“My conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, for going against my conscience is neither safe nor salutary. I can do no other, here I stand, God help me.” With those words, Martin Luther sealed his fate as a heretic condemned by no less than Pope Leo himself. If not for the protection of his prince, Frederick the Wise, and the immense popularity he enjoyed among the people, Luther would surely have been arrested, quickly tried, and burned to a crisp.
The doctrine of the supreme authority of the Scriptures came to be known as Sola Scripture or “Scripture Alone.” It is often referred to as “the formal principle” of the Reformation. It is a reminder that the Protestant Reformation was essentially a movement based upon the careful study of God’s Word.
The Roman Catholic Church has long held that the Bible is the product of the church. That is, the church gives birth, as it were, to the Scriptures. There is an implicit subordination implied in this formula. This is why, when discussing doctrine with a Roman Catholic it does no good to say something like, “But purgatory is found nowhere in the Bible,” or “But the Bible says none of those things about Mary,” or even, “But the Bible tells us that there is only one mediator between God and man.” The reason this line of argument is so fruitless with a Roman Catholic is because the Bible is not their ultimate source of authority because they believe the Bible is the product of the church and not the other way around.
In contrast, the Protestant Reformation rightly understood that the church is the creatura verbi: the creation of the word. God creates with the power of His word. This is seen in creation and the new creation. His word is powerful to bring substance out of nothing and life from death. His creative word brought worlds to be and His redemptive word brought to be a people for his own possession. The church is no more the creator of the Bible as is man the creator of his own salvation. This was a revolutionary assertion in the 16th century. If the church was a product of the Word then the Bible must hold sway over church councils, over popes, and over tradition. Such a formula would put at risk the power of the Roman magesterium, the teaching office of the church.
By the time Luther came along, Church tradition had come to include a number of different doctrines and practices handed down to the church over the centuries by Popes and councils. Thus, “Holy writ” and “Holy tradition” were both looked to as authoritative sources of revelation. In command of both was the church’s magisterium which claimed ultimate authority in the interpretation of Scripture and tradition.
The Roman Catholic Church has long made a caricature of Sola Scriptura saying that it would lead to chaos and an “every man for himself” approach to interpreting the Bible. Sadly, while this was never the doctrine of Sola Scriptura as articulated by the Reformers it has become the practice of many Protestant Christians. I have been told, “No one is going to tell me how to interpret the Bible.” This is a dangerous perspective. While holding that God’s Word is infallible, Sola Scriptura rejects the idea that the Bible can be read and properly interpreted without any accountability. It is the wise Christian who looks to those godly scholars who have labored long in the languages and doctrines of the Bible for help to rightly interpret God’s Word. But this is a hard thing to convince a contemporary church given more to the reading of Sports Illustrated and Good Housekeeping than sound biblical commentaries.
The fact is, tradition can and should play an important part in the life of God’s people. It matters what the long line of faithful witnesses that have gone before us have believed and practiced. They were certainly not infallible. However, it is destructive arrogance to ignore or otherwise reject the wise counsel of our predecessors in the faith. The crucial difference is that Protestants reject the idea that tradition can be considered authoritative in the way that Scripture is authoritative. Authority is perhaps the central issue of Sola Scriptura. Certainly, there are implications with inspiration, infallibility, and sufficiency. But authority is at the heart of Sola Scriptura.
Heiko Oberman, a scholar and author of my favorite biography on Martin Luther, offers some very helpful categories for understanding the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the relation between Scripture and tradition:
Tradition I
Tradition I is referred to by Oberman as the “one-source” theory of revelation. This theory sees Scripture as the only source of infallible divine revelation and is to be interpreted in the watchful care of the church. In other words, while Scripture is affirmed as the only infallible source of revelation it must still be interpreted within the context of Christian community in order to guard against error. This is the view historically held by Protestants.
Tradition II
Tradition II is the “two-source” theory of revelation. Tradition II holds that Scripture and tradition are separate and equal in authority. It holds that the Bible and church tradition are both sources of divine revelation.
Tradition III
Tradition III holds that the magisterium of the church is the ultimate source of revelation for the church.
While certain aspects of Tradition II can be seen in some of the writings of the early church fathers it is not until the 12th century that a full fledged two source tradition is developed and accepted in the Roman Church. This development of Tradition II came about in order to support the many doctrines and practices that had appeared in the church in previous centuries. It was the Council of Trent that made the two-source view of revelation official Catholic doctrine. For the next three hundred years this woulud be the teaching of the Roman Church. But over the last century and a half a new tradition has emerged within Catholicism. Oberman writes:
“A Tradition III concept is in the process of being developed by those who tend to find in the teaching office of the Church the one and only source for revelation. Scripture and tradition are then not much more than historical monuments of the past.”
Doctrines such as the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary (1854), papal infallibility (1870), and the bodily ascension of Mary to heaven have all come as a result of the power of the magisterium. Keith Mathison writes, “Rome is gradually moving toward a one-source concept of revelation, but the one source of revelation is the Roman magesterium. In practice, what this means is that whatever Rome now teaches, is, by definition, the tradition of the church. This is, of course, the logical implication of the doctrine of papal infallibility.”
In a way, there is nothing new here. It was not unusual for Jesus to rebuke the religious leaders of Israel for preferring their own traditions to the clear revelation of Scripture: “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men (Matt 15:2).” “You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition” (Mark 7:8-9). Terry Johnson rightly observes, “The ‘commandment’ of God must always sit in judgment on our traditions. Scripture must reign supreme over all ecclesiastical traditions.”
Sola Scriptura is under attack. It always has been. Rome seeks to supplant Scripture through the teaching office of the Church. But many so-called evangelicals have supplanted Scripture with the autonomous individual. “What does this verse mean to you?” The idea that Scripture as a single meaning and that man must bow his knee to what God means offends modern individualism. We cannot control the Roman Catholic Church. But we can and must seek reformation and renewal within the Protestant church.
Sola Scriptura!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Prosperity False Gospel Thrives in Africa
The prosperity "gospel" of Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, etc has decieved millions. This Christianity Today article (Gospel Riches Christianity Today A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction) addresses the rise of this demonic doctrine in Africa. Pray for our brothers and sisters in Africa that God will raise up for them preachers and teachers who rightly divide the Word of Truth and worship the Creator rather than the created.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? -- C. H. Spurgeon
More good words from the good reverend Spurgeon (Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? -- C. H. Spurgeon). It's amazing. There is nothing new under the sun.
Paying Homage To The Great god Entertainment
Jim at Old Truth has posted this passage from John MacArthur's book Ashamed of the Gospel (Paying Homage To The Great god Entertainment). The lines between entertainment and worship are becoming hopelessly blurred.
Advancing the Gospel
As I studied for last Sunday’s sermon on Luke 8:1-3 I was both convicted and challenged. I was convicted because of my own lack of impact when it comes to advancing the Gospel deeper into Wichita. Luke’s words are so simple. Jesus went to the cities and villages preaching the good news of the kingdom. The twelve followed Jesus in this vocation. As Luke continues his gospel narrative on into the book of Acts he traces the apostle’s work of bringing the Gospel of Jesus to bear upon the various communities to which they traveled. It is not a complicated model. Cultures, on the other hand, can be and often are complicated. But what Jesus has called us to do is not. We are to make the Gospel known. We are called to go where the people are.
Luke’s words challenge me to think intentionally about how Metro East can better introduce the Gospel into our surrounding culture. As a pastor I receive a lot of advice from “experts” who tell me if I will just jazz up the worship and tone down the preaching then we will reach “seekers.” This perspective flows from the faulty premise that theater lighting, expensive stage props, and slick videos will somehow be the key to reaching our culture: “Sing songs about human longing and preach to felt needs. Quit boring people with the Bible. That’s the key!” The problem is, the more our worship and preaching mirrors the culture the more we disguise the radical alternative that the Gospel represents. It becomes a kind of bait and switch: “See how cool we are? Being a Christian is fun and impressive! Come to our church, sit back and relax. Oh, by the way, Jesus demands and deserves total allegiance.”
The gospel is not advanced by removing the other-worldly nature of our worship and preaching so that lost people can comprehend every aspect. Indeed, when the church is fortunate enough to host lost persons in their services, they ought to observe the worship of a God who is awesome and holy and they ought to be confronted with preaching that clearly declares the Gospel and the radically counter-cultural claims of Christ. The Gospel does not move into the culture by “worshiptainment.” The Gospel is advanced into the culture when, through transcendent worship, Christian’s hearts and minds have been captivated by a grand vision of a great God and, through careful instruction in the Scriptures, have been equipped for ministry.
So I am asking myself a lot of questions these days. Are our current programs and schedule advancing that end or hindering it? Are our times of worship and instruction in God’s Word making us ready to effectively engage the culture with the Gospel? Is our fellowship charged with a level of encouragement and accountability that helps make each of us grateful ministers of Christ’s Gospel in the city where God has planted us? Will Metro East be a Christian ghetto offering a trivial sub-culture or a true church (a community of called out ones) calling people to God’s transformative counter-culture?
Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan knows a thing or two about the gospel and about how it advances into the culture. Redeemer Presbyterian has planted over 75 churches with a plan to start 200 in the next 20 years. Resources from Dr. Keller and Redeemer are available through this blog site. I would encourage you to check them out.
In one article entitled “Preaching in a Post-Modern City” Keller contrasts the Gospel and ‘Religion.’ I found his words very helpful as I considered the reality that one of the reasons we are not very effective at advancing the Gospel is because we don’t much believe it ourselves. Keller writes:
“The gospel is ‘I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey’ while every other religion operates on the principle of ‘I obey, therefore I am accepted.’ Martin Luther’s fundamental insight was that this latter principle, the principle of ‘religion’ is the deep default mode of the human heart. The heart continues to work in that way even after conversion to Christ. Though we recognize and embrace the principle of the gospel, our hearts will always be trying to return to the mode of self-salvation, which leads to spiritual deadness, pride and strife and ministry ineffectiveness.
“For example, ministers derive more of their joy and a sense of personal significance from the success of their ministries than from the fact they are loved by God in Christ. Why? Their hearts are still operating on the principle – ‘If I do and accomplish all these things – then I will be accepted.’ In other words, on one level, we believe the Gospel but on another we don’t believe.
“So why do we over-work in ministry and burn out? Yes, we are not practicing the Sabbath principle, but the deeper cause is unbelief in the Gospel! Why are we so devastated by criticism? The person whose self-worth is mainly in his or her ministry performance will be devastated by criticism of the ministry record because that record is our very self and identity. The fundamental problem is unbelief in the Gospel.
“At the root then, of all Christian failures to live right – i.e. not give their money generously, not tell the truth, not care for the poor, not handle worry anxiety – is the sin under all sins, the sin of unbelief, of not rejoicing deeply in God’s grace in Christ, not living out of our new identity in Christ. This means that every week in a different way the minister must apply the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith through Christ’s work. Thus every week the non-Christians get exposed to the Gospel, and in its most practical and varied forms not just in a repetitious ‘Four Spiritual Law’ way. That’s what pragmatic post-moderns need.”
Luke’s words challenge me to think intentionally about how Metro East can better introduce the Gospel into our surrounding culture. As a pastor I receive a lot of advice from “experts” who tell me if I will just jazz up the worship and tone down the preaching then we will reach “seekers.” This perspective flows from the faulty premise that theater lighting, expensive stage props, and slick videos will somehow be the key to reaching our culture: “Sing songs about human longing and preach to felt needs. Quit boring people with the Bible. That’s the key!” The problem is, the more our worship and preaching mirrors the culture the more we disguise the radical alternative that the Gospel represents. It becomes a kind of bait and switch: “See how cool we are? Being a Christian is fun and impressive! Come to our church, sit back and relax. Oh, by the way, Jesus demands and deserves total allegiance.”
The gospel is not advanced by removing the other-worldly nature of our worship and preaching so that lost people can comprehend every aspect. Indeed, when the church is fortunate enough to host lost persons in their services, they ought to observe the worship of a God who is awesome and holy and they ought to be confronted with preaching that clearly declares the Gospel and the radically counter-cultural claims of Christ. The Gospel does not move into the culture by “worshiptainment.” The Gospel is advanced into the culture when, through transcendent worship, Christian’s hearts and minds have been captivated by a grand vision of a great God and, through careful instruction in the Scriptures, have been equipped for ministry.
So I am asking myself a lot of questions these days. Are our current programs and schedule advancing that end or hindering it? Are our times of worship and instruction in God’s Word making us ready to effectively engage the culture with the Gospel? Is our fellowship charged with a level of encouragement and accountability that helps make each of us grateful ministers of Christ’s Gospel in the city where God has planted us? Will Metro East be a Christian ghetto offering a trivial sub-culture or a true church (a community of called out ones) calling people to God’s transformative counter-culture?
Timothy Keller, pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan knows a thing or two about the gospel and about how it advances into the culture. Redeemer Presbyterian has planted over 75 churches with a plan to start 200 in the next 20 years. Resources from Dr. Keller and Redeemer are available through this blog site. I would encourage you to check them out.
In one article entitled “Preaching in a Post-Modern City” Keller contrasts the Gospel and ‘Religion.’ I found his words very helpful as I considered the reality that one of the reasons we are not very effective at advancing the Gospel is because we don’t much believe it ourselves. Keller writes:
“The gospel is ‘I am accepted through Christ, therefore I obey’ while every other religion operates on the principle of ‘I obey, therefore I am accepted.’ Martin Luther’s fundamental insight was that this latter principle, the principle of ‘religion’ is the deep default mode of the human heart. The heart continues to work in that way even after conversion to Christ. Though we recognize and embrace the principle of the gospel, our hearts will always be trying to return to the mode of self-salvation, which leads to spiritual deadness, pride and strife and ministry ineffectiveness.
“For example, ministers derive more of their joy and a sense of personal significance from the success of their ministries than from the fact they are loved by God in Christ. Why? Their hearts are still operating on the principle – ‘If I do and accomplish all these things – then I will be accepted.’ In other words, on one level, we believe the Gospel but on another we don’t believe.
“So why do we over-work in ministry and burn out? Yes, we are not practicing the Sabbath principle, but the deeper cause is unbelief in the Gospel! Why are we so devastated by criticism? The person whose self-worth is mainly in his or her ministry performance will be devastated by criticism of the ministry record because that record is our very self and identity. The fundamental problem is unbelief in the Gospel.
“At the root then, of all Christian failures to live right – i.e. not give their money generously, not tell the truth, not care for the poor, not handle worry anxiety – is the sin under all sins, the sin of unbelief, of not rejoicing deeply in God’s grace in Christ, not living out of our new identity in Christ. This means that every week in a different way the minister must apply the Gospel of salvation by grace through faith through Christ’s work. Thus every week the non-Christians get exposed to the Gospel, and in its most practical and varied forms not just in a repetitious ‘Four Spiritual Law’ way. That’s what pragmatic post-moderns need.”
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
T.D. Jakes is a False Teacher
The folks at Fide-O have posted a great reminder (FIDE-O) that the church is awash with false teachers. We must call them what they are. Jeremiah did. The apostle Paul did. Jesus certainly did. These men lead untold thousands into tragic error and harden the hearts of many others who are harmed by their antics. May God purge his church of these charlatans.
Why Protestants Preach
Protestants preach because God uses His Word as the means by which He calls together His people under the saving work of Christ. Preaching is the means by which God’s unfolding plan of redemption is declared to all those who have ears to hear. Preaching is a community conditioned activity. That is, it helps avoid the chaos of private interpretation. Preaching helps us remember that Scripture is interpreted in the context of the gathered people of God. There are no lone rangers when it comes to a right interpretation of God’s Word. Faithful preachers will spend hours each week reading good commentaries and researching what the church has historically affirmed about a given text of Scripture. This helps both preacher and hearers to have confidence that what is being preached is not the latest fad or the result of a “newly enlightened” interpretation.
In an article in the March/April issue of Modern Reformation magazine Michael Horton writes:
“The Word of God is not only a canon that regulates our beliefs and practices, but…it is actually alive, accomplishing everything God intends. While upholding the reliability and authority of Scripture, conservative Evangelicalism has tended to reduce God’s Word to a sourcebook for timeless doctrinal and ethical laws, missing the crucial point that the Bible itself underscores from Genesis to Revelation: namely, that God’s speaking is acting, and this acting is not only descriptive but creative. God’s Word is authoritative not only because of what it is (God’s utterance), but because of what it does (God’s utterance).
“The Word of God written and preached is not simply legally authoritative and binding, but is the primary means of grace, through which the Spirit ordinarily creates communion with Christ and therefore the communion of saints: ekklesia. In other words, in this conception, the Word is not merely something that stands over us us. It is also “the implanted word” (James 1:21) that “abides in you” (I John 2:14), and is to “dwell in you richly” (Col. 3:16). “So then faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ” (Romans 10:16).”
Protestants preach because we still believe I Peter 1:23-25:
“You have been born anew, not of perishable but of imperishable see, through the living and enduring Word of God. For ‘All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower fails, but the Word of the Lord endures forever.’ That word is the good news that was announced to you.”
That Word above all earthly pow’rs, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through him who with us sideth.
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also;
The body they may kill:
God’s truth abideth still;
His kingdom is forever.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Christ and His Gospel as the source of our unity
Baptist Press recently reported on an important messgae delivered by Dr. Tom Ascol at the Southern Baptist Founders Conference in late June (Baptist Press - Gospel is focus of SBC unity, Ascol says - News with a Christian Perspective). I would hope all Southern Baptists, indeed all those who call themselves evangelicals would take Dr. Ascol's words to heart.
Spurgeon on Faithfulness
Thank God for the good reverend Spurgeon. Check this out (Pyromaniacs: Encouragement for the "Narrow-Minded Bigot").
Beckwith Back to Rome
I have been asked my opinion both on this blog and in other conversations about the recent announcement by Frank Beckwith.
Dr. Francis Beckwith’s conversion, better yet, reversion to Rome was very interesting to me. For those of you who don’t know, Francis Beckwith is a well-known scholar, professor, and president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned his position as president of ETS a few months ago when he declared that he had become a communicant in the Roman Catholic Church, the religion of his childhood.
In the letter explaining his return to the Roman Church Dr. Beckwith writes:
“During the last week of March 2007, after much prayer, counsel and consideration, my wife and I decided to seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. My wife, a baptized Presbyterian, is going through the process of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). This will culminate with her receiving the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation. For me, because I had received the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation all before the age of 14, I need only go to confession, request forgiveness for my sins, ask to be received back into the Church, and receive absolution.”
I am saddened by the language of Dr. Beckwith's letter. This goes to show that smart men can make large errors. How sad it is for a man who once affirmed Sola Scriptura to now embrace a religious system that rejects the sole sufficiency and unique authority of the Bible. What is also tragic is that he has rejected Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and man and now seeks forgiveness of sins and “absolution” from the Roman Church.
Further on in his letter Beckwith writes:
“The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.”
Well, we could argue all day about whether or not Rome is a more faithful interpreter of the early church fathers. For now I will say that it is my conviction that the Protestant Reformers were far more faithful to the likes of Athanasius and Augustine than were leaders of the Roman Church during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. However, what is most important is that the Protestant Reformers were faithful to the Scriptures. As much as they respected Augustine, for instance, the Reformers would always side with Scripture over any man, or council, or tradition. This is one of the most, if not THE most important dividing line between Protestants and Catholics. If we cannot agree on the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture then we can agree on little else. I am also astonished by his language that he has chosen “to err” on the side of Rome.
Dr. Beckwith posted some 300 email responses to his reversion on his webpage. One, from Dr. Dale Davis said:
Dr. Beckwith,
I find it very sad you've chosen to "err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians" instead of staying with the Christians who are the most faithful to the very first generation of Christians, the authors of the New Testament.
The more I've studied the history of the Reformation, the more I am thankful for the work of the Reformers--rejected, excommunicated and utterly repudiated by your Church, if not burned alive.
May you influence the Church of the Bishop of Rome for the Gospel--and help reform that body.
Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria!
I am glad that Dr. Beckwith stepped down from his position with the ETS. With the blurring of lines these days it would not have shocked me if he and others saw no problem with a Roman Catholic leading an evangelical organization. Anyway, in that case at least, he did the right thing.
Dr. Francis Beckwith’s conversion, better yet, reversion to Rome was very interesting to me. For those of you who don’t know, Francis Beckwith is a well-known scholar, professor, and president of the Evangelical Theological Society. He resigned his position as president of ETS a few months ago when he declared that he had become a communicant in the Roman Catholic Church, the religion of his childhood.
In the letter explaining his return to the Roman Church Dr. Beckwith writes:
“During the last week of March 2007, after much prayer, counsel and consideration, my wife and I decided to seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. My wife, a baptized Presbyterian, is going through the process of the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA). This will culminate with her receiving the sacraments of Holy Communion and Confirmation. For me, because I had received the sacraments of Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation all before the age of 14, I need only go to confession, request forgiveness for my sins, ask to be received back into the Church, and receive absolution.”
I am saddened by the language of Dr. Beckwith's letter. This goes to show that smart men can make large errors. How sad it is for a man who once affirmed Sola Scriptura to now embrace a religious system that rejects the sole sufficiency and unique authority of the Bible. What is also tragic is that he has rejected Jesus Christ as the one mediator between God and man and now seeks forgiveness of sins and “absolution” from the Roman Church.
Further on in his letter Beckwith writes:
“The past four months have moved quickly for me and my wife. As you probably know, my work in philosophy, ethics, and theology has always been Catholic friendly, but I would have never predicted that I would return to the Church, for there seemed to me too many theological and ecclesiastical issues that appeared insurmountable. However, in January, at the suggestion of a dear friend, I began reading the Early Church Fathers as well as some of the more sophisticated works on justification by Catholic authors. I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries. Moreover, much of what I have taken for granted as a Protestant—e.g., the catholic creeds, the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Christian understanding of man, and the canon of Scripture—is the result of a Church that made judgments about these matters and on which non-Catholics, including Evangelicals, have declared and grounded their Christian orthodoxy in a world hostile to it. Given these considerations, I thought it wise for me to err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians that followed Christ’s Apostles.”
Well, we could argue all day about whether or not Rome is a more faithful interpreter of the early church fathers. For now I will say that it is my conviction that the Protestant Reformers were far more faithful to the likes of Athanasius and Augustine than were leaders of the Roman Church during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. However, what is most important is that the Protestant Reformers were faithful to the Scriptures. As much as they respected Augustine, for instance, the Reformers would always side with Scripture over any man, or council, or tradition. This is one of the most, if not THE most important dividing line between Protestants and Catholics. If we cannot agree on the sole authority and sufficiency of Scripture then we can agree on little else. I am also astonished by his language that he has chosen “to err” on the side of Rome.
Dr. Beckwith posted some 300 email responses to his reversion on his webpage. One, from Dr. Dale Davis said:
Dr. Beckwith,
I find it very sad you've chosen to "err on the side of the Church with historical and theological continuity with the first generations of Christians" instead of staying with the Christians who are the most faithful to the very first generation of Christians, the authors of the New Testament.
The more I've studied the history of the Reformation, the more I am thankful for the work of the Reformers--rejected, excommunicated and utterly repudiated by your Church, if not burned alive.
May you influence the Church of the Bishop of Rome for the Gospel--and help reform that body.
Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gracia, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria!
I am glad that Dr. Beckwith stepped down from his position with the ETS. With the blurring of lines these days it would not have shocked me if he and others saw no problem with a Roman Catholic leading an evangelical organization. Anyway, in that case at least, he did the right thing.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Paris Hilton and the Meaning of Life
I agree with Bernard Goldberg who named Paris Hilton’s parents among the people who are ruining America. His point is that the impact of parents upon their children is beyond calculation. Where were they when young Paris needed to learn that life was about more than money and Gucci and parties? It makes one wonder how parents who had the means to raise their daughter with the best advantages could produce, and continue to finance a young woman who is so inconsequential and narcissistic. Nevertheless, the continuing media saga that is Paris Hilton can give us a moment to ponder our lives and what kind of legacy we are leaving to the world.
The following is a letter to the editor in this month’s National Review magazine:
“If [Paris] does slide alone into the dark night like Willy Loman, it is worth remembering that all but a few of us will find our rest in relative obscurity, without a Nobel prize or world-changing company to our name. It isn’t how Paris will die, but how she can afford to be “utterly pointless” during her life, that so fascinates us. In a broader sense, because she represents a cultural evolution affecting a growing portion of America, she is very instructive.
“The affluence of American society has shifted more and more people away from a ‘work is life, life is work’ ethos. Some choose pointlessness: drugs, liquor, and sex. Others adopt ‘religions,’ be they health and dieting, global warming, Darfur, etc. Some, out of boredom, contrive crazy adventures full of risk. Is this all there is to life, we ask?
“At the heart of it all remains our uncertainty about meaning in life. Are there things that possess meaning and purpose external to our assigning them meaning and purpose? In other words, are there things assigned meaning and order by God?
“In an age when Americans are rightfully fascinated by Paris Hilton – though they may not know why – the meaning of meaning is obscure. It is the frustrating yet beautiful question we all must ask and hope to answer. I am inclined more often than not to believe that only God could have created a being who asks such questions.”
The following is a letter to the editor in this month’s National Review magazine:
“If [Paris] does slide alone into the dark night like Willy Loman, it is worth remembering that all but a few of us will find our rest in relative obscurity, without a Nobel prize or world-changing company to our name. It isn’t how Paris will die, but how she can afford to be “utterly pointless” during her life, that so fascinates us. In a broader sense, because she represents a cultural evolution affecting a growing portion of America, she is very instructive.
“The affluence of American society has shifted more and more people away from a ‘work is life, life is work’ ethos. Some choose pointlessness: drugs, liquor, and sex. Others adopt ‘religions,’ be they health and dieting, global warming, Darfur, etc. Some, out of boredom, contrive crazy adventures full of risk. Is this all there is to life, we ask?
“At the heart of it all remains our uncertainty about meaning in life. Are there things that possess meaning and purpose external to our assigning them meaning and purpose? In other words, are there things assigned meaning and order by God?
“In an age when Americans are rightfully fascinated by Paris Hilton – though they may not know why – the meaning of meaning is obscure. It is the frustrating yet beautiful question we all must ask and hope to answer. I am inclined more often than not to believe that only God could have created a being who asks such questions.”
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
The Darkness of Depression
On Albert Mohler's radio program Dr. Russel Moore has a very helpful discussion with David Powlison on the topic of depression (The Darkness of Depression).
The Spirit of Charles Finney
"Old Truth" has an interesting post (Bait And Switch "Festival Evangelism") on some of our not so modern approaches to evangelism. What we are seeing is the sad but enduring legacy of Charles Finney's pelagianism.
I Still Must Protest (2)
Recently, Pope Benedict XVI approved the release of a statement that has caused a minor stir among watchful Protestants and even some Catholics. The statement declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church. To be precise the Vatican’s wording asserts that the Church of Rome is the only form in which the Church of Christ subsists, which is simply a more cautious way of saying that the only true church is the one whose leadership resides in the Vatican.
I am not calling attention to this because I am angry. Actually, it bothers me not one whit because it comes as no surprise. This is the position that Rome has always held. I and all my Protestant brethren were officially consigned to hell long ago by Popes and Councils of the Catholic Church. Now, in recent years the Church of Rome has moderated its language in an effort to be ecumenical. It even seems to hold forth that non-Catholics can actually be Christians. Unfortunately, they believe that sincere believers in all religions will be welcomed into heaven. The problem is that Rome has never officially repudiated all the anathemas declared in years past against Protestants. For instance, according to official Catholic teaching I am bound for hell because I deny such doctrines as transubstantiation and papal authority. What is more, I am also hell bound because I administer the Lord’s Supper and am not an ordained priest in the Catholic Church. I could go on and on.
Rome is in a bit of a Catch 22, however. It cannot repudiate the declarations and anathemas from the Council of Trent, for instance, because of its doctrine of revelation. Revelation is the theological word for how God makes himself and his truth known. In the Roman system, Popes and Councils hold equal authority as Scripture. And, as a practical matter, when Popes and Councils have differed from Scripture (and they often have) guess which source of authority is subordinated? (That was a rhetorical question. I assume you know that it is the Scriptures which get the shaft in such situations.) Anyway, if Rome were to say that Trent was wrong or is no longer relevant then what would that do to their entire doctrine of revelation? It would fall like the proverbial house of cards. “If Trent was wrong then what else was wrong? Perhaps our position on Mary is wrong. Perhaps our doctrine of purgatory is wrong.” You can imagine how confusing that could be. I will deal further with Rome’s opposition to Sola Scriptura in a future article.
The Vatican document on the church is quite brief. Its title is “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” It was released on June 29th by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. According to the statement the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate church because of apostolic succession. It reads in part, “This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.” If you don’t already know, the Catholic Church believes that Peter was the very first Pope and so there has been an unbroken chain linking the Catholic Church directly to Jesus. Never mind those pesky historical inconveniences like the times when there were multiple popes leading a divided church or when there were decadent and unconverted popes.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church refers to the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy as “Churches” because they too claim apostolic succession. However, Protestant churches, or those churches born out of the years of reformation are the “red headed stepchildren” of the body of Christ and are referred to in the Vatican’s document as merely “ecclesial communities.”
“According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.”
Again, this does not bother me in the slightest. Benedict XVI is a true theologian. He is a stalwart against liberalizing forces within the Catholic Church. Recently he has made controversial comments about Muslims and has advocated evangelizing Jews. These are not popular positions in our world. This recent statement on the church merely reminds Catholics and Protestants how important the issue is of Papal authority. I appreciate the fact that Rome is willing to reassert its historic position that any church which denies the authority of the Pope is no true church. It seems that Benedict understands what is at stake in this issue. I would be equally appreciative if my fellow Protestants understood the importance of this issue and were willing to assert that any church which bows to papal authority and infallibility is no true church.
I was watching EWTN, the global Catholic network, on Monday evening. (Incidentally, Catholic TV is much better than “evangelical” TV which is populated mostly by goofballs. Most of Catholic TV is filled with pretty stout teaching programs. They actually believe that doctrine is important). Anyway, Father William Stetson, Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington D.C. was on to explain the Vatican’s document on the church. He was coy to say the least. His basic message was, “This statement on the church is a precise theological statement and the average person need not worry about it. Many Protestants will be saved because God will have pity on them for not being enlightened about such issues as the Mass and confession.” If you think I am exaggerating then go to EWTN’s website and check out the July 23rd “The World Over” program. Anyway, something tells me that Benedict XVI would not agree with Fr. Stetson that this it is not that big of a deal; that the average Catholic shouldn’t worry about it.
Many of our Protestant ancestors were mercilessly burned on wooden stakes until their fingertips and abdomens burst into the flames because they opposed papal authority and infallibility. We both dishonor their sacrifice and trivialize Scripture if we do not see this issue as one worth dividing over. Rome certainly sees it in those terms.
Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote recently, “I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.”
I am not calling attention to this because I am angry. Actually, it bothers me not one whit because it comes as no surprise. This is the position that Rome has always held. I and all my Protestant brethren were officially consigned to hell long ago by Popes and Councils of the Catholic Church. Now, in recent years the Church of Rome has moderated its language in an effort to be ecumenical. It even seems to hold forth that non-Catholics can actually be Christians. Unfortunately, they believe that sincere believers in all religions will be welcomed into heaven. The problem is that Rome has never officially repudiated all the anathemas declared in years past against Protestants. For instance, according to official Catholic teaching I am bound for hell because I deny such doctrines as transubstantiation and papal authority. What is more, I am also hell bound because I administer the Lord’s Supper and am not an ordained priest in the Catholic Church. I could go on and on.
Rome is in a bit of a Catch 22, however. It cannot repudiate the declarations and anathemas from the Council of Trent, for instance, because of its doctrine of revelation. Revelation is the theological word for how God makes himself and his truth known. In the Roman system, Popes and Councils hold equal authority as Scripture. And, as a practical matter, when Popes and Councils have differed from Scripture (and they often have) guess which source of authority is subordinated? (That was a rhetorical question. I assume you know that it is the Scriptures which get the shaft in such situations.) Anyway, if Rome were to say that Trent was wrong or is no longer relevant then what would that do to their entire doctrine of revelation? It would fall like the proverbial house of cards. “If Trent was wrong then what else was wrong? Perhaps our position on Mary is wrong. Perhaps our doctrine of purgatory is wrong.” You can imagine how confusing that could be. I will deal further with Rome’s opposition to Sola Scriptura in a future article.
The Vatican document on the church is quite brief. Its title is “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church.” It was released on June 29th by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. According to the statement the Roman Catholic Church is the only legitimate church because of apostolic succession. It reads in part, “This Church, constituted and organized in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.” If you don’t already know, the Catholic Church believes that Peter was the very first Pope and so there has been an unbroken chain linking the Catholic Church directly to Jesus. Never mind those pesky historical inconveniences like the times when there were multiple popes leading a divided church or when there were decadent and unconverted popes.
Interestingly, the Catholic Church refers to the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy as “Churches” because they too claim apostolic succession. However, Protestant churches, or those churches born out of the years of reformation are the “red headed stepchildren” of the body of Christ and are referred to in the Vatican’s document as merely “ecclesial communities.”
“According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the proper sense.”
Again, this does not bother me in the slightest. Benedict XVI is a true theologian. He is a stalwart against liberalizing forces within the Catholic Church. Recently he has made controversial comments about Muslims and has advocated evangelizing Jews. These are not popular positions in our world. This recent statement on the church merely reminds Catholics and Protestants how important the issue is of Papal authority. I appreciate the fact that Rome is willing to reassert its historic position that any church which denies the authority of the Pope is no true church. It seems that Benedict understands what is at stake in this issue. I would be equally appreciative if my fellow Protestants understood the importance of this issue and were willing to assert that any church which bows to papal authority and infallibility is no true church.
I was watching EWTN, the global Catholic network, on Monday evening. (Incidentally, Catholic TV is much better than “evangelical” TV which is populated mostly by goofballs. Most of Catholic TV is filled with pretty stout teaching programs. They actually believe that doctrine is important). Anyway, Father William Stetson, Director of the Catholic Information Center in Washington D.C. was on to explain the Vatican’s document on the church. He was coy to say the least. His basic message was, “This statement on the church is a precise theological statement and the average person need not worry about it. Many Protestants will be saved because God will have pity on them for not being enlightened about such issues as the Mass and confession.” If you think I am exaggerating then go to EWTN’s website and check out the July 23rd “The World Over” program. Anyway, something tells me that Benedict XVI would not agree with Fr. Stetson that this it is not that big of a deal; that the average Catholic shouldn’t worry about it.
Many of our Protestant ancestors were mercilessly burned on wooden stakes until their fingertips and abdomens burst into the flames because they opposed papal authority and infallibility. We both dishonor their sacrifice and trivialize Scripture if we do not see this issue as one worth dividing over. Rome certainly sees it in those terms.
Dr. Albert Mohler of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky wrote recently, “I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right – not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.”
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Good Reverend McCheyne
Robert Murray McCheyne died when he was only 29 years old (1813-1831). His was a comparatively short life but what awesome things God was pleased to accomplish through this particularly weak vessel. The illnesses and frailty with which he struggled became the very means by which God filled him with such strength. He wrote, “I have been too anxious to do great things. The lust of praise has ever been my besetting sin; and what more befitting school could be found for me than that of suffering alone, away from the eye and ear of man?”
Supremely, McCheyne was a pastor. It could be said of him that he was a pastor among pastors. His skills as a biblical expositor were matched by the tender care he exhibited toward the flock entrusted to him by God. He understood the synthesis between the holiness of the pastor’s life and the blessedness of his ministry. One of his contemporaries wrote of him, “He gave out not merely living water, but living water drawn at the springs that he had himself drunk of; and is not this a true gospel ministry?” Almost two hundred years after his birth, McCheyne stands as an enduring example for pastors everywhere to follow.
God took the young Robert to pastor a once large parish in Dundee Scotland. The church’s name was St. Peters and its glory days were long over. It was not the kind of church a young pastor whose reputation as a great preacher was already being established would want to go. A young man like McCheyne would want to go to Glasgow or Edinburgh but not the blue collar town of Dundee! Shunning his pride, Robert followed his Lord’s leading.
McCheyne’s preaching, which was always a careful exposition of Scripture, was marked by reverence and sobriety. A man who heard him preach frequently wrote, “Before he opened his lips, as he came along the passage, there was something about him that sorely affected me.” One of his biographers writes, “It is difficult to convey to those who never knew him a correct idea of the sweetness and holy unction of his preaching…His rule was to set before his hearers a body of truth first – and there always was a vast amount of Bible truth in his discourses – and then urge home the application.”
The Lord was pleased to bless St. Peter's Dundee with a fresh wind of revival. The once nearly empty church was now filled to overflowing. They were blessed to see many notorious sinners come to faith in Christ. Knowledge of God in the Scriptures became a growing joy for the people of the parish. It was a work of God that spread through large parts of Scotland. Robert approached the whole period with humility and faithfulness. He depended not on emotional experiences or manipulation but rather leaned all the more on those ordinary means by which God works to bless His people.
In the final two years of his life his sinking health did not seem to interrupt his activity for the Lord. He labored until the ravages of weakness overcame him. He died as a pastor, a preacher, and a missionary. His loss was sorely felt among his beloved flock in Dundee. “His people were that evening met together in the church, and such a scene of sorrow has not often been witnessed in Scotland. It was like the weeping for King Josiah. Hundreds were there; the lower part of the church was full; and none among them seemed able to contain their sorrow. Every heart seemed bursting with grief, so that the weeping and the cries could be heard afar off. The Lord had most severely wounded the people whom He had before so peculiarly favored; and now, by this awful stroke of His hand, was fixing deeper in their souls all that His servant had spoken in the days of his peculiar ministry.”
I commend to your reading Memoir and Remains of R.M. McCheyne, the most widely read biography of the pastor from Dundee, written by his friend Andrew Bonar. It has sold hundreds of thousands of copies since its publication in 1844. Charles Spurgeon wrote of it, “This is one of the best and most profitable volumes ever published. The memoir of such a man ought to be in the hands of every Christian, and certainly every preacher of the Gospel.”
“Oh, then, that I might lie low in the dust, – the lower the better, – that Jesus’ righteousness and Jesus’ strength alone be admired!”
- R.M.M.
Supremely, McCheyne was a pastor. It could be said of him that he was a pastor among pastors. His skills as a biblical expositor were matched by the tender care he exhibited toward the flock entrusted to him by God. He understood the synthesis between the holiness of the pastor’s life and the blessedness of his ministry. One of his contemporaries wrote of him, “He gave out not merely living water, but living water drawn at the springs that he had himself drunk of; and is not this a true gospel ministry?” Almost two hundred years after his birth, McCheyne stands as an enduring example for pastors everywhere to follow.
God took the young Robert to pastor a once large parish in Dundee Scotland. The church’s name was St. Peters and its glory days were long over. It was not the kind of church a young pastor whose reputation as a great preacher was already being established would want to go. A young man like McCheyne would want to go to Glasgow or Edinburgh but not the blue collar town of Dundee! Shunning his pride, Robert followed his Lord’s leading.
McCheyne’s preaching, which was always a careful exposition of Scripture, was marked by reverence and sobriety. A man who heard him preach frequently wrote, “Before he opened his lips, as he came along the passage, there was something about him that sorely affected me.” One of his biographers writes, “It is difficult to convey to those who never knew him a correct idea of the sweetness and holy unction of his preaching…His rule was to set before his hearers a body of truth first – and there always was a vast amount of Bible truth in his discourses – and then urge home the application.”
The Lord was pleased to bless St. Peter's Dundee with a fresh wind of revival. The once nearly empty church was now filled to overflowing. They were blessed to see many notorious sinners come to faith in Christ. Knowledge of God in the Scriptures became a growing joy for the people of the parish. It was a work of God that spread through large parts of Scotland. Robert approached the whole period with humility and faithfulness. He depended not on emotional experiences or manipulation but rather leaned all the more on those ordinary means by which God works to bless His people.
In the final two years of his life his sinking health did not seem to interrupt his activity for the Lord. He labored until the ravages of weakness overcame him. He died as a pastor, a preacher, and a missionary. His loss was sorely felt among his beloved flock in Dundee. “His people were that evening met together in the church, and such a scene of sorrow has not often been witnessed in Scotland. It was like the weeping for King Josiah. Hundreds were there; the lower part of the church was full; and none among them seemed able to contain their sorrow. Every heart seemed bursting with grief, so that the weeping and the cries could be heard afar off. The Lord had most severely wounded the people whom He had before so peculiarly favored; and now, by this awful stroke of His hand, was fixing deeper in their souls all that His servant had spoken in the days of his peculiar ministry.”
I commend to your reading Memoir and Remains of R.M. McCheyne, the most widely read biography of the pastor from Dundee, written by his friend Andrew Bonar. It has sold hundreds of thousands of copies since its publication in 1844. Charles Spurgeon wrote of it, “This is one of the best and most profitable volumes ever published. The memoir of such a man ought to be in the hands of every Christian, and certainly every preacher of the Gospel.”
“Oh, then, that I might lie low in the dust, – the lower the better, – that Jesus’ righteousness and Jesus’ strength alone be admired!”
- R.M.M.
Monday, July 23, 2007
We Need the Gospel
Michael Spencer over at "internet monk" wrote this very timely and insiteful article (internetmonk.com » Blog Archive » Message to Tom Ascol: Write the Book). It is a plea for Tom Ascol, an SBC pastor in Florida and president of Founders Ministries, to write a book calling pastors and churches to return to the centrality of the Gospel. Check it out!
Dever on the Atonement
In the May 2006 issue of Christianity Today Mark Dever wrote this excellent article (Nothing But the Blood Christianity Today A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction) on the substitutionary atonement of Christ's work on the cross. Dever is the pastor of Capital Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. Through his writing, preaching, and ministry of church health (9 Marks Ministries) Dever has become highly influential among younger pastors. This is a good thing. Dr. Dever is a model of the pastor / theologian. His book "Nine Marks of a Healthy Church" ought to be required reading for all Christians. In his article for Christianity Today Dever reminds us of how important it is to guard the biblical doctrine of Christ's penal substiution on behalf of sinners. It is all the more important as this doctrine which resides at the heart of the Gospel is under attack within evangelical circles.
Read and be blessed!
todd
Read and be blessed!
todd
I Still Must Protest (1)
I am a Protestant. There is no getting around it. And since “evangelical” has lost all meaning in the church today I find myself turning once again to that word birthed in the religious and political turmoil of the 16th century: Protestant. The Protestant Reformation was a movement of protest. It was a protest against the moral squalor and theological error that had come to characterize the Roman Catholic Church. The selling of indulgences to finance the new and extravagant St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, widespread immorality and biblical illiteracy among the highest levels of Church leadership, and of course the tragic departures from biblical doctrine were the sparks that ignited the fires of reformation.
From those early years of reformation was birthed the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Baptist denominations. It led to the founding of new institutions of higher learning, new political movements, fresh missionary zeal, and the colonizing of the New World. There were also an untold number of martyrs offered in the fires of the Roman Church. From England to France to Italy Protestant “heretics” were burned to death. The roots of resentment ran deep and the divide seemed insurmountable.
In recent years however there has been renewed interest among certain evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders to forge a new unity between the long divided churches. At the forefront of this movement is a group called Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Its leaders are serious heavyweights like Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship and Richard John Neuhaus a former Lutheran turned Roman Catholic priest. I respect both of these men a great deal. In fact, I am an enthusiastic reader of First Things, the magazine edited by Fr. Neuhaus. The purpose of ECT is to achieve as much unity as possible between Catholics and Protestants. They seek to maximize the emphasis on those points in which the two groups agree while not denying where differences persist. Their goals are, in my mind, noble. I support efforts to bridge whatever gaps are “bridgeable.” However, I believe the efforts to bring a deep and lasting unity between Protestants and the Roman Church are naïve.
Don’t misunderstand. I love unity. More importantly, our Lord loves the unity of His people and even prayed for it. “The glory that You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one…” (John 17:22). The implications of this prayer extend far beyond local congregations. The unity of the church universal is a lasting concern of our Lord. In the Apostle’s Creed we rightly confess our belief in “one holy catholic church.” Evangelicals not raised in a confessional church are often made squeamish by those words. But the little “c” catholic in the creed is not a reference to Rome. “Catholic” means universal. To say that one believes in the one holy catholic church is to affirm that God has filled His world with worshipping communities of Christ-followers. It is to affirm that the church extends far beyond our own little local body of believers. This is a source of encouragement. God will not be without a witness. He will spread His church to the utter most parts of the world. For this reason, Christians are happy to recognize true churches wherever it pleases the Lord to raise them. It also grieves Christians when the church universal becomes divided.
The divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals is lasting testimony to man’s fallen state. The proliferation of denominations among Protestants is almost mind boggling. In fact, Rome points to the number of different denominations as proof that the Protestant Reformation yielded nothing but division within Christ’s body. However, sentimental notions of unity should not keep thoughtful Christians from asking whether the existing divisions represent necessary doctrinal fences or are merely pointless quarrels. The fact is, doctrine divides at least as often as it unites. Even in the Roman Church there are deep divisions and various factions. There are liberal Catholics, charismatic Catholics, feminist Catholics, fundamentalist Catholics, “Vatican II” Catholics, and those Catholics that insist that the Latin Mass is the only legitimate mass. So for all Rome’s boasting in their unity, theirs is a house divided.
Please understand that I am not “anti-Catholic.” I have no doubt that there are many sincere Christians in the Roman Church. I also believe that we can and should cooperate with one another as much as possible. However, to do so without also acknowledging why we differ is to deny that such vital issues as the sole sufficiency and authority of Scripture, Justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ are not important.
From those early years of reformation was birthed the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Baptist denominations. It led to the founding of new institutions of higher learning, new political movements, fresh missionary zeal, and the colonizing of the New World. There were also an untold number of martyrs offered in the fires of the Roman Church. From England to France to Italy Protestant “heretics” were burned to death. The roots of resentment ran deep and the divide seemed insurmountable.
In recent years however there has been renewed interest among certain evangelical and Roman Catholic leaders to forge a new unity between the long divided churches. At the forefront of this movement is a group called Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Its leaders are serious heavyweights like Charles Colson of Prison Fellowship and Richard John Neuhaus a former Lutheran turned Roman Catholic priest. I respect both of these men a great deal. In fact, I am an enthusiastic reader of First Things, the magazine edited by Fr. Neuhaus. The purpose of ECT is to achieve as much unity as possible between Catholics and Protestants. They seek to maximize the emphasis on those points in which the two groups agree while not denying where differences persist. Their goals are, in my mind, noble. I support efforts to bridge whatever gaps are “bridgeable.” However, I believe the efforts to bring a deep and lasting unity between Protestants and the Roman Church are naïve.
Don’t misunderstand. I love unity. More importantly, our Lord loves the unity of His people and even prayed for it. “The glory that You have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one…” (John 17:22). The implications of this prayer extend far beyond local congregations. The unity of the church universal is a lasting concern of our Lord. In the Apostle’s Creed we rightly confess our belief in “one holy catholic church.” Evangelicals not raised in a confessional church are often made squeamish by those words. But the little “c” catholic in the creed is not a reference to Rome. “Catholic” means universal. To say that one believes in the one holy catholic church is to affirm that God has filled His world with worshipping communities of Christ-followers. It is to affirm that the church extends far beyond our own little local body of believers. This is a source of encouragement. God will not be without a witness. He will spread His church to the utter most parts of the world. For this reason, Christians are happy to recognize true churches wherever it pleases the Lord to raise them. It also grieves Christians when the church universal becomes divided.
The divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals is lasting testimony to man’s fallen state. The proliferation of denominations among Protestants is almost mind boggling. In fact, Rome points to the number of different denominations as proof that the Protestant Reformation yielded nothing but division within Christ’s body. However, sentimental notions of unity should not keep thoughtful Christians from asking whether the existing divisions represent necessary doctrinal fences or are merely pointless quarrels. The fact is, doctrine divides at least as often as it unites. Even in the Roman Church there are deep divisions and various factions. There are liberal Catholics, charismatic Catholics, feminist Catholics, fundamentalist Catholics, “Vatican II” Catholics, and those Catholics that insist that the Latin Mass is the only legitimate mass. So for all Rome’s boasting in their unity, theirs is a house divided.
Please understand that I am not “anti-Catholic.” I have no doubt that there are many sincere Christians in the Roman Church. I also believe that we can and should cooperate with one another as much as possible. However, to do so without also acknowledging why we differ is to deny that such vital issues as the sole sufficiency and authority of Scripture, Justification by faith alone, and the imputed righteousness of Christ are not important.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Augustine on the New Life in Christ
N.R. Needham, a wonderful church historian has written a very fine book called The Triumph of Grace: Augustine's Writings on Salvation. Follow this link (Link: Augustine on the New Life in Christ) to a chapter from that book that deals specifically with God's grace in the conversion of sinners. The church today needs to rise above its Pelagian leanings and reassert a robust, God-centered theology of salvation. Take your time and read Needham's chapter carefully. You will be blessed by high thoughts of God's extraordinary grace.
todd
todd
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Journey Through Job
Mining For Wisdom is a great devotional book that takes the reader through the book of Job. The author, Derek Thomas is a world-class authority on Job. I highly recommend it. You can order the book through my recommended reading list. Go to the "devotional" section and you will find a connection to Mining for Wisdom.
Job's Unsettling Question
“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” This stunning question was offered up by Job in the aftermath of that dark day when his children, his wealth, and his good name were taken from him. Later, even his health would be shattered and his mind tortured. Job’s question reflects an understanding that God is sovereign in all things including human suffering and the actions of Satan. Sadly, this robust and thoroughly biblical doctrine is often rejected by many evangelicals. Indeed, the thing that disturbs so many of the readers of Job is the realization that what lies behind the suffering of Job is the hand of God. This is the unsettling truth that boils below the surface of the entire book: Job’s suffering is ultimately God’s doing.
Going back to the beginning of the book of Job we observe a mysterious exchange between God and Satan. The ancient serpent comes before the courts of heaven to report on his comings and goings. How it must gall Satan that God requires him to give a report, as it were, on what he has been up to (1:6-7). By the time verse eight rolls around things get really strange. God actually initiates the trials of Job: “Have you considered my servant Job?” says God to Satan. There is something in us that wants to cry out, “God, what are you doing? Job doesn’t deserve this!”
So, back to Job’s question: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10). Job understands that even things that are “evil” and calamitous come ultimately from the hand of God. Take a deep breath. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. In I Samuel 16:14-15 we are told that God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul. Another example of this unsettling truth is when David took a census in order to number the people of Israel. This was a sin against God that Joab warned David not to commit. But David persisted in his plans and took the census. Afterward, “David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly’” (I Sam. 24:10). So far so good, except for the fact that it was God who incited David to take the census. “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’” (I Sam. 24:1). God used David’s prideful census taking as the occasion to judge Israel. And the inspired text affirms God’s sovereignty over David’s decision while at the same time not excusing David from responsibility.
The most supreme example of this seeming contradiction is the cross of Christ. Jesus’ death upon the cross as our substitute was preordained by God (Acts 2:23a; 4:27-28). Yet this particular moment in history which went exactly according to God’s sovereign design required that certain men commit particular evil acts (Acts 2:23b; 4:10). The texts which proclaim God as ultimately sovereign over all things are unfamiliar to many Christians because pastors won’t touch them with a ten foot pole. But in so doing they rob God’s people of a faith that is strong enough to sustain them in the most troubling times.
We must not ignore the “hard truths” of Scripture. However, we certainly must be careful. We know that God does not do evil. He is not wicked in even the remotest sense of the word. He in no way ever sins. God is pure righteousness and always acts righteously. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25). And yet, there is a way in which God can send evil and calamity our way and still be completely free of evil and wrongdoing. It almost makes one’s head spin. But we must surrender some of our logical categories to the revelation of Scripture. And what Scripture reveals is that God is completely sinless and good but is ultimately sovereign even over the evil that comes our way. If we try to fully reconcile this reality we risk falling into error either by calling into question God’s goodness on the one hand or denying His sovereignty on the other. Our inability to fully comprehend the mystery of God’s total sovereignty should not result in our dismissing it. The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely states the truth without trying to figure it out completely:
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin…”
In his classic work The Providence of God, Dutch theologian G.C. Berkouwer writes:
“In the confession of God’s almighty power, the personal, living God is confessed. Responsibility is not crowded out by His power; neither is the meaning of guilt and punishment. We are deeply conscious of the impossibility of our discerning the relation between the Divine activity and ours, but we are able to see in Scripture that the incomparable enterprise of God is in its Divine character so great and majestic that it can embrace human freedom and responsibility within itself without being thereby assaulted or even limited…
“Even in his most apostate acts man cannot break out of the sovereign concern of God. Divine revelation does not let us penetrate the mystery of this consonance, this harmony. The living God rules here!...The Scriptures show us God’s work. Then, in history, we are shown how unparalleled that work is. It is striking, for example, that Scripture does not speak of God as being at work in leading Judas down the road to the act of betrayal. It says that Satan filled Judas’ heart. He who sees this well will not look on this work of Satan and Judas’ betrayal as one side of a dualism, independent and detached from God’s work, but will bow before the power of God which is present even in the acts of extremist sin, and will stand speechless at the wisdom and mystery of His ways.”
It is his grasp of this very truth that allows Job to worship God in the midst of his loss. “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshipped. And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’” (1:20-21). It simply will not do for Job to say that God passively “allowed” these calamities to befall him. We often resort to this in an effort to get God “off the hook” for human suffering. But God does not want to be let off the hook. Job rightly understands God to be the One who took away from him just as surely as He gave to him in the first place. The writer is careful to point out twice that in attributing his suffering to the hand of God “Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (1:22; 2:10).
What are we to do with a God who gives and takes away? How are we to respond to a God who sends his people both blessing and calamity? What is more, what happens if this God chooses to offer us no answers? In those unsettling and confounding moments may we say with our tutor Job:
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
Going back to the beginning of the book of Job we observe a mysterious exchange between God and Satan. The ancient serpent comes before the courts of heaven to report on his comings and goings. How it must gall Satan that God requires him to give a report, as it were, on what he has been up to (1:6-7). By the time verse eight rolls around things get really strange. God actually initiates the trials of Job: “Have you considered my servant Job?” says God to Satan. There is something in us that wants to cry out, “God, what are you doing? Job doesn’t deserve this!”
So, back to Job’s question: “Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (2:10). Job understands that even things that are “evil” and calamitous come ultimately from the hand of God. Take a deep breath. This is the clear testimony of Scripture. In I Samuel 16:14-15 we are told that God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul. Another example of this unsettling truth is when David took a census in order to number the people of Israel. This was a sin against God that Joab warned David not to commit. But David persisted in his plans and took the census. Afterward, “David’s heart struck him after he had numbered the people. And David said to the Lord, ‘I have sinned greatly in what I have done. But now O Lord, please take away the iniquity of your servant, for I have done very foolishly’” (I Sam. 24:10). So far so good, except for the fact that it was God who incited David to take the census. “Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, number Israel and Judah’” (I Sam. 24:1). God used David’s prideful census taking as the occasion to judge Israel. And the inspired text affirms God’s sovereignty over David’s decision while at the same time not excusing David from responsibility.
The most supreme example of this seeming contradiction is the cross of Christ. Jesus’ death upon the cross as our substitute was preordained by God (Acts 2:23a; 4:27-28). Yet this particular moment in history which went exactly according to God’s sovereign design required that certain men commit particular evil acts (Acts 2:23b; 4:10). The texts which proclaim God as ultimately sovereign over all things are unfamiliar to many Christians because pastors won’t touch them with a ten foot pole. But in so doing they rob God’s people of a faith that is strong enough to sustain them in the most troubling times.
We must not ignore the “hard truths” of Scripture. However, we certainly must be careful. We know that God does not do evil. He is not wicked in even the remotest sense of the word. He in no way ever sins. God is pure righteousness and always acts righteously. “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Gen. 18:25). And yet, there is a way in which God can send evil and calamity our way and still be completely free of evil and wrongdoing. It almost makes one’s head spin. But we must surrender some of our logical categories to the revelation of Scripture. And what Scripture reveals is that God is completely sinless and good but is ultimately sovereign even over the evil that comes our way. If we try to fully reconcile this reality we risk falling into error either by calling into question God’s goodness on the one hand or denying His sovereignty on the other. Our inability to fully comprehend the mystery of God’s total sovereignty should not result in our dismissing it. The Westminster Confession of Faith wisely states the truth without trying to figure it out completely:
“God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin…”
In his classic work The Providence of God, Dutch theologian G.C. Berkouwer writes:
“In the confession of God’s almighty power, the personal, living God is confessed. Responsibility is not crowded out by His power; neither is the meaning of guilt and punishment. We are deeply conscious of the impossibility of our discerning the relation between the Divine activity and ours, but we are able to see in Scripture that the incomparable enterprise of God is in its Divine character so great and majestic that it can embrace human freedom and responsibility within itself without being thereby assaulted or even limited…
“Even in his most apostate acts man cannot break out of the sovereign concern of God. Divine revelation does not let us penetrate the mystery of this consonance, this harmony. The living God rules here!...The Scriptures show us God’s work. Then, in history, we are shown how unparalleled that work is. It is striking, for example, that Scripture does not speak of God as being at work in leading Judas down the road to the act of betrayal. It says that Satan filled Judas’ heart. He who sees this well will not look on this work of Satan and Judas’ betrayal as one side of a dualism, independent and detached from God’s work, but will bow before the power of God which is present even in the acts of extremist sin, and will stand speechless at the wisdom and mystery of His ways.”
It is his grasp of this very truth that allows Job to worship God in the midst of his loss. “Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshipped. And he said, ‘Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord’” (1:20-21). It simply will not do for Job to say that God passively “allowed” these calamities to befall him. We often resort to this in an effort to get God “off the hook” for human suffering. But God does not want to be let off the hook. Job rightly understands God to be the One who took away from him just as surely as He gave to him in the first place. The writer is careful to point out twice that in attributing his suffering to the hand of God “Job did not sin or charge God with wrong” (1:22; 2:10).
What are we to do with a God who gives and takes away? How are we to respond to a God who sends his people both blessing and calamity? What is more, what happens if this God chooses to offer us no answers? In those unsettling and confounding moments may we say with our tutor Job:
“I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eyes see you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.”
Monday, July 16, 2007
John Piper on suffering and God's sovereignty
This is a great messagae on God's sovereignty in suffering ( The Suffering of Christ and the Sovereignty of God :: Desiring God ). It was a message delivered by John Piper at the 2005 Desiring God National Conference. The text, audio, and video of the message are available by following the link. Be blessed!
todd
todd
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Meet the Puritans
Here is a great resource for information on and writings by some of the great Puritans (Monergism :: Puritans ). Enjoy!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Horton on Grace (2)
More good stuff from Michael Horton’s article in the most recent issue of Modern Reformation Magazine:
“We work very hard today to make grace normal rather than utterly disorienting. We bend over backward backwards to show how Christianity is ‘practical,’ how it conforms to our common sense and moral intuitions. ‘Practical Christianity’ (deeds, not creeds) is touted, although the actual practice of Christians is, according to the statistics, indistinguishable from that of non-Christians. The ‘righteousness that is by works’ looks for somewhere to go and something to do, while ‘the righteousness of faith’ receives Christ as he comes to us in the gospel (Rom. 10:1-13)…
“Sharing a common heritage in the revivalism of Charles Finney, mainline and evangelical Protestants have trouble being recipients of grace. The church becomes an army of activists – social engineers, moral reformers, event planners, life coaches – rather than a theater of grace where God has the lead role. As a result, the focus is not on how God gets to us (the logic of grace) but on ‘inducements sufficient to convert sinners with,’ as Finney put it, following his basically Pelagian view of the moral ability of fallen people. Finney’s Systematic Theology explicitly denies original sin and insists that the power of regeneration lies in the sinner’s own hands…”
This, by the way is not far from the common conception held by many evangelicals, particularly Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Methodists, and Southern Baptists. Many of us grew up learning from well meaning pastors that being born again (regeneration) comes about as a result of something we do. But this is remarkably different from the teaching of Jesus. In answer to Nicodemas’ inquiry on how to gain eternal life in heaven Jesus said, “You must be born again” (or, “from above”). What a wonderful metaphor for regeneration! Is there anything with which we have less to do than our birth? Jesus is assaulting Nicodemus’ “can-do” approach to salvation; an approach that many evangelicals share. To further drive home the point that the miracle of regeneration is an act entirely of God’s free will, Jesus added, “The wind (a reference to the Holy Spirit) blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).
Horton goes on:
“American evangelicalism seems at least in its most popular forms today to be a version of spiritual technology – almost magic, with every new movement and best-selling author offering his or her own ‘Ten Steps’ to harnessing God’s power. In this context, grace is less God’s favor shown to sinners on account of Christ than the opportunity God has provided for greater spiritual and moral power if we cooperate properly, using our free will. John Newton the slave trader may indeed have been a ‘wretch,’ but surely not I…
“Grace can only be recognized in the face of Christ, for there the strangeness of God, of ourselves, and God’s method of redemption converge. Counter-intuitive, disruptive, and unsettling, the grace defined by Golgotha requires an entirely new set of presuppositions about God, ourselves, and how the relationship works. Yet the measure of the sheer gratuity of God’s grace is that it even gives us those new presuppositions in the very act of being given. Grace is God’s refusal to allow us to define ourselves or to have the last word. Rather, it is the surprising announcement that salvation is ‘not the result of human decision or effort, but of God who shows mercy’ (Rom. 9:16).”
Amen
“We work very hard today to make grace normal rather than utterly disorienting. We bend over backward backwards to show how Christianity is ‘practical,’ how it conforms to our common sense and moral intuitions. ‘Practical Christianity’ (deeds, not creeds) is touted, although the actual practice of Christians is, according to the statistics, indistinguishable from that of non-Christians. The ‘righteousness that is by works’ looks for somewhere to go and something to do, while ‘the righteousness of faith’ receives Christ as he comes to us in the gospel (Rom. 10:1-13)…
“Sharing a common heritage in the revivalism of Charles Finney, mainline and evangelical Protestants have trouble being recipients of grace. The church becomes an army of activists – social engineers, moral reformers, event planners, life coaches – rather than a theater of grace where God has the lead role. As a result, the focus is not on how God gets to us (the logic of grace) but on ‘inducements sufficient to convert sinners with,’ as Finney put it, following his basically Pelagian view of the moral ability of fallen people. Finney’s Systematic Theology explicitly denies original sin and insists that the power of regeneration lies in the sinner’s own hands…”
This, by the way is not far from the common conception held by many evangelicals, particularly Pentecostals, Nazarenes, Methodists, and Southern Baptists. Many of us grew up learning from well meaning pastors that being born again (regeneration) comes about as a result of something we do. But this is remarkably different from the teaching of Jesus. In answer to Nicodemas’ inquiry on how to gain eternal life in heaven Jesus said, “You must be born again” (or, “from above”). What a wonderful metaphor for regeneration! Is there anything with which we have less to do than our birth? Jesus is assaulting Nicodemus’ “can-do” approach to salvation; an approach that many evangelicals share. To further drive home the point that the miracle of regeneration is an act entirely of God’s free will, Jesus added, “The wind (a reference to the Holy Spirit) blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).
Horton goes on:
“American evangelicalism seems at least in its most popular forms today to be a version of spiritual technology – almost magic, with every new movement and best-selling author offering his or her own ‘Ten Steps’ to harnessing God’s power. In this context, grace is less God’s favor shown to sinners on account of Christ than the opportunity God has provided for greater spiritual and moral power if we cooperate properly, using our free will. John Newton the slave trader may indeed have been a ‘wretch,’ but surely not I…
“Grace can only be recognized in the face of Christ, for there the strangeness of God, of ourselves, and God’s method of redemption converge. Counter-intuitive, disruptive, and unsettling, the grace defined by Golgotha requires an entirely new set of presuppositions about God, ourselves, and how the relationship works. Yet the measure of the sheer gratuity of God’s grace is that it even gives us those new presuppositions in the very act of being given. Grace is God’s refusal to allow us to define ourselves or to have the last word. Rather, it is the surprising announcement that salvation is ‘not the result of human decision or effort, but of God who shows mercy’ (Rom. 9:16).”
Amen
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Being Gospel-Centered
The Strategic Ministry Planning Team at Metro East has spent time during our work talking about what it means to be a Gospel-Centered or Gospel-Driven church. I found this article ( GospelDrivenLife: The Gospel must be everything ) today on Mark Lauterbach's blog that says it quite well. Please take the time to read it.
Confessions of a 'Numbers' Pastor
Jim over at Old Truth has an interesting article ( Confessions of a 'Numbers' Pastor ) on the modern church's obsession with numeric success. Check it out.
Horton on Grace (1)
Michael Horton has written an excellent article in the July/August edition of “Modern Reformation” magazine (http://www.modernreformation.org/). The title of the article is “Grace: How Strange the Sound.” As I read it I was reminded once again how easy it is for Christians to have shallow or otherwise misguided notions of just how radical grace truly is. We sing “Amazing Grace” but we adopt ideas that reduce grace to God’s passive response to our initiative. In a sense we come to see grace as a power that is made effective only inasmuch as we allow it to be effective. While we may say that grace is “amazing” what we are truly amazed by is the power of our own sovereign will that, in the end, even overcomes the very purposes of God. This unfortunate, but common way of thinking is why one prominent theologian speaks of the “pelagian captivity of the church.”
Horton writes:
“We work very hard to make God user-friendly. That’s why the Israelites at the foot of Mount Sinai, terrified by God’s voice, decided to make a golden calf that they could manage more safely. Instead of trembling in God’s presence, they ‘sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play’ (Ex. 32:6). We hear people talk today about their personal relationship with God as if he were a locker room pal or even a romantic interest. However, when people were actually confronted with God’s presence, they always came apart at the seams. Even Moses trembled with fear (Ex. 19-20; Heb. 12:18-29). Isaiah was all set to go on his mission to announce the woes (curses) on everybody else until he received a vision of God in his sanctuary, with seraphim and cherubim calling to each other, ‘Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts; His glory fills the whole earth.’ Isaiah could only respond, ‘Woe is me, for I am ruined, because I am a man of unclean lips and live among a people of unclean lips, and because my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.’ Nevertheless, one of the seraphim brought a glowing coal to the prophet and, touching it to his lips, said, ‘Now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, and your sin is atoned for’ (Isa. 6:3-7). Peter, hardly known for a reverent temperament, responded to the amazing catch of fish at Jesus’ command, fell on his knees and said, ‘Depart from me, for I am a sinful man’ (Luke 5:8).
“To confess that God is holy is to say that he is not only quantitatively but qualitatively different from us. In other words, he isn’t simply better than we are, nicer, friendlier, more knowledgeable, more powerful, more loving. He is incomprehensible, unfathomable, unsearchable. We can only have access to him because he has willed to be our God, revealing himself by speaking ‘baby talk’ – accommodating to our frail capacities. Grace is God’s willingness not only to condescend to our creaturely finitude even to the point of assuming our flesh, but to give his life for us ‘while we were still enemies’ (Rom. 5:10).
“God is intolerant of sin, but just as infinite in his love and long-suffering. God is just and righteous, unable to let bygones be bygones, and yet he is free to have mercy on whom he will have mercy. To have mercy on the wicked, however, God cannot suspend his justice. God’s justice did not require the salvation of anyone, so his grace is totally free. When God is gracious toward sinners, it is not because his justice is sacrificed to his love, but because he has freely found a way to be ‘just and the justifier of the ungodly’ (Rom 3:26). At the cross, not only God’s love but his strangeness – his utter difference from us – is most clearly displayed…”
“[G]race is not an impersonal substance; it’s the personal attitude and action of God in Jesus Christ toward those who deserve the very opposite. Without the phrase ‘who deserve the very opposite,’ grace is nothing more than God’s warm wishes that make us feel better as we suppress the truth about ourselves…Only when we actually encounter God as he truly is do we finally know ourselves as we truly are – and only then can grace be truly grace. Grace is not self-esteem, moral uplift, or therapeutic recovery. It is nothing less than God’s favor on account of Christ: a new Word (justification) that generates a new creation (sanctification and glorification).”
Monday, July 9, 2007
What Revival Looks Like
George Whitefield knew a thing or two about revival although, I suppose, no man is an expert. Under his preaching untold numbers of men and women were moved to repentance and faith by the power of the Holy Spirit. His ministry had taken him on the long journey to the American colonies more than once. He had established an orphanage in Georgia and preached throughout the New World. He preached with unusual power. Benjamin Franklin, who was quite fond of Whitefield, once estimated that the preacher’s voice could be heard outdoors by 30,000 souls. During his ministry in the colonies, more people had heard George Whitefield speak than any other person. He may well have been the most famous person in the English speaking world.
In 1742 while Whitfield was preaching throughout Scotland his influence was strongly felt in the regions of Cambuslang and Kilsyth. For decades, these parishes had been experiencing a spiritual drought. A pastor from Kilsyth described the spiritual condition of his parish:
"Former strictness as to holiness and tenderness of life was much relaxed…a formal round of professional duties was the religion of the professors…and as to the multitude they were visibly profane…Things were become so bad with us that there were few that we, the ministers of the word, could comfort as believers in Christ…when we found them a-dying."
Then God began to move in ways that had not been witnessed in those regions for generations. Evangelical pastors serving there were fired by the inspiration they received from Whitfield as he preached in Glasgow. The Reverend William McCulloch of Cambuslang, writing nine years after the work of revival began, described it this way:
“This work…embraced all classes, all ages, and all moral conditions. Cursing, swearing and drunkenness were given up by those who had come under its power. It kindled remorse for acts of injustice. It won forgiveness from the vengeful…It bound pastors and people together with a stronger bond of sympathy. It raised an altar in the household…It made men students of the Word of God and brought them in thought and purpose and effort into communion with their Father in heaven.”
This is what revival looks like. It is not about trembling bodies and ecstatic experiences. It is not something we conjure up or create by wearing down people’s inhibitions. It is the sovereign work of God granted to whom He pleases when He pleases. But God uses means. And history testifies that revival is accompanied by 1) a recovery of God’s Word in the pulpits 2) a renewing of the centrality of the Gospel 3) a common commitment to prayer and 4) a renewed reverence for God in worship. In reading about revivals in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, these four traits appear with unwavering regularity. In fact, I have been amazed at how the accounts of genuine revival all seem to read the same. So when we see the church recovering the Scriptures and the Gospel, praying with fresh fervency, and gaining a deeper reverence for God then look up and give thanks, for God is blessing His people.
blessings,
todd
In 1742 while Whitfield was preaching throughout Scotland his influence was strongly felt in the regions of Cambuslang and Kilsyth. For decades, these parishes had been experiencing a spiritual drought. A pastor from Kilsyth described the spiritual condition of his parish:
"Former strictness as to holiness and tenderness of life was much relaxed…a formal round of professional duties was the religion of the professors…and as to the multitude they were visibly profane…Things were become so bad with us that there were few that we, the ministers of the word, could comfort as believers in Christ…when we found them a-dying."
Then God began to move in ways that had not been witnessed in those regions for generations. Evangelical pastors serving there were fired by the inspiration they received from Whitfield as he preached in Glasgow. The Reverend William McCulloch of Cambuslang, writing nine years after the work of revival began, described it this way:
“This work…embraced all classes, all ages, and all moral conditions. Cursing, swearing and drunkenness were given up by those who had come under its power. It kindled remorse for acts of injustice. It won forgiveness from the vengeful…It bound pastors and people together with a stronger bond of sympathy. It raised an altar in the household…It made men students of the Word of God and brought them in thought and purpose and effort into communion with their Father in heaven.”
This is what revival looks like. It is not about trembling bodies and ecstatic experiences. It is not something we conjure up or create by wearing down people’s inhibitions. It is the sovereign work of God granted to whom He pleases when He pleases. But God uses means. And history testifies that revival is accompanied by 1) a recovery of God’s Word in the pulpits 2) a renewing of the centrality of the Gospel 3) a common commitment to prayer and 4) a renewed reverence for God in worship. In reading about revivals in the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, these four traits appear with unwavering regularity. In fact, I have been amazed at how the accounts of genuine revival all seem to read the same. So when we see the church recovering the Scriptures and the Gospel, praying with fresh fervency, and gaining a deeper reverence for God then look up and give thanks, for God is blessing His people.
blessings,
todd
Friday, July 6, 2007
Toys 'R' Us and the Destruction of Manhood
Okay, the title might be a bit of an exaggeration but stick with me. My experience today was confirmation that Western society as we know it is changing for the worse. Just a few hours ago I took my two sons (ages 9 and 7) to the famous supplier of toys with one goal: to buy two cap guns. I love cap guns. As far as inventions go, they ought to be spoken of in the same breath as the internal combustion engine and the light bulb. Growing up, cap guns helped transform my back yard into an imaginary battle field. At various times they turned me into a Green Beret, a cop, Jesse James, and James Bond. So when my sons asked for cap guns last night I happily complied. This afternoon we piled into the car and made our way to the toy superstore.
And this is the point in the story where everything goes south. It seems that Toys R Us has joined the battle against the scourge of developing masculinity in young boys. I suppose it has been too long since I’ve been to Toys R Us because I immediately tried to find the aisle where they keep all the toy guns. Not finding any, I consulted a collection of three employees. I asked innocently, “Where do you keep the cap guns?” The reply came but it was too unsettling to fully process at first. It was disorienting. It was like finding out that you have just been awakened from a long coma and Bill Clinton is president again. “We don’t carry cap guns.”
We did find a few water guns and other things that shot out nerf balls. None of these fanciful plastic and brightly colored monstrosities could ever be confused with a gun. I can’t believe I am actually going to write this. They were the kind of “guns” that a girl might design.
This has not weakened by resolve however. If I have to get on Ebay I am going to find two cap guns and my boys are going to shoot them at each other. They are going to play cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, and war. What is more, I won’t have to teach them to do this because they are, after all, BOYS!
They are going to learn that sometimes the good guys have to use force against bad guys. They are going to learn that Jesus never told a soldier not to serve as a soldier. They are going to learn that the state is at times used by God to put down evil in the world. They may be called upon one day to intervene with force against hostile aggressors. On that day I don’t want them to wonder why their gun does not light up with bright colors and emit an array of bleeps and blips.
Press On
todd
And this is the point in the story where everything goes south. It seems that Toys R Us has joined the battle against the scourge of developing masculinity in young boys. I suppose it has been too long since I’ve been to Toys R Us because I immediately tried to find the aisle where they keep all the toy guns. Not finding any, I consulted a collection of three employees. I asked innocently, “Where do you keep the cap guns?” The reply came but it was too unsettling to fully process at first. It was disorienting. It was like finding out that you have just been awakened from a long coma and Bill Clinton is president again. “We don’t carry cap guns.”
We did find a few water guns and other things that shot out nerf balls. None of these fanciful plastic and brightly colored monstrosities could ever be confused with a gun. I can’t believe I am actually going to write this. They were the kind of “guns” that a girl might design.
This has not weakened by resolve however. If I have to get on Ebay I am going to find two cap guns and my boys are going to shoot them at each other. They are going to play cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians, and war. What is more, I won’t have to teach them to do this because they are, after all, BOYS!
They are going to learn that sometimes the good guys have to use force against bad guys. They are going to learn that Jesus never told a soldier not to serve as a soldier. They are going to learn that the state is at times used by God to put down evil in the world. They may be called upon one day to intervene with force against hostile aggressors. On that day I don’t want them to wonder why their gun does not light up with bright colors and emit an array of bleeps and blips.
Press On
todd
Monday, July 2, 2007
Signs of Life
One of the best books I have read on the Gospel and the nature of salvation is John Ensor’s The Great Work of the Gospel. In a chapter entitled “The Great Work Enjoyed” Ensor writes:
Those whom God declares righteous, he makes righteous: “You shall be clean from all your uncleanness…and I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules” (Ezek. 36:25-27). The New Testament word for this is sanctification (II Thess. 2:13). It refers to God’s ongoing work of God’s Spirit to make us holy, as He is holy… The grace that pardons always purifies…
The grace that brings salvation goes on to train us to live a godly life. A sanctified life is not optional to salvation; it is standard equipment. Other things may be called grace, but they are not saving grace…
“No one born of God makes a practice of sinning because he has been born of God” (I John 3:9). This seed is God’s gift of holiness. It asserts itself against our naturally disobedient and self-centered tendencies so that we wrestle against the evil behavior we used to relish. God’s grace lays siege against those sins fortified by habitual practice. Conviction strikes and intensifies. A healthy fear of God and a growing love of God bang away at the habit. The Word of God teaches us the value of repentance and prayer and brotherly accountability, all of which are part of God’s continuing grace to free us from habitual sins…
God has put into our hearts a new principle. It is a love for righteousness, and as it grows it nudges old habits till they drop. Over many years we can see this governing principle in the changed life it produces. Or, we will not see it, and thus will rightly call into question the reality of our repentance and question whether we really are under the grace of God.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Crook in the Lot
Thomas Boston is remembered as one of the great Puritan pastors in 16th century Scotland. He was a champion of sound doctrine at a time when it was under attack. His book The Fourfold State of Man is still one of the most important books ever on the doctrine of man. But in 1737 a smaller book was published from the pen of the pastor from Ettrick. The Crook in the Lot was the fruit of Boston’s deep reflection on Ecclesiastes 7:13: “Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which He has made crooked?” The title of Boston’s book was his way of describing the God-wrought crookedness in one’s life. In other words, Boston understood from Scripture that the “crooks” or difficulties in our circumstances are there by the sovereignty and, yes, goodness of God.
Boston had his own thorns to deal with. His wife struggled with crippling depression and Thomas suffered for years from what were probably kidney stones. This gives The Crook in the Lot the ring of authenticity and empathy. Boston wrote that crook came from “the groaning part of my life.” Reflecting on Boston’s life, J.I. Packer writes, “In addition to ongoing battles for the gospel against the non-evangelical leadership in the Church of Scotland and the continuance of his wife’s paralyzing depression, he was a martyr to some form of the stone (gravel, as he called it) and saw himself become a physical wreck. When he wrote and spoke of life’s troubles he knew what he was talking about, and the sense that this was so comes through strongly…”
I encourage you to add The Crook in the Lot to your morning or evening devotions. Here is a brief sampling:
A just view of afflicting incidents is altogether necessary to a Christian deportment under them; and that view is to be obtained only by faith, not by sense; for, it is the light of the Word alone that represents them justly, discovering in them the work of God, and, consequently, designs becoming the divine perfections. When these are perceived by the eye of faith, and duly considered, we have a just view of afflicting incidents, fitted to quell the turbulent motions of corrupt affections under dismal outward appearances…
As to the crook in thy lot, God hath made it; and it must continue while He will have it so. Should you ply your utmost force to even it, or make it straight, your attempt will be vain: it will not alter for all thou canst do; only he who made it can mend it, or make it straight. This consideration, this view of the matter, is a proper means, at once, to silence and to satisfy men, and so to bring them unto a dutiful submission to their Maker and Governor, under the crook in their lot.
Blessings,
todd
Boston had his own thorns to deal with. His wife struggled with crippling depression and Thomas suffered for years from what were probably kidney stones. This gives The Crook in the Lot the ring of authenticity and empathy. Boston wrote that crook came from “the groaning part of my life.” Reflecting on Boston’s life, J.I. Packer writes, “In addition to ongoing battles for the gospel against the non-evangelical leadership in the Church of Scotland and the continuance of his wife’s paralyzing depression, he was a martyr to some form of the stone (gravel, as he called it) and saw himself become a physical wreck. When he wrote and spoke of life’s troubles he knew what he was talking about, and the sense that this was so comes through strongly…”
I encourage you to add The Crook in the Lot to your morning or evening devotions. Here is a brief sampling:
A just view of afflicting incidents is altogether necessary to a Christian deportment under them; and that view is to be obtained only by faith, not by sense; for, it is the light of the Word alone that represents them justly, discovering in them the work of God, and, consequently, designs becoming the divine perfections. When these are perceived by the eye of faith, and duly considered, we have a just view of afflicting incidents, fitted to quell the turbulent motions of corrupt affections under dismal outward appearances…
As to the crook in thy lot, God hath made it; and it must continue while He will have it so. Should you ply your utmost force to even it, or make it straight, your attempt will be vain: it will not alter for all thou canst do; only he who made it can mend it, or make it straight. This consideration, this view of the matter, is a proper means, at once, to silence and to satisfy men, and so to bring them unto a dutiful submission to their Maker and Governor, under the crook in their lot.
Blessings,
todd
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Boys Should Be Boys
When I first saw The Dangerous Book for Boys at Barnes and Noble I assumed it would be another experiment in turning little boys into little girls. After all we live in a day when feminists like Gloria Steinem have advised that “we badly need to raise boys more like we raise girls.” It seems that many Americans have followed that advice. There is a generation of young men who are now more adept at sharing their feelings than they are at thinking logically. If you don’t believe me then watch a little MTV and see the silly excuses that are held forth as “men”. They are as likely to shed a tear as their female counterparts.
If I sound sexist then please forgive. My rhetoric may sound harsh only because the male culture in America has been so feminized. In her essential book The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers documents these disturbing trends. She observes that in the modern school classroom, teachers view the budding masculinity of boys as a disorder to be overcome rather than a gift to be cultivated. Of course most boys are likely to go through school and never have a male teacher except for the occasional health class or P.E. Games such as tag and dodge ball have been banned for encouraging competition and aggression. Adventure stories have been scrubbed from the reading lists. History classes spend little or no time studying the great battles of history and the men who led their troops in victory. No wonder so many boys hate going to school.
Thank God for Mr. Rogers who taught my English Literature class during my senior year in high school. The year began with a two week study of Beowulf, the oldest known story in the English language. It is full of courage, valor, and, yes, violence. It even has a terrible beast named Grendel who, in the end, gets what was coming to him. For two weeks Mr. Rogers helped us sink our teeth, as it were, into the meat of that ancient story. I was hooked. I knew then that reading great stories didn’t have to be “soft.” There were indeed stories full of risk and danger and honor and blood.
That brings me back to The Dangerous Book for Boys by brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden. After a few weeks of seeing it there on the shelf at the book store I finally picked it up. I was delighted by the feel of the thing. It is oversized and has the look of an older addition of Treasure Island. It even has the old-fashioned “swirly” liner paper on the inside cover. It is full of illustrations, maps, diagrams, and photographs. It includes information that every boy wonders about from time-to-time. On page two there are instructions on crafting “the greatest paper airplane in the world.” On page 35 boys are taught how to make a bow and arrow. There are two sections on famous battles. The book has instructions on everything from how to make a tree house to fishing to making a go-cart and first aid.
This is no one dimensional book however. In addition to the building and survival skills The Dangerous Book for Boys also operates as a guide for growing well-rounded young gentlemen. There are sections on astronomy, grammar, the seven wonders of the ancient world, and even how to appreciate Shakespeare. It also provides as list of “books every boy should read.”
The authors include a quote from Sir Frederick Treves from 1903 that captures well the spirit of the book:
“Don’t worry about genius and don’t worry about not being clever. Trust rather to hard work, perseverance, and determination. The best motto for a long march is ‘Don’t grumble. Plug on.’ You hold your future in your own hands. Never waver in this belief. Don’t swagger. The boy who swaggers – like the man who swaggers – has little else that he can do. He is a cheap-Jack crying his own paltry wares. It is the empty tin that rattles most. Be honest. Be loyal. Be kind. Remember that the hardest thing to acquire is the faculty of being unselfish. As a quality it is one of the finest attributes of manliness.
“Love the sea, the ringing beach and the open downs.
“Keep clean, body and mind.”
Get The Dangerous Book for Boys. Better yet, read it to your sons. Let them read it. Let them play with it. It’s tough. It can take it.
blessings,
todd
Monday, June 25, 2007
How will they know unless someone tells them?
The following is a message recorded by the actor Kirk Cameron and played to the pastors gathered for the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention last week. It bears repeating:
Can I speak to you from my heart for a moment? I realize that, theologically, I’m not worthy to wash your socks. But imagine this scenario with me, if you will: Imagine I’m a “seeker”- I’m a non-Christian, sitting in your church week after week after week listening to you. Am I ever going to hear the message that will save my soul from Hell? Will you ever tell me the truth clearly enough so that I realize that my sin has made me an enemy of God: that I am currently on the path that leads to destruction, with the wrath of God dwelling upon me, and that unless I repent and put my faith in the Savior, I will perish? Or have you decided that it’s better to simply entertain me, and on Sundays I can come to have my “felt needs” met with good music and good advice? Pastor, while I would appreciate that, it’s the ultimate betrayal of my trust in you if you don’t tell me the truth. Will I ever hear the words “repent,” “surrender,” “turn to the Savior,” “be born again”? If you don’t tell me those things, how will I ever know to do it? Please don’t leave it up to the Wednesday night small-group leader. They’re taking their cues from you. You’re leading the flock.And now I speak to you as a Christian. If you and I fail to teach the whole counsel of God, and we don’t warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, and run to the love of Christ on the Cross to save their soul, we make a terrible mistake. It doesn’t matter how happy a person is- how much a sinner is enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season- without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the Day of Judgment. The Bible says, “Riches profit not on the Day of Wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.” You see, that’s how Kirk Cameron realized he needed a Savior. I had riches, but I knew that it was the righteousness of God that I needed in order to be saved from my sin.
Can I speak to you from my heart for a moment? I realize that, theologically, I’m not worthy to wash your socks. But imagine this scenario with me, if you will: Imagine I’m a “seeker”- I’m a non-Christian, sitting in your church week after week after week listening to you. Am I ever going to hear the message that will save my soul from Hell? Will you ever tell me the truth clearly enough so that I realize that my sin has made me an enemy of God: that I am currently on the path that leads to destruction, with the wrath of God dwelling upon me, and that unless I repent and put my faith in the Savior, I will perish? Or have you decided that it’s better to simply entertain me, and on Sundays I can come to have my “felt needs” met with good music and good advice? Pastor, while I would appreciate that, it’s the ultimate betrayal of my trust in you if you don’t tell me the truth. Will I ever hear the words “repent,” “surrender,” “turn to the Savior,” “be born again”? If you don’t tell me those things, how will I ever know to do it? Please don’t leave it up to the Wednesday night small-group leader. They’re taking their cues from you. You’re leading the flock.And now I speak to you as a Christian. If you and I fail to teach the whole counsel of God, and we don’t warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, and run to the love of Christ on the Cross to save their soul, we make a terrible mistake. It doesn’t matter how happy a person is- how much a sinner is enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season- without the righteousness of Christ, he’ll perish on the Day of Judgment. The Bible says, “Riches profit not on the Day of Wrath, but righteousness delivers from death.” You see, that’s how Kirk Cameron realized he needed a Savior. I had riches, but I knew that it was the righteousness of God that I needed in order to be saved from my sin.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Southern Baptists and Integrity
Last week the Southern Baptist Convention convened in San Antonio, Texas. On the final day Dr. Tom Ascol, pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Cape Coral, Florida stood to offer the following resolution that had previously been submitted to the resolutions committee:
Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership
Submitted by Tom Ascol
May 1, 2007
· Whereas the Baptist Faith and Message states that the Scriptures are “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (article 1); and
· Whereas life in a local church should be characterized by loving discipline as the Bible teaches in passages like Matthew 18:15-18, I Corinthians 5, and Titus 3:10-11 and
· Whereas the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,306,246 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
· Whereas those same profiles indicate that only 6,138,776 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and
· Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle as described in Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message; now, therefore, be it
· RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further
· RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further
· RESOLVED that we plead with pastors and church leaders to lead their churches to study and implement our Lord’s teachings on this essential church practice, and be it further
· RESOLVED that we encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, especially when such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally
· RESOLVED that we commit to pray for our churches as they seek to honor the Lord Jesus Christ through reestablishing integrity to church membership and to the reporting of statistics in the Annual Church Profile.
At the risk of sounding naïve, I believe that most Southern Baptists would say “Amen!” to those words. When I read the resolution, as I have done multiple times, I am humbled and challenged. Who would deny the timeliness and propriety of such a resolution? But some among our denominational leadership have a habit of making the obvious, doubtful and the clear, complicated.
The Resolutions Committee refused to bring this resolution to the gathered messengers for a vote. Pastor Ascol then read the resolution from the floor where it was opened to a very brief discussion. A vote was taken to override the Resolutions Committee and bring the resolution on integrity in church membership to a vote. The vote failed. This was the second year in a row that Dr. Ascol sought approval for his resolution.
The reasons the Resolution Committee gave for rejecting the resolution on integrity in church membership were varied and, to my mind, nonsensical. Some said it would interfere with church autonomy, although it was never made clear how. Others had the strange idea that having unregenerate church members could be a positive thing. After all, they could serve as sort of “in-house prospects.” I’m not making this up.
Astonishingly, while the resolution on integrity in church membership was rejected, a flimsy resolution on, of all things, global warming was adopted.
And the band played on.
Resolution on Integrity in Church Membership
Submitted by Tom Ascol
May 1, 2007
· Whereas the Baptist Faith and Message states that the Scriptures are “the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried” (article 1); and
· Whereas life in a local church should be characterized by loving discipline as the Bible teaches in passages like Matthew 18:15-18, I Corinthians 5, and Titus 3:10-11 and
· Whereas the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention Annual Church Profiles indicate that there are 16,306,246 members in Southern Baptist churches; and
· Whereas those same profiles indicate that only 6,138,776 of those members attend a primary worship service of their church in a typical week; and
· Whereas the ideal of a regenerate church membership has long been and remains a cherished Baptist principle as described in Article VI of the Baptist Faith and Message; now, therefore, be it
· RESOLVED that the messengers of the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, urge Southern Baptists to repent of our failure to maintain responsible church membership, and be it further
· RESOLVED that we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the widespread failure among us to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18), and be it further
· RESOLVED that we plead with pastors and church leaders to lead their churches to study and implement our Lord’s teachings on this essential church practice, and be it further
· RESOLVED that we encourage denominational servants to support and encourage churches that seek to recover and implement our Savior’s teachings on church discipline, especially when such efforts result in the reduction in the number of members that are reported in those churches, and be it finally
· RESOLVED that we commit to pray for our churches as they seek to honor the Lord Jesus Christ through reestablishing integrity to church membership and to the reporting of statistics in the Annual Church Profile.
At the risk of sounding naïve, I believe that most Southern Baptists would say “Amen!” to those words. When I read the resolution, as I have done multiple times, I am humbled and challenged. Who would deny the timeliness and propriety of such a resolution? But some among our denominational leadership have a habit of making the obvious, doubtful and the clear, complicated.
The Resolutions Committee refused to bring this resolution to the gathered messengers for a vote. Pastor Ascol then read the resolution from the floor where it was opened to a very brief discussion. A vote was taken to override the Resolutions Committee and bring the resolution on integrity in church membership to a vote. The vote failed. This was the second year in a row that Dr. Ascol sought approval for his resolution.
The reasons the Resolution Committee gave for rejecting the resolution on integrity in church membership were varied and, to my mind, nonsensical. Some said it would interfere with church autonomy, although it was never made clear how. Others had the strange idea that having unregenerate church members could be a positive thing. After all, they could serve as sort of “in-house prospects.” I’m not making this up.
Astonishingly, while the resolution on integrity in church membership was rejected, a flimsy resolution on, of all things, global warming was adopted.
And the band played on.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
An Unregenerate Denomination?
In May, John Hammett, professor of theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina made a special plea to the students gathered for chapel to take the issue of regenerate church membership seriously. Each semester a faculty member at Southeastern is asked to speak in a chapel service on a topic of particular interest to them. Dr. Hammett chose well.
The long Southern Baptist tradition of a “pray the prayer” or “walk the aisle” understanding of conversion has left our church rolls full of unregenerate church members. Professor Hammett told the students that the greatest problem facing Southern Baptists is not the surrounding secular culture but a Southern Baptist culture that seems to have lost sight of the necessity of regeneration in church membership. He decried the common practice of allowing people to join Southern Baptist churches without any interview process or means of accountability.
If you doubt the problem is pervasive then consider that Southern Baptists report some 16.5 million members. We often boast in the fact that we are the largest protestant denomination in the world. However, by our churches own reporting, the actual weekly attendance in Southern Baptist Churches is between 35 and 40% of the 16.5 million. This begs the question, “Where have all the Baptists gone?” In our fervency to up the attendance of our churches and inflate the number of baptisms that we report each year, we have too often looked the other way as our churches have received into membership people who show no evidence of genuine conversion. Why is it that some of our largest churches increase in attendance by only a fraction of the total number of the multiple hundreds they report to have baptized each year?
This summer, Southern Baptist churches will baptize God knows how many youth after camp and children after VBS without any genuine attempt to confirm the genuineness of their profession. It would be hard for me to quantify the number of adults I have spoken to who have reported their own spurious childhood conversions. They raised a hand at VBS or walked an aisle at camp and were quickly assured by a well-meaning pastor that they need never question the assurance of their salvation. Only in adulthood have they realized that there never was evidence of a truly changed heart.
Dr. Hammett suggested four reasons why a regenerate church membership is a “battle worth fighting”: It maintains a corporate witness; it insures a corporate health; it produces a love for unregenerate church members; and it honors and glorifies Christ. Further, Hammett proposed that churches compose covenants outlining the responsibilities of church membership that incoming members must sign. He also urged that churches reform their requirements for baptism and restore the practice of biblical church discipline. Wise counsel indeed.
I am astounded that the denomination that often refers to itself as “people of the Book” can get it so wrong in the most fundamental issue of all – regeneration. Contradicting Scripture, some of our most prominent pastors have preached and written that spiritual fruitfulness has no bearing on one’s salvation (Matt 24:13; II Cor 13:5; II Peter 1:10). Rather, they rely on unbiblical slogans like “once saved always saved” and assert that so long as someone prays the prayer they are “in” regardless of the contradictory evidence of an unchanged heart. If you don’t believe me then read Charles Stanley’s irresponsible book Eternal Security.
I am frightened by the notion of ever giving false assurance of salvation to someone who is not truly regenerate. Don’t misunderstand. Christians should not go through life doubting their salvation. Full assurance of salvation is a wonderful, Spirit wrought blessing. I fully affirm perseverance of the saints or the eternal security of genuine converts. But I wholly reject the eternal presumption of spurious converts.
I owe the details of Dr. Hammett’s speech to a May 8, 2007 Baptist Press article by Joy Rancatore.
The long Southern Baptist tradition of a “pray the prayer” or “walk the aisle” understanding of conversion has left our church rolls full of unregenerate church members. Professor Hammett told the students that the greatest problem facing Southern Baptists is not the surrounding secular culture but a Southern Baptist culture that seems to have lost sight of the necessity of regeneration in church membership. He decried the common practice of allowing people to join Southern Baptist churches without any interview process or means of accountability.
If you doubt the problem is pervasive then consider that Southern Baptists report some 16.5 million members. We often boast in the fact that we are the largest protestant denomination in the world. However, by our churches own reporting, the actual weekly attendance in Southern Baptist Churches is between 35 and 40% of the 16.5 million. This begs the question, “Where have all the Baptists gone?” In our fervency to up the attendance of our churches and inflate the number of baptisms that we report each year, we have too often looked the other way as our churches have received into membership people who show no evidence of genuine conversion. Why is it that some of our largest churches increase in attendance by only a fraction of the total number of the multiple hundreds they report to have baptized each year?
This summer, Southern Baptist churches will baptize God knows how many youth after camp and children after VBS without any genuine attempt to confirm the genuineness of their profession. It would be hard for me to quantify the number of adults I have spoken to who have reported their own spurious childhood conversions. They raised a hand at VBS or walked an aisle at camp and were quickly assured by a well-meaning pastor that they need never question the assurance of their salvation. Only in adulthood have they realized that there never was evidence of a truly changed heart.
Dr. Hammett suggested four reasons why a regenerate church membership is a “battle worth fighting”: It maintains a corporate witness; it insures a corporate health; it produces a love for unregenerate church members; and it honors and glorifies Christ. Further, Hammett proposed that churches compose covenants outlining the responsibilities of church membership that incoming members must sign. He also urged that churches reform their requirements for baptism and restore the practice of biblical church discipline. Wise counsel indeed.
I am astounded that the denomination that often refers to itself as “people of the Book” can get it so wrong in the most fundamental issue of all – regeneration. Contradicting Scripture, some of our most prominent pastors have preached and written that spiritual fruitfulness has no bearing on one’s salvation (Matt 24:13; II Cor 13:5; II Peter 1:10). Rather, they rely on unbiblical slogans like “once saved always saved” and assert that so long as someone prays the prayer they are “in” regardless of the contradictory evidence of an unchanged heart. If you don’t believe me then read Charles Stanley’s irresponsible book Eternal Security.
I am frightened by the notion of ever giving false assurance of salvation to someone who is not truly regenerate. Don’t misunderstand. Christians should not go through life doubting their salvation. Full assurance of salvation is a wonderful, Spirit wrought blessing. I fully affirm perseverance of the saints or the eternal security of genuine converts. But I wholly reject the eternal presumption of spurious converts.
I owe the details of Dr. Hammett’s speech to a May 8, 2007 Baptist Press article by Joy Rancatore.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
The More Things Change
Okay, so I’ve been re-reading a lot of Lloyd-Jones while on vacation! But what he said and wrote on almost any topic bears repeating in our own time. As I read The Doctor’s thoughts on preaching and the church I cannot help but observe how relevant he still is.
Observing the “feel good preaching” that was so prominent in the church of his day Lloyd-Jones wrote:
“It is made perfectly clear in the pages of the New Testament that no man can be saved until, at some time or other, he has felt desperate about himself…Present day preaching does not save men, the churches are not getting converts. There is something even worse than that about the situation as I see it, and that is that present-day preaching does not even annoy men, but leaves them precisely where they were, without a ruffle and without the slightest disturbance…The church is regarded as a sort of dispensary where drugs and soothing mixtures are distributed and in which everyone should be eased and comforted. And the one theme of the church must be ‘the love of God.’ Anyone who happens to break these rules and who produces a disturbing effect upon members of his congregation is regarded as an objectionable person.”
Of Lloyd-Jones’ preaching, Iain Murray writes:
“Modern preaching, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believed, had gone fundamentally wrong. He saw the main proof of that fact in the failure of the pulpit to recognize that he first work of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin and to humble men in the presence of God. He knew that any preaching which soothes, comforts and pleases those who have never been brought to fear God, nor to seek his mercy, is not preaching which the Spirit of God will own. The truth is that he was going back to a principle once regarded as imperative for powerful evangelistic preaching, namely, that before men can be converted they must be convinced of sin.”
Finally, this from the good reverend Spurgeon:
“In the beginning, the preacher’s business is not to convert men, but the very reverse. It is idle to attempt to heal those who are not wounded, to attempt to clothe those who have never been stripped, and to make those rich who have never realized their poverty.”
The more things change the more they stay the same. In our own city we see the pastors of evangelical churches buying into the notion that if men and women are going to come to Christ then he must be made more palatable than the writers of Scripture were able to manage. Jesus is presented, if he is presented at all, as the one who will fix marriages, fix kids, and may even provide a job promotion. This is far from the Jesus of Scripture who is pleased to save those who turn to Him in desperation. Rather, this is the Jesus of man’s own undisciplined felt needs. He is the Jesus who offers many gifts but makes no demands. He is the Jesus who makes no exclusive claims to Lordship and would never offend the sensibilities of modern people by calling attention to their sinfulness. Unfortunately, while this Jesus is certainly palatable, the popular Jesus simply cannot save.
Observing the “feel good preaching” that was so prominent in the church of his day Lloyd-Jones wrote:
“It is made perfectly clear in the pages of the New Testament that no man can be saved until, at some time or other, he has felt desperate about himself…Present day preaching does not save men, the churches are not getting converts. There is something even worse than that about the situation as I see it, and that is that present-day preaching does not even annoy men, but leaves them precisely where they were, without a ruffle and without the slightest disturbance…The church is regarded as a sort of dispensary where drugs and soothing mixtures are distributed and in which everyone should be eased and comforted. And the one theme of the church must be ‘the love of God.’ Anyone who happens to break these rules and who produces a disturbing effect upon members of his congregation is regarded as an objectionable person.”
Of Lloyd-Jones’ preaching, Iain Murray writes:
“Modern preaching, Dr. Lloyd-Jones believed, had gone fundamentally wrong. He saw the main proof of that fact in the failure of the pulpit to recognize that he first work of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin and to humble men in the presence of God. He knew that any preaching which soothes, comforts and pleases those who have never been brought to fear God, nor to seek his mercy, is not preaching which the Spirit of God will own. The truth is that he was going back to a principle once regarded as imperative for powerful evangelistic preaching, namely, that before men can be converted they must be convinced of sin.”
Finally, this from the good reverend Spurgeon:
“In the beginning, the preacher’s business is not to convert men, but the very reverse. It is idle to attempt to heal those who are not wounded, to attempt to clothe those who have never been stripped, and to make those rich who have never realized their poverty.”
The more things change the more they stay the same. In our own city we see the pastors of evangelical churches buying into the notion that if men and women are going to come to Christ then he must be made more palatable than the writers of Scripture were able to manage. Jesus is presented, if he is presented at all, as the one who will fix marriages, fix kids, and may even provide a job promotion. This is far from the Jesus of Scripture who is pleased to save those who turn to Him in desperation. Rather, this is the Jesus of man’s own undisciplined felt needs. He is the Jesus who offers many gifts but makes no demands. He is the Jesus who makes no exclusive claims to Lordship and would never offend the sensibilities of modern people by calling attention to their sinfulness. Unfortunately, while this Jesus is certainly palatable, the popular Jesus simply cannot save.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Good Medicine from the Good Doctor
In 1927 the 27 year old David Martyn Lloyd-Jones left a prestigious career in medicine to follow God’s call to pastor a small impoverished church in rural Wales. The churches in Wales were not even a shadow of what they had been at the turn of the century during the great Welsh revival. Now the churches were empty, powerless, and increasingly pastor-less. But something extraordinary began to happen in the little church in Sandfields Aberavon where the former physician ministered. God lit a fire in the heart of their young pastor and brought forth from him a new kind of preaching that had not been heard in years. It was the preaching of God’s Word with total conviction but conspicuously absent of the worldly trappings and entertaining flourishes that had come to characterize the church in those days.
When I read some of the things written by Lloyd-Jones on revival and read reports of what God did in Wales during his ministry there my heart leaps to see God move the way he saw God move:
“Pray for revival? Yes, go on, but do not try to create it, do not attempt to produce it, it is only given by Christ himself. The last church to be visited by a revival is the church trying to make it.”
“We say we are concerned for the sin of the town! How much prayer do we offer for the sin of the town? When we pass a drunkard it is not our business to say, ‘What an awful man, what a beast!’ No! judge not, but pray without ceasing. Christ came not to destroy – sin does that – but to save and release men from their sin. Will you as a church pray for the sinners of Aberavon and pray for God to save them through His Spirit? That is the meaning of a church…May God give us this power to pray for a visitation of His Spirit! God give power to all doing this in all places!”
In 1930 a reporter named J. C. Griffith-Jones, the South Wales correspondent for the News Chronicle wrote these words in an article he titled “A Physician of Souls”:
“Seven years ago Martyn Lloyd-Jones, M.D., M.R.C.P., was on the threshold of a brilliantly promising career in Harley Street. He renounced it to labor in one of the most difficult fields of Forward Movement evangelism in Wales. The Sandfields district of Aberavon is a dead end. Even when the sun shines, sandy wastes and dreary, crowded houses convey a sense of desolation, almost hopelessness. What could a man denied work, disillusioned by social callousness, do here but live for a day, deteriorate, drift and die?
“Into this desperate little world came the young physician-minister, preaching, living the gospel of old-new hope. He shocked the locality out of its despair. This world had failed them; there was another world.
“Men listened amazed. Here was one who practiced the gospel that he preached with such tremendous conviction. He had given up a great career – fame, money, leisure – to live and work among the poor and hopeless.
“Not only in Port Talbot, but all around the district, the word went forth that surprising things were happening at the ‘mission hall’ on the sand dunes. Curious, skeptical, doubting, hoping, believing, people flocked to the church.
“It was no passing wonder. Today, years after the first revelation of new power, the congregations still overflow the church. Every meeting is a ‘big meeting.’
“A working-class (and unemployed) membership raising 1,000 pounds a year for church work. Crowded prayer meetings, a crowded church meeting in mid-week, a crowded brotherhood meeting on Saturday, of all nights, when men discuss the problems of spiritual salvation and the pastor sums up the discussion. Sandfields now shares the glad tidings with all Wales.”
So the little church in Sandfields could not chalk up their influence to money, impressive facilities, a seasoned pastor, or a ‘strategic location.’ The church was poor in every sense of the word. But they became rich in the things of God. And now, almost 100 years later, people still read and write about what happened there.
blessings,
todd
When I read some of the things written by Lloyd-Jones on revival and read reports of what God did in Wales during his ministry there my heart leaps to see God move the way he saw God move:
“Pray for revival? Yes, go on, but do not try to create it, do not attempt to produce it, it is only given by Christ himself. The last church to be visited by a revival is the church trying to make it.”
“We say we are concerned for the sin of the town! How much prayer do we offer for the sin of the town? When we pass a drunkard it is not our business to say, ‘What an awful man, what a beast!’ No! judge not, but pray without ceasing. Christ came not to destroy – sin does that – but to save and release men from their sin. Will you as a church pray for the sinners of Aberavon and pray for God to save them through His Spirit? That is the meaning of a church…May God give us this power to pray for a visitation of His Spirit! God give power to all doing this in all places!”
In 1930 a reporter named J. C. Griffith-Jones, the South Wales correspondent for the News Chronicle wrote these words in an article he titled “A Physician of Souls”:
“Seven years ago Martyn Lloyd-Jones, M.D., M.R.C.P., was on the threshold of a brilliantly promising career in Harley Street. He renounced it to labor in one of the most difficult fields of Forward Movement evangelism in Wales. The Sandfields district of Aberavon is a dead end. Even when the sun shines, sandy wastes and dreary, crowded houses convey a sense of desolation, almost hopelessness. What could a man denied work, disillusioned by social callousness, do here but live for a day, deteriorate, drift and die?
“Into this desperate little world came the young physician-minister, preaching, living the gospel of old-new hope. He shocked the locality out of its despair. This world had failed them; there was another world.
“Men listened amazed. Here was one who practiced the gospel that he preached with such tremendous conviction. He had given up a great career – fame, money, leisure – to live and work among the poor and hopeless.
“Not only in Port Talbot, but all around the district, the word went forth that surprising things were happening at the ‘mission hall’ on the sand dunes. Curious, skeptical, doubting, hoping, believing, people flocked to the church.
“It was no passing wonder. Today, years after the first revelation of new power, the congregations still overflow the church. Every meeting is a ‘big meeting.’
“A working-class (and unemployed) membership raising 1,000 pounds a year for church work. Crowded prayer meetings, a crowded church meeting in mid-week, a crowded brotherhood meeting on Saturday, of all nights, when men discuss the problems of spiritual salvation and the pastor sums up the discussion. Sandfields now shares the glad tidings with all Wales.”
So the little church in Sandfields could not chalk up their influence to money, impressive facilities, a seasoned pastor, or a ‘strategic location.’ The church was poor in every sense of the word. But they became rich in the things of God. And now, almost 100 years later, people still read and write about what happened there.
blessings,
todd
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Killing for Convenience
In a recent article on the Henry Institute’s web page (www.henryinstitute.org) Russell Moore calls attention to the tortured morality of Donna Schaper, the pastor of Judson Memorial Church. Judson is an historic American Baptist church in New York. In an article written for Tikkun, a liberal magazine, Schaper reflects on the abortion she had nineteen years ago. Schaper justifies her abortion on the grounds that she and her husband already had twins and an additional child would only be a hardship. She calls abortion a “positive moral force.” It allows “sex to be both procreational and recreational for both men and women…The drama of the abortion battle is not about unborn babies at all. Instead it is about women and sex.”
But Schaper’s own words betray her. Indeed, she spends a good portion of the article referring to the baby she had killed in her womb. She went so far as to name the aborted baby, “Alma.” Astonishingly, Schaper even calls the abortion an act of murder:
“I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband, and for my three children. I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to. I did what men do all the time when they take us to war: they choose violence because, while they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives.”
It is morally obtuse to compare the decision to kill a baby in the womb with the sobering but sometimes necessary decision that Commanders-in-Chief face to send men into battle. The Scriptures teach that God uses human governments as instruments to exercise justice even to the point of using violence. The apostle Paul writes, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3-4).
Something tells me that pastor Schaper would not give credence to large portions of the Bible, particularly much of Romans. She writes, “When I made my choice to end Alma’s life, I was behaving as an adult…It was a human life. That’s why we named her, wanted her, but also knew we did not want her enough.” She concludes that abortion is not only a necessary policy but a good and moral one. It is, she writes, “the best policy conceivable for men and women and for mature, moral sexuality.”
Call me old fashioned but I prefer the bra burning feminists of the early 1970’s that knew the only way to win broader approval for abortion was to convince people that unborn babies were not human and therefore abortion was not the taking of a human life. Some of you are old enough to remember leading liberals actually advancing that notion, leaving us to wonder if unborn babies were actually squirrels or tad poles. But with the passage of time and advances in technology the pro-abortion crowd has found it increasingly difficult to deny the obvious. But this has led to an even more disturbing turn. As the words of pastor Schaper demonstrate, pro-abortionists now justify the appalling procedure not by denying the humanity of the unborn but by asserting the right of the mother to kill it. The late Francis Schaeffer once observed that if we can justify taking life in the womb it will not be long until we justify taking life outside the womb.
todd
But Schaper’s own words betray her. Indeed, she spends a good portion of the article referring to the baby she had killed in her womb. She went so far as to name the aborted baby, “Alma.” Astonishingly, Schaper even calls the abortion an act of murder:
“I did what was right for me, for my family, for my work, for my husband, and for my three children. I happen to agree that abortion is a form of murder. I think the quarrel about when life begins is disrespectful to the fetus. I know I murdered the life within me. I could have loved that life but chose not to. I did what men do all the time when they take us to war: they choose violence because, while they believe it is bad, it is still better than the alternatives.”
It is morally obtuse to compare the decision to kill a baby in the womb with the sobering but sometimes necessary decision that Commanders-in-Chief face to send men into battle. The Scriptures teach that God uses human governments as instruments to exercise justice even to the point of using violence. The apostle Paul writes, “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:3-4).
Something tells me that pastor Schaper would not give credence to large portions of the Bible, particularly much of Romans. She writes, “When I made my choice to end Alma’s life, I was behaving as an adult…It was a human life. That’s why we named her, wanted her, but also knew we did not want her enough.” She concludes that abortion is not only a necessary policy but a good and moral one. It is, she writes, “the best policy conceivable for men and women and for mature, moral sexuality.”
Call me old fashioned but I prefer the bra burning feminists of the early 1970’s that knew the only way to win broader approval for abortion was to convince people that unborn babies were not human and therefore abortion was not the taking of a human life. Some of you are old enough to remember leading liberals actually advancing that notion, leaving us to wonder if unborn babies were actually squirrels or tad poles. But with the passage of time and advances in technology the pro-abortion crowd has found it increasingly difficult to deny the obvious. But this has led to an even more disturbing turn. As the words of pastor Schaper demonstrate, pro-abortionists now justify the appalling procedure not by denying the humanity of the unborn but by asserting the right of the mother to kill it. The late Francis Schaeffer once observed that if we can justify taking life in the womb it will not be long until we justify taking life outside the womb.
todd
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Men of the Word
In his great book Christian Leaders of the Last Century J.C. Ryle, writing in 19th century England makes this observation of the men used by God to help usher in revival in the generations that preceded his own:
“They taught one set of truths. They taught them in the same way, with fire, reality, earnestness, as men fully convinced of what they taught. They taught them in the same spirit, always loving, compassionate, and, like Paul even weeping, but always bold, unflinching, and not fearing the face of man…The instrumentality by which the spiritual reformers of the last century carried on their operations was of the simplest description. It was neither more nor less than the old apostolic weapon of preaching. The sword which St. Paul wielded with such mighty effect, when he assaulted the strongholds of heathenism eighteen hundred years ago, was the same sword by which they won their victories.”
There is a spiritual famine in our land because the Word of God is absent in too many of America’s pulpits. Don’t misunderstand. I am not talking about liberal churches that have always been skeptical of the authority and reliability of the Bible. We can expect the Bible to be absent in a meaningful way from their pulpits. It seems to me, the great irony is the absence of the Bible in the pulpits of “conservative, Bible-believing” churches. In an effort to see their church grow numerically, these pastors take pains not to “bore people” with the Bible. They use Bible verses, to be sure, but they shy away from careful exposition of the Scriptures. Is there any wonder why Christians in America today know more about “slaying the giants in your life” or “rolling away the stones in your life” than they do about practical holiness, the doctrine of the atonement, or the doctrinal flow of the book of Romans? Do these things even matter to Christians any more?
At a recent children’s ministry conference, a prominent young mega-church pastor from Atlanta, Georgia instructed the gathered pastors that preaching through books of the Bible was “lazy.” How appallingly arrogant to dismiss such men as Martin Luther, John Owen, Thomas Watson, Thomas Boston, Matthew Henry, Johnathan Edwards, Robert Murray McCheyne, Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, John MacArthur, John Piper, Alister Begg (need I go on?) as lazy because they preach(ed) through books of the Bible. True, these men apparently were not “creative” enough to use stage props and video clips from the latest television shows. All they had was the passion to take their congregations on deep diving missions into God’s precious Word. If that is “lazy” then I will take it over “creative” every day of the week.
If you think I am being too critical let me remind you of what Scripture has to say about the shepherds of God’s people who fail to proclaim God’s Word faithfully and clearly. Speaking through the prophet Jeremiah, who lived during a spiritual famine, God proclaimed:
"Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the Lord. They say continually to those who despise the word of the Lord, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No disaster shall come upon you.’…Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord. Is not my word like fire, declares the Lord, and like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?"
- Jeremiah 23:16-17, 28-29
Preachers have been called into battle but instead of wielding the sword of the Spirit too many play around with trendy sociological theories and baptized versions of pop psychology. Dr Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary rightly observes that one of the problems in many churches today is that the Gospel is proclaimed in therapeutic terms. In other words the Gospel is often not proclaimed as the good news that by His sacrificial death Jesus delivers sinners from the justified wrath of God. Instead the gospel is promoted as a means to psychological or mental wholeness and material blessing.
Preachers have been called into battle but instead of wielding the sword of the Spirit too many play around with trendy sociological theories and baptized versions of pop psychology. Dr Albert Mohler, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary rightly observes that one of the problems in many churches today is that the Gospel is proclaimed in therapeutic terms. In other words the Gospel is often not proclaimed as the good news that by His sacrificial death Jesus delivers sinners from the justified wrath of God. Instead the gospel is promoted as a means to psychological or mental wholeness and material blessing.
It is odd that preachers who play fast and loose with the Scriptures are often given a pass because they are nice or they have good hearts. It is reasoned, “He may not get it right when it comes to the Bible but he sure is a good man.” But what is interesting about this perspective is that is exactly opposite of how the Bible evaluates the same kind of situation. Paul writes in Philippians 1:15-18:
"Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here [in prison] for the defense of the gospel. The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice."
If Paul had to choose between a decent man who did not proclaim the gospel well and a poorly motivated man who did justice to the gospel in his preaching he would always choose the later. The man matters but the message matters more. O that God would give to His people more men of the Word!
Blessings,
todd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
