There have been times when I dreamed something that I later determined to be God speaking to me. There have been times when others have spoken things to me that I determined to be the words of God. And, like the apostles in Acts, there have been times when it just "seemed right" to move a particular direction or make a particular decision because of the testimony of the Spirit within.

What I find interesting is that, to my mind, there seems to be a progression of how God spoke or communicated, and it is a progression that begins and ends with intimacy. At the beginning of mankind, before sin broke the relationship that Adam and Eve experienced with God, the Bible tells us that God walked in the garden. (It actually references this right after they sinned, but one can safely assume that this was something that had occurred prior because Adam and Eve knew the sound of God "walking".)

From the point of Adam and Eve's sin, God spoke directly to people who found favor with Him (Noah, Abram, etc.) but there seemed to be a quest on God's part to recapture the whole human race in relationship. So, He calls an entire nation to the mountain to meet with Him. Scripture is not overtly clear on this, but I think the overall context seems to indicate that it was not God's desire to speak only through Moses to the people. However, the people refused to come to the mountain out of fear, and so God spoke through Moses.

For a very long time, God spoke through other "spokesmen" who followed in Moses' footsteps, and these spokesmen, in turn, spoke the words of God to the people. To speak to God, the people had to go through a priest, who spoke on their behalf.

As time progressed, I can almost envision God getting more and more frustrated with this situation. The very people to whom He was trying to speak were not listening to Him (or, to be more accurate, they were not listening to the ones speaking on His behalf). So, in a very climactic event in the story, God becomes a man and speaks directly to the people again through the person of Jesus. And we know how that went. But some heard His voice and followed.

When Jesus was leaving this earth, He promised to send the Holy Spirit. This Holy Spirit, He told us in John 16:13 would guide us into all truth and reveal the things yet to come. And we know from John 7:39 that the Spirit is given to those who believe (or place their trust) in Jesus.

So, now that I've laid all that groundwork, what does this mean for our lives today? Quite simply that we now have access to a relationship that is even more intimate than Adam and Eve had with God. God doesn't just walk with us in the garden from time to time. He dwells within us. If we have placed our trust in Jesus as the means of our relationship to the Father, we have the Holy Spirit within us to guide us and lead us and reveal truth to us.

I believe that in this period of history, we will most often hear the voice of God as the Holy Spirit within us. Now, obviously, this raises some really serious questions. As one writer posed on another blog, "How do I know it's God speaking and not just me having an idea?" I'll look at this question and more next time.

Until next time,

steve :)

Repentance and Rewards

2005-10-06T08:57:00.000-05:00

I'll get back to the topic of hearing the voice of the Lord soon, but I want to change subjects for the moment and respond to a discussion in which I've engaged on another blog.

Recently, an article was posted by Mike Russell on the Theologica blog with the title "Happily Divorced, Remarried, and Rewarded". In that article, Mr. Russell relates an experience he had with someone who was trying to rationalize a pending divorce. This person excused their divorce by saying, in essence, that God would be obligated to forgive him for getting divorced for "unbiblical reasons". Mr. Russell's response was that it was definitely true that God would forgive the divorce, but that this man could in no way expect to receive any kind of eternal rewards for being a good husband in any future marriage. He states, in part:

In situations where there is an unbiblical divorce, the guilty party - not the innocent one - can expect to be forgiven but cannot legitimately expect for there to be eternal rewards for being a good husband or wife in the next marriage.
The decision to end a marriage for less than Scriptural reasons has consequences. The loss of future rewards - which is no small matter - is one of them. We may not think such rewards are all that important but the stress of the New Testament tends to argue otherwise.

His biblical launching pad for this conclusion was the statement of Jesus in Matthew 6 where Jesus points out the hypocrisy of the spiritual leaders who did their tithing, fasting, etc. in ways that would guarantee they would be noticed by others. In that situation, Jesus says, "They have their reward in full."

In the comments section following Mr. Russell's post, I took issue with the statements that were made and expressed my opinion that not only were Jesus' statements taken out of context and misapplied, but that an issue which is not cut-and-dried in Scripture (that of eternal rewards and their relationship to believers who repent of sin) was being made cut-and-dried by Mr. Russell in a dangerous way.

Rather than continue to post lengthy comments to another person's blog, I opted instead to post here on my own and flesh out my response a little bit more. I hope to demonstrate not only that I believe the exegesis used in the original post is faulty, but also that the position set forth has damaging ramifications to our view of others in the Body of Christ.

First of all, the exegesis. As I pointed out in my second response to Mr. Russell, we must look at the context of the comments by Jesus and interpret them in light of that context. This is a basic rule of hermeneutics. In the teaching of Matthew 5 and 6, the overarching concept is that the Father looks at the heart, and it is the motives of the heart which are judged. Matthew 6:1 even starts off this passage by stating very clearly: "'Be careful not to do your "acts of righteousness" before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in Heaven.'"

Now, the first leap that Mr. Russell makes in his exegesis of this passage is that this passage can be applied to situations where a truly repentant believer performs "acts of righteousness" from a genuine heart of service to God. (In his example, he is apparently using the concept of "being a good husband or wife" as an example of "acts of righteousness".) Yet, it seems to me that this is comparing apples with oranges. Jesus is clearly talking about heart motivation. Acts of righteousness done with impure motives vs. acts of righteoueness done with pure motives. This distinction is completely lost in Mr. Russell's exegesis because he changes the argument to be "acts of righteousness done with impure motives = acts of righteousness (irrespective of motive) done by someone in an area of their life in which they formerly sinned and repented." This is a huge leap and immediately takes us away from the context of the passage at hand.

The second leap that I see is that Mr. Russell makes the assumption that, since Jesus implies that there are circumstances in which rewards will be withheld, that this applies to the particular issue of divorce and remarriage. Now, I must be clear in saying that I am not arguing the other side, and insisting that those rewards will not be forfeited. My point is not to prove an opposing view. But, the burden of proof rests solely on Mr. Russell, and in his replies to me, I feel like he has insisted that I give proof of my viewpoint, even though I was not making a point other than the logical fallacies in his argument. Mr. Russell is the one who made the assertion that a believer who divorces "for less than Scriptural reasons" and then remarries forfeits the opportunity to earn rewards in a future marriage for honoring God in that marriage.

The third leap is that because the New Testament teaches some rather general concepts about rewards for our lives here, Mr. Russell assumes that there are rewards for being a "good husband" that can, therefore, be forfeited in eternity. I may be wrong on this, but I cannot recall any Scripture that specifically mentions rewards for something so specific. I see rewards mentioned for overcoming, for running the good race -- in other words, I don't see specific rewards mentioned for specific things. Mr. Russell, in his responses to me, has taken the approach of saying that in situations like this, God has given us wisdom to figure it out. While I certainly accept that God gives us wisdom, I think that we head down a very dangerous path in issues such as this. Let me explain:

Mr. Russell chose to introduce a distinction between "unbiblical" and "abiblical" -- in other words, teaching that is contrary to that of Scripture vs. teaching that derives from "wisdom" based on Scripture. I'm not sure if I even agree with this use of "abiblical", but I do understand where Mr. Russell is coming from on the use (or even coining, perhaps) of that term, and so I will use it for the sake of discussion.

When we attempt to justify something as "abiblical", however, we must be careful not to build that conclusion on logic that is strictly based on faulty exegesis or other "abiblical" thoughts. As I demonstrated with the leaps taken in Mr. Russell's logic, the very foundation of his argument rests on a questionable application of Jesus' words, and then leads to more conclusions based on this application. If the foundation is not solid, the building is not solid.

In areas such as this, then, we must tread very carefully and not form dogma. His comments in reply to mine notwithstanding, the original post demonstrates dogmatic statements on a topic which, at best, is conjecture. In fact, Mr. Russell even recounts how he dogmatically made a statement that he wasn't sure he believed himself. This illustrates my point very clearly.

Humility in our approach to Scripture enables us to say, "This is not clear. Therefore, I cannot dogmatically state it." All too often, theologians end up making dogmatic statements on areas that are not clearly derived from Scriptural principles. Frankly, I think that claiming that "wisdom" allows this is a misuse of the concept of biblical wisdom. Wisdom will allow us to apply Scripture to our lives and determine what the Spirit is saying to us. But wisdom does not give us the right to point a finger at someone else and say, "You will not have rewards for anything you do in a future marriage because your divorce is wrong." We must, with humility, acknowledge that, because of Scripture's silence on the issue, we cannot say for certain how God will deal with those "acts of righteousness" that might occur in a second marriage.

Additionally, the concept of rewards being withheld from a repentant believer sends us down a path of identifying which sins have eternal consequences (despite being forgiven) and too narrowly defining what forgiveness really entails. This puts us in a dangerous position of "playing God" and creating a man-made system of "levels" of sin and their consequences. Mr. Russell admits that some consequences are removed some of the time upon true repentance, yet believes that consequences for "unbiblical" divorce are not removed. This is very dangerous ground, indeed.

I hope that some of this makes sense. I'm not asking Mr. Russell to agree with me, nor am I saying that his conclusion is necessarily wrong. The burden of proof, as I stated earlier, is not on me. But I believe that his conclusion is based on faulty logic and poor exegesis, which causes the conclusion to at least be suspect. Any thoughts in response?

Until next time,

steve :)

For Those Leaving Comments

2005-10-03T09:11:00.000-05:00

Recently, I have had quite a few problems with "comment spam" (unwanted comments that have nothing to do with the blog, but are posted by spammers). I have been able to delete these comments as they get posted, but it's annoying and frustrating. For that reason, I have taken the step of adding "word verification" to the comments section.

What does this mean? Well, it simply means that when you post a comment, you'll have to go through the annoying step of typing a word that appears in a strange-looking graphic so that you can verify you are a live person actually typing the comment and not some annoying spammer's robot somewhere.

I apologize for this inconvenience, and wish that I didn't have to go this route, but I figured it was preferable to making you have to create a Blogger account just to be able to leave comments!

Please don't let this discourage you from commenting on the posts. I love the dialogue, and enjoy reading the responses.

Until next time,

steve :)

They Know His Voice

2005-09-29T08:16:00.000-05:00

In John 10, Jesus talks about Himself as the Shepherd and us as His sheep. In the analogy of the shepherd/sheep, He explains that His sheep follow Him because they know His voice.

In talking with other believers, however, I have found that we rarely seem to understand what the voice of Jesus is, and how we can know it. Recently, another blogger even posted a couple essays (with a debate ensuing in the comments forum) complaining about people who claim that God has spoken to them. The points made usually have to do with some of the following:

God doesn't care what you eat for breakfast, so don't tell me that God leads you in those little areas of life.
Any revelation outside of Scripture is suspect, so therefore, stay away from "personal revelation."
Those "promptings" that you feel inside are quite possibly just you having an idea using common sense, so don't credit God with it.

Well, interestingly enough, I once wrote an essay called "Quit Blaming God", and today I want to take the opposite approach and say, "Quit denying it's God!" This idea that God doesn't want to speak to you personally is not only very sad, but according to the way I read the statements of Jesus, it is unbiblical. Setting up straw men such as "God doesn't care what you eat for breakfast" is not a good way to approach the argument.

When we see verses in Scripture such as Psalm 37:23 ("The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord") and 1 Corinthians 10:31 ("...Do it all for the glory of God"), I think we have to conclude that God really is interested in what we do with our life. And juxtaposing that with Jesus' comments about us hearing His voice, we have to conclude that, at least at some level, God is going to be speaking to us. I'm not trying to just twist some proof text out of Scripture, but I believe that the whole scope of Scripture gives us a story of a God Who is very personally interested in the lives of His children.

I find that the opponents of the idea that God speaks to us today often base it on the fact that they personally have not experienced what they believe to be God speaking. And while they're often quick to deny that they are ruling out the possibility of God speaking personally to someone, they still end up denying it with their arguments.

One writer commented that when God spoke to people in Scripture, it was very clear that God was speaking, and there was no chance that the message would not be heard. The example is sometimes given of God speaking to Abraham and telling him to move to the Promised Land. Or God speaking to Jonah and telling him to go to Ninevah. Or...

But here are the problems that I have with that, and I think this issue is something that needs to be considered carefully. First of all, not every place that God speaks to someone, even in the Old Testament, is it specifically stated that God spoke audibly. We know from Scripture that God spoke in different ways. Sometimes He spoke through dreams. Sometimes He spoke through an angel that appeared physically in front of the person, etc.. So, it is difficult to specify a finite set (or closed set) of methods through which God speaks.

The second issue I have is that these major examples of God speaking audibly, etc., are from the Old Testament. We must (and I can't stress "must" enough) realize that Christ's appearance on this earth changed a lot of things. Consider this progression:

God asked Israel to come to the mountain so He could speak personally to the whole nation
Israel was scared and asked Moses to speak/listen for them, and they would obey Moses
A whole line of prophets resulted, wherein God spoke to one person, and that person communicated His words to the people (The prophet was "the man of God", and he said, "This is what the Lord says to you")
Jesus comes, not speaking the words of God, but as the Word of God. (Jesus was not simply "the man of God", He was "man and God". He didn't say, "This is what the Lord says to you." He said, "This is what I say to you.")

So, then, Jesus says that we would follow Him and listen to Him because we know His voice. Then, He goes on in John 14:26 to say that He would give us the Holy Spirit, Who would "teach [us] all things." So, those "promptings" or "gut feelings" we have inside? Why just write them off as our own thoughts? Why not trust that God is actually speaking to us?

Let me give you an example which some might dismiss as just strange or wacky, but which illustrates my point:

Last year, I was practicing my golf swing in the field across the road from our house. I sometimes go out there with four or five balls, hit them all one particular direction, gather them up, hit them back the other way, etc. Sometimes, when the grass is longer, however, as it was this particular day, it's relatively easy to lose a ball down in the grass. In those instances, to avoid causing problems for the crew that mows the field, I stop and hunt for the ball until I find it.

On this one particular occasion, I was searching for a lost ball in the general area in which I thought it went. I must have searched for about 10 or 15 minutes without any success. I walked back and forth, back and forth, very methodically covering a wide area around the spot I thought the ball had gone. With every step, I brushed away dead grass to see if the ball was beneath it, probed the live grass with my club to see if the ball had gone all the way down to the ground beneath, etc. Nothing. I expanded my area of search, and again continued to carefully search every square inch of that area. Still nothing.

At this point, I came to a decision. Jesus told us that God notices when a small bird falls to the ground. I knew that there was One Who knew exactly where my golf ball was, and so I decided to ask Him. "Lord," I prayed, "I know this is a rather trivial matter, but I do not want to leave this golf ball out in the grass to potentially damage the mower or cause damage to something else. I know that You know where the ball is, and I need you to guide me to it."

Instantly, and I do mean instantly, I experienced what I believe was the leading of the Lord. Call it whatever you want to: a gut feeling, a sudden thought -- whatever it was, I suddenly knew to walk directly to a spot that was not even anywhere close to my search area. (My shot had been a lot worse than I realized!) I didn't have to walk back and forth until I reached that point. I just immediately walked diagonally from where I had been searching to this spot, stopped, looked down, and saw the golf ball lying right beside my foot.

Now, the question I want to ask is, why should I not give God credit for that? Why should I say, "Oh, I guess my subconscious mind just finally remembered where the shot had landed, and I went there on my own?" To say that was not God leading me, or speaking to me, seems to me to be very calloused and almost blasphemous. It would be similar, in my mind, to someone saying to Jesus, "Lord, heal me of this awful disease", and then when He healed them, saying, "Wow, that medicine the doctor gave me was so wonderful that it took my disease away."

So where am I going with all this? Well, maybe I need to write a part 2 to this essay, since it's already quite lengthy, and I'm not sure I've said even half of what is on my heart. The point is, for Christians to say that they don't believe God speaks today through anything but the Bible, and/or that He only speaks about things that are "significant", I think we cut off a huge part of the relationship that God wants us to have with Him. Why else would He go to such great lengths to finally circumvent the whole "prophet/thus saith the Lord" situation that Israel had requested? Is it not obvious that God wants to speak to us, and wants us to listen to Him?

This perhaps, then, begs the question: How do we know the voice of God? I think I will go ahead and write a part 2 in the days ahead and try to answer that question on some levels.

Until next time,

steve :)

In Christ There Is No Jew or Greek...

2005-09-28T20:00:00.000-05:00

This post is overdue by about a week and a half, but I think I'll finally take the time to write it and see if anybody has any thoughts in response.

On Sunday, September 18, my wife and son and I spent about 4 hours at Shoutfest -- a Christian music festival that tours around the country. The event we attended was in Johnson City, TN, and this experience may not reflect other Shoutfest dates, but our experience prompted me to consider an ongoing problem in the Body of Christ.

First of all, I will confess that the style of music presented at Shoutfest is not exactly up my alley. We went because it was the weekend of my son's birthday, and he wanted to see Disciple (one of the groups....ummm....singing). But this is not a critique of the...ummm...music. ;) I guess I'm getting older than I want to admit!!

So, there we are, watching a particular hip-hop group perform, and the crowd that was there (which was not overwhelmingly large to begin with) was receiving them pretty well overall, but apparently not well enough to satisfy the performers. So, they (the performers) began to chide the audience after one of their songs. It's quite possible that they were trying to be funny in doing this, so I was willing to overlook comments like, "We don't think you really want to hear any more songs. We'll just end our set now instead of doing another song." That very well could have been (and probably was) tongue-in-cheek. But it was the next statement that really surprised me and caused me to really question what was going on.

"Everybody's just looking at us. What? You don't have black people here in Johnson City?"

Paul made a very interesting statement in Galatians that I think gets overlooked a lot in the Body of Christ. It's found in Galatians 3:28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This verse could be applied in many different situations, but I think that the one area that we need to really consider is how this relates to various races of humanity.

What was the relationship between Jews and Greeks in Paul's day? To be very concise, it was not a good relationship. But Christ changed that. Paul is describing in the context of the surrounding verses the reality that when we are baptized into Christ, we take on Christ and become equal heirs to the promises given to Christ through Abraham. In other words, our national identity takes a back seat to our identity as Christ. One might even go so far as to say that our national identity does not matter anymore once we are in Christ.

So why would someone who claims to be in the Body of Christ even joke about others rejecting them on the basis of their race? Is that a joking matter? I really don't think so. I don't want to go so far as to say I was offended, but I was deeply saddened by the comment.

Frankly, as one who tries very hard to not tolerate any kind of racism in himself, I get very frustrated when I am either individually or corporately accused of racism. I sometimes want to stand up and scream, "Why can't we all just get along?!" Because it seems to me that the issue will never go away if we're willing to draw attention to our different human races, even in jest.

I am in Christ. Therefore, I do not find my identity as a white person. I do not find my identity as an American. I do not find my identity as a male. I am a Christian. If you are in Christ, then I do not identify you as a male or female, black or white, American or Chinese, etc.

It reminds me of a comment I once heard or read Bill Hybels make. He wanted to use a particular illustration in a sermon, and asked his board their impression of the story. In the story, he described a man as "a black man" (or something similar to that). After he finished the story, one member of the board wisely said, "Does it matter to the story that the man was black?" Hybels admitted that, in reality, it didn't matter to the story at all. He removed the race reference when he used the illustration in his sermon. I applaud that kind of thinking.

I do not deny that racism does exist in our culture. In fact, racism in some form or other has probably existed in every culture since sin entered into the world. We know for a fact that it was rampant in the time of Jesus and of Paul. That's not the issue. The issue is that, even though it might exist in our culture, it does not need to exist in the Body of Christ. Or, to be more strong about it, it must not exist in the Body of Christ. We who truly are in Christ will not behave in such a manner, nor accuse others of it, nor joke about it.

What are your thoughts?

Until next time,

steve :)

On Creeds, Doctrinal Statements, and Orthodoxy

2005-09-14T20:40:00.000-05:00

Here's one sure to ruffle some feathers! ;) But seriously, as always, I hope you understand my heart in writing these things and that you test anything I say and evaluate it for yourself.

Recently, I wrote a post regarding "whisper down the lane" theology which addressed the problem of people just believing what others tell them instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves. But today, I want to go even deeper with that and address an area of growing frustration for me -- the way people treat creeds and doctrinal statements (or "statements of faith") as if they were on the very level of Scripture.

Let me begin with an illustration from earlier in my life. Oh about 11 years ago, I had the distinct pleasure (all sarcasm intended!) of being put through the grueling process of ordination. The idea was rather basic. The church in which I was the Associate Pastor convened a meeting of about seven or eight gentlemen who were in various positions of ministry, and they grilled me for several hours on all kinds of theological points. Several of the men were ones which I chose, and several were chosen by the senior pastor of my church. The purpose of the meeting was to determine if I was fit to be a pastor or not.

In preparation for the meeting, I was instructed to compose a document containing my doctrinal beliefs. This document was then copied and given to each member of the ordination council, and they used that as the launching pad from which to torment me. Because I foolishly believed that these gentlemen wanted to know what I actually believed, I labored many, many hours creating statements that articulated my beliefs. In fact, I tried very hard not to mimic the words of the systematic theology books I had studied in Bible college.

When it was all said and done, one member of the council said to me, "When you write a doctrinal statement, you really should use the verbage that many of the great theologians use in their writings. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. There's a reason why they're considered great theologians, so just use their statements."

Anybody that knows me can probably guess how that went over with me. I was actually rather shocked. You mean to tell me that in order to be a pastor, I must be able to accurately parrot the statements of some other theologian? And to try to think it out on my own and use my own words means that I'm somehow reinventing the wheel?

This brings me to my current topic. Why do people want to run to creeds, doctrinal statements, and other written records of what others have agreed on without thinking it through for themselves? Now, if the creed actually states what you believe and you want to use that language, then be all means, go ahead! I have no problem with that. But I really wonder how many people understand what it is they are quoting anyway!

And the difficulty that we have is that once a creed has been accepted as the "standard" by which all orthodoxy is judged, there is no room for discussion without people labeling you as a heretic or a rebel or whatever other insulting term they can think up.

For example, I recently read a very good essay by one person who has chosen not to use the word "inerrant" in his view of Scripture. Now, all good evangelical Christians know that a belief in inerrancy is required for entrance into Heaven, right? (Excuse me while I remove my tongue from its firm position in my cheek...) But here's the issue that was raised in the essay. The definition of inerrancy as used by most Christians is specified as relating only to the original manuscripts of the Bible. Oh, and by the way, we don't have any of those laying around! Many people are very clear that the "doctrine of inerrancy" doesn't apply to later copies. In fact, we know that later copies must have some errors because copies that we have found (even from many centuries ago) disagree with one another on some words.

Here's my obligatory interruption to assure you I am not a heretic. I do believe that God has preserved His truth for us, but it's pretty obvious that we don't know for absolute certainty exactly what words may have been original and what have been added or modified. But I do believe by faith that the truth conveyed in Scripture has been preserved for us. In other words, any changes or "errors" in copying the text do not alter the teaching of Scripture.

However, getting back to the point, if the "doctrine of inerrancy" only applies to the original manuscripts, and we don't have the original manuscripts, is the doctrine of inerrancy even necessary for a definition of "orthodoxy"? But, it's in a lot of people's doctrinal statements, as if it's an absolutely essential doctrine. (And of course, they will generally argue that if you throw out the doctrine of inerrancy, you end up denying the resurrection of Christ and your whole faith falls apart. Hmmmm, interesting logic there. Amazingly, I have yet to deny the resurrection of Christ!! I guess I must just be odd.)

One other frustrating point of "orthodoxy" for me is the way in which most evangelical theologians and systematic theologies define the Trinity. It's not that I don't believe Jesus is God. It's not that I don't believe in the Holy Spirit. It's just the way that it's worded that bothers me.

First of all, what do you do with the fact that most of the time Paul greets his readers, he mentions the Father and the Son ... but no mention of the Holy Spirit. Look at the opening to most of his letters. (For example, 1 Corinthians 1:3: "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.") And what about Revelation 1:5 which mentions the "seven spirits" (or some would translate it as the "sevenfold spirit")? In fact, Revelation describes in heaven a throne with someone sitting on it (probably the Father) and the Lamb (obviously Jesus Christ) coming and taking a scroll from the right hand of the one on the throne. And again, the Lamb is mentioned as having seven horns which represent the seven spirits of God, but there is no mention of "the Holy Spirit" in the description there.

So, when we come to a doctrinal statement which affirms that the Trinity is defined as three Persons who are "eternally distinct", I get uncomfortable. "Eternally distinct" implies that we will always understand God in eternity to be "Three in One". No, change that. It doesn't imply it. It outright affirms it! If you want to say that at this point in history, we have a revelation of God as "Three in One", I will let you say that. But to assume that's how we will always understand God? Or even more strongly put, to assume that is exactly how God really IS? That's frustrating for me. Because this is something that has been held up to be a test of orthodoxy.

Now, I'm not saying that I want to go all the way to the United Pentecostal "oneness" position. In fact, I've been there, done that, and don't even care to wear the T-shirt anymore! I'm not comfortable with that side of the issue. But must it be one or the other? Why is it that we can't even discuss the points I made above without getting into accusations of heresy?

In the aforementioned ordination council, one gentlemen repeatedly warned me that "heresy starts in degrees." Or it was something to that effect. In other words, he was saying, "You don't just wake up one day and choose to become a heretic. You slide down this slippery slope until there's no returning to orthodoxy." (My paraphrase) So, I guess for many, the answer is to draw the lines just as clear as possible and burn anyone who steps over them or even questions them.

That's not my kind of approach, and I am not interested in playing that game. So, if that means I'm not an "evangelical" because I won't sign off on a particular definition of the Trinity, then so be it. If it means I'm not an "evangelical" because I won't sign off on a particular statement of inerrancy, then so be it. I guess I'll just be a "Christian" and not try to fit into anyone's camp! ;)

Whew! I can't tell you how good it feels to admit that out loud (well, sorta out loud...)!

Until next time,

steve :)

Simplicity in Ecclesiology

2005-09-13T11:41:00.000-05:00

How's that for a formal-sounding title? It probably seems to most to be an oxymoron to use the word "simplicity" juxtaposed with the word "ecclesiology". Ecclesiology is the study of things related to "church" (the Greek word translated as "church" is "ekklesia"), and often is made quite complicated. But I am once again drawn to discuss the topic of simplicity when it comes to defining things related to the church.

Ask several people what constitutes a church, and you will likely get as many answers as the number of people you ask. In conversations I have had with others, the following representative answers (though not an exhaustive list) have come up:

Presence of worship and teaching in the meetings
Existence of a non-profit corporation under which the church can accept tithes and offerings
Presence of the "five-fold ministry" (apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers)
Two or more gathered in Jesus' name
A building in which to hold services
Someone employed as the pastor (this often is related to the "five-fold ministry" mentioned above, but sometimes stands on its own)

As you can see from the wide spectrum of thoughts in those ideas, ecclesiology is often complicated by assumptions of what is "necessary" in order to identify a "church". I would like to prompt our thinking in the direction of a much more simple approach.

I'll just tell you up front that I believe that there is a "correct" answer, and that it is the gathering of two or more people in the name of Jesus. In other words, when two or more people who are "in Christ" come together, the church is meeting. But if that is the case, where do these other ideas come from? Some of them actually do come from Scripture, but I believe there may be an added layer of interpretation clouding the true concept. The "five-fold ministry" is one of those areas (more on that to follow).

And not all of the ideas above are necessarily invalid. It is definitely true that when the church meets, the Holy Spirit will prompt the use of gifts (such as prophet, teacher, evangelist, etc.) that are needed in that fellowship. And when the church meets, there will likely be worship and teaching taking place. However, I believe that the definitions of "worship" and "teaching" in the previous sentence are not what we would traditionally use. Or, to put it another way, I don't believe that "worship" and "teaching" need to be interpreted to be nearly as formal as they usually are.

I do not believe that a non-profit organization, a building, or an employed pastor are needed. In fact, I would actually be more inclined to see those as hindrances to true expressions of the church than to see them as beneficial. Obviously, we can agree to disagree on these, but to date the arguments I have heard and read in favor of incorporating or building or staff pastors are not convincing to my mind.

So, when I meet a Christian brother for lunch, there is church. When my wife and son and I get together with another family to spend time together, there is church. When larger groups of believers get together, there is church. "Church" is neither a place nor an institution. It is the fellowship of people of like faith. Anything that seeks to add to that definition of church serves to complicate the issue.

Now, much has been said by others about the "five-fold ministry" (taken from Ephesians 4:11), and so I would like to offer a different viewpoint. There are a couple of points I would like to make about this. It seems to always be our tendency to want to "package" something and take it as definitive. For example, you may recall the "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", or the 40 days of purpose, or any number of "five steps to..." or "twelve steps to..." or -- well, you get the picture. We always love to have a list of the steps necessary to accomplish something. And we find the same temptation when reading Ephesians 4:11.

First of all, it is debatable whether or not "pastor" and "teacher" are two separate identifiers. Grammatically, it is quite possible that they go together as descriptive of one. That would make it a list of four, not five. But that's actually not the point that I would like to emphasize!

In 1 Corinthians 12:28, Paul begins a similar list of gifts as in Ephesians 4:11. He starts with apostles, then prophets ... so far, it sounds just like Ephesians 4:11. But then he jumps right to teachers, and goes on to include miracle workers, healers, helpers, etc.

So the point I would like to make about this is that we must be careful looking at Ephesians 4:11 as any definitive (or even exhaustive) list of gifts given to the church. To me, the existence of a different list in 1 Corinthians 12 gives reason to question the "five-fold ministry" concept. (Important note: I'm not questioning the validity of those gifts! I'm referring to the "package" called "five-fold ministry" as a concept.) In other words, the five listed in Ephesians 4 are not any different in importance than the others listed in 1 Corinthians 12. Therefore, they should not be elevated above the others. In fact, 1 Corinthians 12 goes out of its way to decry the elevation of any gift above another!

Now admittedly, this is not one of the more cohesive posts I've written, but I hope it will cause some thought on the part of the reader. Perhaps the next time someone asks you the question, "Where do you go to church?", you will stop to think about the "who" of the church, not the where. Let's not "go" to church, let's "be" the church! If we can see ourselves as the church anytime we are together with other believers, it will simplify a lot of our thinking and cause us to reach toward the maturity available to us as Christians in relationship to each other. And we just may find ourselves functioning as the church in a much more meaningful and edifying way!

Until next time,

steve :)

The Selfishness of Human Nature

2005-09-02T08:51:00.000-05:00

I want to get a few things off my chest. We here in America (and perhaps around the world, too) have been watching with amazement and horror at the events in New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast area affected so horrifically by Hurricane Katrina. And I must admit that I'm not even able to really put my attention to it because I can't get my brain wrapped around what's going on down there.

First, there's the actual disaster caused by the hurricane. The destruction and devastation caused by a hurricane of this magnitude is just unbelievable. And if we allow it, the media will fill our minds with all kinds of images of destruction that it's a wonder life can go on anywhere! Certainly, it causes a lot of reflection and perspective. I am doing some freelance work for a client in Louisiana (his location is less than an hour from New Orleans, I believe), and even though I have heard through the grapevine that he and his family are fine, their business is shut down for a while and I am unable to reach him to discuss the project progress. That just feels really strange.

But the images that disturb me more than the natural disaster images, shocking as they are, are the images of the looting and chaos that are taking place there. I understand "survival mode", in that I believe that some people are stealing food and clothes because they feel like they have nothing else to survive. Stealing is still wrong, but I can at least comprehend that. What I can't understand is the people looting things like electronics, jewelry, etc. For those who like to argue that human nature is naturally "good", I would look at these looters and say, "I don't think so." And it doesn't appear to me that we are talking about a few isolated incidents, either. This looks like a growing problem. I'm not saying that everyone affected by this hurricane is acting on these evil temptations. But I am saying that I think we are seeing what human nature is all about. When push comes to shove, selfishness takes precedence over anything else.

On another thought regarding this hurricane and its effects, all of us here in America are facing the effects of it in the way of outrageously inflated gas prices. In the past week, we have watched prices per gallon spike by as much as 50 and 60 cents. And in the past month, the increase has been along the lines of $1.00. Everyone's talking about "gas shortage" as a result of the oil companies that have been shut down in the Gulf of Mexico, etc.

Now, I don't deny that there's a problem there with the supply and that there will be an effect from it. But my issue is that I don't believe that every cent of the increase in gas prices is a fair effect of what happened in the Gulf. This is anecdotal, I realize, but let me share with you an experience I had the other day when prices started to spike drastically.

I stopped at a gas station where the price was still "only" $2.68 a gallon to fill up before it got out of control. The station right across the street had just jumped 41 cents to be $2.99 a gallon. I walked into the store to buy something to drink (mostly because I wanted to see what the conversation was like inside), and as I walked in, I overheard one employee speaking to another employee about calling their manager. This was not a "private" conversation. It was loud enough for everyone in the store to hear. And the comment was this: "You better call him and tell him that we're 30 cents lower than everyone else in town. What are we waiting for?" And sure enough, I drove past that gas station 30 minutes later and saw they were now at $2.85 a gallon. By yesterday afternoon, they were also $2.99. (Now other gas stations are as high as $3.29, so the game will continue, I'm sure.)

Notice what the conversation was about. This is what really infuriated me. The comment was not, "We just got notified that our shipment today is going to cost us 50% more than usual." And it wasn't, "We're running low on fuel and we aren't sure when we'll be getting more in, so we better raise the price." No. The gist of it was, "Everyone else is now 30 cents higher. We could be making more money right now if we raise our prices."

It's comments like that which cause me to get very cynical at any suggestion that this increase in gas prices is a direct result of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico this week. No. To me, it's about greed, it's about selfishness, it's about taking advantage of a situation.

Hmmm...how about that. Both situations came back to a conclusion that it's about selfishness. Left to their own devices, human beings will naturally gravitate toward thinking of themselves. And therein lies the divide between those who are choosing to remain there, and those who choose to lay down their own desires for those of their Lord.

"Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:3-8, NIV)

Until next time,

steve :)

Christians and Politics in America

2005-08-25T10:34:00.000-05:00

This is a tough topic for me to write about because it so easily becomes an emotional issue filled with very strong opinions for people. But I do want to make some comments about a growing trend in America that concerns me on several levels. That is the trend for well-known Christians to speak out politically in ways that confuse the issues surrounding our faith and our nationality.

Let me go on record right from the start by saying that I am not supporting any particular political party or view in this discussion. While I am registered to vote under a particular party, I am finding myself more and more at odds with the whole political scene, no matter which party is doing the talking. So this is not about Republican vs. Democrat. It is about the difference between being a Christian and being an American.

I consider myself to be first and foremost a citizen of the kingdom of God. I am an American by birth, and so that is my earthly citizenship. But I do not consider the two to be somehow intertwined or inseparable. They are two different things, and when there are conflicts between the two, my citizenship in God's kingdom wins out hands down every time.

In recent years, we have seen an ever-increasing voice politically-speaking coming from certain Christians. James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and a slew of charismatic preachers from Kenneth Copeland to Rod Parsley have all been very outspoken about their agenda for America: namely to make it a "Christian" nation. (I realize that many view the start of our country as basis for considering it a "Christian" nation, but let's not forget that our founding fathers specified freedom of religion, not state-sponsored religion. There really is a significant difference there.) Most recently, and what has prompted this essay, were the controversial comments made on the air by Pat Robertson regarding Venezuelan president Chavez.

My question is this: Are we called to be outspoken politically, or are we called to be outspoken evangelistically? Now, obviously, I don't see anything wrong with a Christian having political views, and as American citizens, we are certainly entitled to those views. But my issue comes when Christians are using their "ministry" time, money, and clout to speak their political views to large audiences.

Last year, following the presidential election, James Dobson announced that he was forming a new organization with political focus. He named it "Focus on the Family Action". I have already seen news accounts where it is referred to as "Focus on the Family" which is actually his non-profit ministry, not the political action group. But you can see where the confusion comes into play.

(I actually had a lengthy phone conversation with a very nice young man working for Focus on the Family Action where I questioned the ethics of them using their Focus on the Family mailing list in order to jump start the new political action organization. He denied it, but I see no other way in which they could have gotten my name and address since I never requested information from them. However, I was at the time on FOTF's mailing list. Coincidence? I think not.)

Additionally, Dobson frequently uses portions (or even entire episodes) of his daily radio broadcast to discuss political issues. This causes, in my opinion, way too much confusion, and I find it hard to believe that he is really able to separate out every dollar spent on non-profit work vs. political work. But that's conjecture. I'll try to stick with the facts.

Pat Robertson recently, as I mentioned, made some highly controversial comments on the 700 Club broadcast. This is a "religious broadcast" which includes reporting on world news, but again, I believe that the lines are completely blurred when the leader of that "ministry" goes on air calling for the assassination of a world leader. (Incidentally, Robertson has now "apologized" for his remarks, but has stated that he was "misinterpreted" and that he never called for the assassination of Chavez -- rather just that he be "taken out". Unfortunately, video footage of his comments does actually show him calling for an assassination, so his "apology" leaves much to be desired.)

With this and other examples I could give, I get the clear impression that these leaders think that somehow their political views are inseparable from their faith and that their faith is expressed fairly in their political views. That concerns me greatly.

In the United States, ministry organizations are almost always set up as non-profit corporations. Part of their status as a non-profit, tax-exempt organization includes requirements that they not endorse political candidates, etc. While most ministries, even when outspoken politically, tread that line very carefully (and I don't intend that as a compliment), usually very little is left to the imagination. I don't believe anyone was left to wonder who James Dobson wanted elected as president of the United States last fall! Without actually "endorsing" a candidate, he and others like him did everything they could to make sure people voted Republican. So, there appears to me to be a bit of an integrity issue.

OK, I've identified some problems, but haven't offered much in the way of solutions. That's because I'm not sure I actually have any solutions handy. But I do think that there are a couple ideas that could bring about solutions:

Christian leaders should be held accountable for how they utilize their air time and ministry funds when it comes to political situations. Not only are they accountable to the United States government, since they have voluntarily placed themselves under submission to the corporate laws of this country, but they also are accountable to the Body of Christ.
When leaders state political views, they should fairly represent them as their personal view, and not claim to speak for all of Christianity. I may agree with a lot of what Dobson believes, but he does not speak for me!
Christians in America must recognize that our Christianity does not come from being an American. Nor does being a Christian make us any better an American than anyone else. The standards of judgment for Christians and Americans are two different standards.

These are mostly just rambling thoughts, to be honest. I'm not even sure what point I'm trying to make in this post. But I do feel a growing tension that I think will eventually lead to some kind of definitive moment for us here in America. My hunch, however, is that the definitive moment will not be of the sort that Dobson, et al are seeking.

Until next time,

steve :)

An Army of Ordinary People - new book

2005-08-24T08:30:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite simple church websites is House 2 House. These people are fantastic, and their passion for simple church is so evident in all they do. We've had the privilege of meeting with some of their staff members and talking with others on the phone, and I praise God for them. They are a joy and a delight to know, and I only wish that I had known them when I actually lived in Austin, TX (where they are located)!

At any rate, they have a publishing arm that has recently released a new book called "An Army of Ordinary People" by Felicity Dale. I have not been able to get the book yet, but have read a sample chapter online, and I am excited about this book. The premise is that for way too long, we have relegated the business of starting and leading churches to the "professionals" -- seminary graduates, trained theologians, etc. However, God delights in using ordinary people to do great things. After all, this is how Jesus started His ministry, isn't it? He selected men that the religious leaders of the day would never have considered worthy of "the ministry", and yet these men turned their world upside down for Christ!

We have the opportunity in our culture today to do the very same thing. One statistic claims that 1/3 of Christians in America are "outside" the organized church, and yet have not lost their desire to see God's work accomplished in their lives and in their world. I am happy to be part of that 1/3 -- meeting simply in homes, seeing "ordinary" people realize "extraordinary" truths in their relationship with God.

I find it fascinating to read in the Bible that when God first led Israel out of Egypt, He called the entire nation to the mountain, saying that He wanted them to be a "kingdom of priests". But the people were afraid, and asked Moses to speak for them. This started a long series of prophets sent by God to speak to the people. Yet His initial desire was to personally relate to every person in that nation. The way I see it, the coming of Christ was God's statement that He had had enough of "proxies" in His relationship to His people, and so He came in the flesh Himself to be "God with us". There is no longer a need for human mediators between us and God. And even though we who consider ourselves "Protestants" speak about the "priesthood of all believers", we do not generally function in that reality. Instead, we organize ourselves underneath a human leader and relegate the "real" ministry to that leader.

This new book from Felicity Dale, however, presents a series of stories that show the lack of necessity for this structure, and encourages each of us to take our place in this "Army of Ordinary People". Click here to read the sample chapter online (PDF format, Adobe Acrobat Reader required) or click here to order the book. Having read other books written by Tony and Felicity Dale, I can highly recommend this one after having only read the sample chapter online!

Until next time,

steve :)