A good friend recently sent me this Hermeneutics Quiz. It’s a couple of years old, but interesting nonetheless.

So, I took the quiz and scored it. It’s only 20 questions and it doesn’t take long.

Give it a shot and let me know what you scored. It would also be interesting to hear what others think of the explanation of the scoring.

My score was 48 which puts me on the conservative hermeneutic scale. The explanation starts:

First, the conservative hermeneutic group scores 52 or lower. The strength of this view is its emphasis on the authority, ongoing and normative authority, of all of Scripture. It tends to operate with the line many of us learned in Sunday school: “If the Bible says it, that settles it.” Such persons let the Bible challenge them with full force. Literal readings lead to rather literal applications. Most of the time.

What did you score?

What do you think?

On a recent Fighting for the Faith radio program host Chris Rosebrough had Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller as a guest to help with a sermon review. During the sermon review Wolfmueller mentioned something he called a heresy two-step. It’s a process that some might use to preach heresy or some position/doctrine that that is not from the text.

The way Wolfmueller identified the process was very helpful. I’ve written out a paraphrase of this process of preaching to watch out for.

The Heresy Two-step starts with two feet on the text. The allusion must be given that the text is going to be taught on. Then a sliding step backwards is taken into an abstraction. You move from the text to an idea about the text or to a word in the text. Once the text is abstracted and a general principle or something along these lines is made. You can now wiggle around and go in any direction you want. You can make the text say whatever you want. Instead of teaching the text you are pontificating on this abstraction which was drawn from the text.

I thought this to be a helpful analysis. Not only is it helpful for discerning false teachers, but it would seem to act as a measure for anyone who preaches/teaches. It should help those of us who do so to watch how we are arriving at a message from the text, especially, for the less experienced.

Helpful? Accurate? Thoughts?

What do you think of when you think of American Christianity and the American church? Just stop and think about that for a moment before reading further.

Think a little more…

OK, ready?

Below is a quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer on American Christianity. Please, read it and think through it. Although he was speaking of the American church in the 1920’s and 30’s think of how his words might apply today.

• Is he correct?
• If not, how far off is he and what correction would you offer?
• If so, what can American churches and her members do for correction?
• What other thoughts does this quote bring to mind?

God has granted American Christianity no Reformation. He has given it strong revivalist preachers, churchmen and theologians, but no Reformation of the church of Jesus Christ by the Word of God….American theology and the American church as a whole have never been able to understand the meaning of ‘criticism’ by the Word of God and all that signifies. Right to the last they do not understand that God’s ‘criticism’ touches even religion, the Christianity of the church and the sanctification of Christians, and that God has founded his church beyond religion and beyond ethics….In American theology, Christianity is still essentially religion and ethics…Because of this the person and work of Christ must, for theology, sink into the background and in the long run remain misunderstood, because it is not recognized as the sole ground of radical judgment and radical forgiveness.[6]

6. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, “Protestantism without the Reformation,” in No Rusty Swords: Letters, Lectures and Notes, 1928-1936, ed. Edwin H. Robertson, trans. Edwin H. Robertson and John Bowden (London: Collins, 1965), 92-118.
As cited by Michael Horton in Who Exactly Are the Evangelicals?

Even if you don’t answer here this is certainly food for thought.

In a recent post I asked two questions in relation to the Super Bowl and church attendance. The comment thread turned into a debate over Sabbatarianism and the place of the Lord’s Day in the Christian’s life. This is understandable to a point, yet I did receive some off-line comments which would have added to the discussion. While I did not argue for either, one point stood out and brought some other questions on church attendance to mind.

The term legalism came up in the above post though not as a direct charge. However, I’ve seen it argued that those who hold to Sunday as being the Lord’s Day, in that the Christian has a weekly duty to worship, as being legalistic. One commenter made the comment, in essence, that it would actually be legalistic if Sunday worship were not grounded in the Sabbath (4th Commandment) since one would be adding their own law. This is an interesting approach since most Christians would not require nor forbid others of what God has not required nor forbid least we earn the charge of legalism. Then I got curious about something.

On what basis does one judge how often they should attend church?

All Christians, I hope, have some idea of how often they expect themselves to attend church. Which should translate in some way as to how much they expect their fellow church members to attend also. I’m not talking about when people are sick, out of town, etc. I mean the normal week to week where nothing is preventing corporate worship. Yes, this could include the Super Bowl or any activity.

Most of us look forward to Sunday mornings. But do we have some kind of corporate obligation? Based on what? Is once a week enough if there are also Wednesday and Sunday evening services? How about once a month? How does one answer what is acceptable between once a month to once a week? Is Christmas and Easter enough?

So, on what basis do you decide how often you should attend church? Do you hold their fellow church members to a similar standard? Do expect others to hold you to a standard?

On what basis and what is this standard of church attendance frequency?

Every year during the Super Bowl the question of church attendance arises. Should a person skip church for the Super Bowl? If he/she skips their regular Sunday evening church service are they sinning?

There seem to be two main positions on this. Those who are more sabbatarian minded fall along the lines of a person is sinning if they skip their church service for the Super Bowl. Those who skip church service may be charged with antinomianism. Corporate worship is a Christian duty that should have priority of all other activities. It should not matter that it is the Super Bowl.

Those on the other side of the argument may skip church service for the Super Bowl claiming they are free in Christ to do so. The sabbath for them is an Old Testament Law and is not specifically for the church. Some on this side may even claim that a Super Bowl party is a great time to share the gospel. Isn’t this true for any such event?

I can’t help but wonder if there is just a slight bit of guilt in some who comment about sharing the gospel. There is a little guilt sometimes when people add qualifiers in explaining their agenda. However, there are also those who will zealously take a Super Bowl party as an opportunity to share the gospel. I haven’t yet heard of how sharing the gospel at a Super Bowl party was received. Those are the stories I’d love to hear and learn from!

People skip church service for other events too, not just the Super Bowl. There does not seem to be as big of a deal made of these other events. Atleast, not publicly. There is also something that drives people and they must watch the Super Bowl. Other events that people skip church for do not seem to get the same rise of excitement. For example, many do not seem to run around telling people how they will not be at church, but will be at their kids make-up game instead.

Well, I’m curious. Without debating whether or not there is a Christian sabbath, I’d love to hear the answers to the two questions below.

For those skipping regular church service for the Super Bowl.

1.   Why is the Super Bowl such a big deal that you must skip church service?

For those attending regular church service and are bothered by others skipping.

2.   People skip church service for other activities, why is it a big deal to skip for the Super Bowl?

P.s. I’ve changed the word “miss(ing)” to “skip(ping)” thanks to Nathan pointing out the difference. My original connotation of missing was skipping, but this will be clearer.

]]> http://hereiblog.com/church-attendance-and-the-super-bowl-two-questions/feed/ 57 http://hereiblog.com/defining-missional/ http://hereiblog.com/defining-missional/#comments Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:00:30 +0000 Mark http://hereiblog.com/?p=2989

What exactly does the term missional mean? Attempts to answer this question can be found in books, videos, sermons, blog posts, theological ejournals, conference presentations, magazine articles, etc. Depending on who you ask will depend on the answer which may be good, bad or ugly. You get to decide which is which.

Where do we go from here? Is missional something tangible that can be easily defined propositionally? Is it a concept? Or a movement? A theology? All of the above?

One thing the word is – cool!

However, at the moment there does not seem to be one agreed upon definition. This is fine to a point. Yet, with so many defining themselves as missional; and others preaching for the need to be missional, it is only fair to ask for some sort of definition. Seriously, with a term this popular it can only benefit the body of Christ to have some sort of core working definition.

So I went to twitter looking for a concise definition that Hemingway would appreciate. I mean – where would you go? My inquiry:

Define “missional” in 140 characters or less.

The answers?

@voiceofthesheep Missional: Going and teaching the nations (making disciples), baptizing them, teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded.

@aaronsauer A popular buzz word among hip Christians.

@AlaskaBiff salt & light (missional)

@aaronstrongarm Being all things to all people to save some

@Frank_Turk #missional is seeing the results of the Gospel as equally important to its declaration.

@tburus Missional: Living with a missionary mindset in your indigenous context.

@michaeldebusk Engaging people with the gospel on their own turf.

@chriscanuel With all the talk lately about what “missional” means, is it an oversimplification to just say it means living intentionally for Christ?

@voiceofthesheep Jesus sent disciples on a mission, to make disciples, teaching them to observe all he commanded. THAT’S missional.

@ocdavedv: Define #missional in 140 characters or less: “being a missionary everywhere you are!” It’s being Jesus to everyone everywhere!

@StevenPatton a term made up by someone because they were tired of the word “evangelism” and its implications but its really the same thing.

An interesting conversation (per twitter) follows.

@chriscanuel @StevenPatton I think being missional is certainly evangelism, but I think there is a bit more to it. At least w/how most define evangelism.

@StevenPatton @chriscanuel missional = reformed word for evangelism. That’s my thought on it.

@chriscanuel @StevenPatton I do think we have overcomplicated the word to a great degree though.

@StevenPatton @chriscanuel right. We’ve bungled the word evangelism. we’ve screwed it up so bad its easier just to make a new one than to correct the old

The consensus?

I’m not exactly sure, but just searching missional on twitter will give atleast 50 pages of results. These are updated by the second. It is definitely a buzz word which doesn’t make it a bad thing. The core elements of missional seem to lie somewhere between – sharing and living out the gospel to being on a mission daily. How about one more crack at a concise definition?

Intentionally serving others to win more to Christ through living out and sharing the gospel.

Whew, glad that’s settled! It is settled, isn’t it? What do you think?

Many times a ministry/person is defended, regardless of their teachings, because they are popular or successful. Not only are ministries defend as such, but they also come to a place where they can do no wrong. They might be betrayed as above any type of criticism or biblical correction.

Such ministries might be defended in various ways such as:

• God is clearly blessing this ministry. Just look at all the good they do.
• I’ve seen more people grow, etc. using their teachings.
• God would not let such growth of said ministry if it weren’t solid.
• Nothing has helped me grow as much as this ministry.
• Just look at the number of people they touch.
• Add your own, etc.

Are these oft given reasons a valid biblical measure of success? What do you think?

Buddhism’s numbers are apparently shrinking. They aren’t growing.

They’re answer? Hip-hop and alcohol?

“This is an old, old story, a fantasy and longing cosmology. Hey, hey, what’s the story about? It’s about the Buddha, yo. Hey brother, listen carefully! You got it? No? You don’t? Okay, baby, no problem.”

That is one hip-hop (can we call it that?) verse as reported by CNN – Buddhist monks use hip hop, alcohol to attract followers.

Isn’t that funny to think about and watch? I wonder where they got the idea?

Think about this…

Christians, is this video, and the approach itself, make Buddhism in any way appealing? Is it at all attractive? Tempting?

What do you think non-Christians think of Christianity when we do stuff like this in a similar vein?

In Francis Chan’s sermon Beware of Good Liars, he reads a letter from a single mother seeking his advice.

I’m curious how others would respond. I won’t comment yet. Just read it.

Pastor Francis, I made a covenant promise to a ministry [a TV ministry] in January for $100 a month. I’m a single mom with two teenage sons. One of which is mildly autistic with mild traumatic brain surgery.

I work really hard to make ends meet. I support my boys by myself. I have no family to help me and lately the ends haven’t been meeting to pay those bills, but still give my $100 covenant each month to the [TV ministry].

I was watching something recently about the $2.5 million pay check that he [preacher of this TV ministry] gives himself annually. And even more for each member of his family that works within the ministry. I saw pictures of his home and cars, etc. and I felt like someone punched me in the stomach.

I know I give to God with a genuine heart and that what the pastor chooses to do with that money is between him and God. That he’ll be judged if he misuses it.

But am I wrong to be disappointed and hurt that my money I work so hard for to spread the word and feed poor people goes into his pocket for beautiful homes and planes and luxury dinners for him and his family?

Here’s my question. Am I wrong to break my covenant and give to a ministry I feel is working solely for the Kingdom of God and not for personal gain while spreading the Gospel?

How would you answer?

I can’t help but wonder just how many people there are just like this lady.

Ecumenism today can be seen in social/political change in the name of the ‘greater good’. Or in doctrinal statements drafted and signed by different “Christian” sects.

When dealing with such issues many Protestants speak up when it seems the Gospel is at stake. Other Protestants don’t always take to kindly to this. It seems no big deal to them to partner with others such as Roman Catholics.

Some Protestants have even endorsed books by Roman Catholics. Revert to Rome, Frank Beckwith, had some Protestant endorsements on his book Return to Rome. One of the Catholic endorsers writes that this book is “encouraging for Catholics who aspire to the New Evangelization so often urged by John Paul II.” A big stir was caused recently when Michael Horton endorsed a book by Catholic apologist Scott Hahn. Are these endorsements lending a hand to building up Rome? That remains to be seen.

Is all of this a big deal? Maybe. Why?

The Pope gives us an answer to why this might be a big deal as recently reported by Yahoo News.

VATICAN CITY – Pope Benedict XVI defended his decision to invite disaffected Anglicans to join the Catholic Church en masse, saying Friday it was the “ultimate aim” of ecumenism.

Benedict told members of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the invitation wasn’t an attack on the church’s reunification efforts with other Christians but was rather designed to help them by bringing about “full and visible communion.”

Ecumenism should be more of a position of “can’t we all just get along working together while we continue disagreeing” rather than one of “can’t we all just get along and work together while I try to convert you.” It is no secret, or it shouldn’t be that Rome does not believe those outside her have the fullness of the Christian faith. This being the case, it only makes sense to want to bring others into their fold.

Let’s stop pretending then.

The Vatican denied that it was poaching for converts in the Anglican pond and said its unprecedented invitation was merely a response to the many Anglican requests to join the Catholic Church.

The Vatican’s invitation “is not in any way contrary to the ecumenical movement but shows, instead, its ultimate aim which consists of reaching full and visible communion of the Lord’s disciples,” Benedict told the members of the congregation, which he headed for a quarter century before becoming pope.

So Rome is not looking for converts, yet she is? It’s understandable to reach out and help someone join an organization they want to join. If that were all it is then what’s the big deal? Rome sees the unity Jesus spoke of in John 17 as being fulfilled only if everyone joins them.

Either way it is refreshing to see an admission from the Vatican that the true aim of ecumenism is to bring others to mother Rome. It seems that when Protestants join with Rome in ecumenical efforts to affect social/political change (such as the Manhattan Declaration?) they may be opening themselves up to being evangelistic targets.

Is this always the case? Probably not, but when the head of your church tells you their goal in ecumenism, it’s certainly motivation for others to follow suit. It is easy to see how ecumenical partnerships open the door to this type of evangelism. The Gospel does seems to take a back seat to whatever the issue(s) may be in these partnerships.

Be aware. Remember what Paul wrote to Timothy.

Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers. 1 Timothy 4:16 (ESV)

The Reformation might be over, but the Reforming isn’t.

Update

I was asked – What if the true aim of Protestant engagement w/ Rome was [evangelism]? Why do we neglect this option? Don’t they need saving?

I was not neglecting this option, but gleaning the Popes reported position. The purpose is, in a sense, to warn Protestants. The topic is Rome’s position which does not mean others are neglected. It means that different Protestant positions were not the topic at this time.

Of course, Roman Catholics need saving. We all need saving. I would hope any Christians interacting with one another would exhort each other in the Gospel. That they would be aware and discerning in faith and love.

When it comes to ecumenical Protestants it seems that many have no problem with Rome’s Gospel, therefore, it is hard to see if they have the goal of evangelism. This can be seen in Frank Beckwith’s reversion and the number of Protestants that were happy for him. So it is hard to see an evangelistic goal when it is unspoken of and Gospel agreement is implicit in ecumenical forums.

It could still exist though.

Taking the position of the victim is a popular offensive today. It is a way to turn the tables and draw sympathy from others. Kevin DeYoung posted a great article on this very subject – Why Are We So Offended All the Time? (cross-post). In his post he made the following statement.

As Christians, we worship a victimized Lord.

His post was very good in pointing out how the victim card is often played in today’s culture. DeYoung encouraged Christians not to be so easily offended and play the victim. Very encouraging words, but when it comes to Jesus being victimized?

I disagree.

To be fair, brother DeYoung was not addressing nor expounding on the above quote. It was merely in the greater context.

Scripture records Jesus as being in control. He came to be a sacrifice according to God’s sovereign plan. One might argue that Jesus was a victim of sinful men who acted against the law persecuting an innocent man. Even at this level God was in control.

this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.  Acts 2:23 (ESV)

This is contrary to a victim taken by some religious group to make a human sacrifice. Or someone who is assaulted against their will.

After having Jesus flogged and declaring Him innocent Pilate was told he had no authority over Jesus.

He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above…” John 19:9-11 (ESV)

This simple interaction shows that Jesus was not a victim. His answer to Pilate’s veiled offer of potential release was to put Pilate in his place. Jesus in essence took away what authority Pilate thought he had. Pilate had no bargaining chips to offer Jesus who did not look for a way out of the false imprisonment as a victim would.

Jesus most explicit statement of authority showing He is not a victim comes from the Gospel of John.

For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down a of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John 10:17-18 (ESV)

I agree with DeYoung when he said the following.

So buck up brothers and sisters. Most often in this country, we are not victims because of our faith.

Not only are Christians not often victims, we are ultimately not victims. This is because Jesus was not a victim but had all authority on heaven and earth. Jesus has won the battle over sin and death for us. He willing took God’s wrath for all who believe.

Christians need not play the victim.

On January 1, 1865, Charles Spurgeon preached a sermon entitled True Unity Promoted. Given the recent disagreements over signing The Manhattan Declaration this is a very interesting sermon on unity.

In the first paragraph Spurgeon states, “It is an old saying that England never prospers so well as when the Pope curses her. I hope to see a year of great prosperity this year!”

As Christians look forward to the coming year these are good words to consider from Spurgeon on the larger and smaller scales. I’ve taken his main points and put them together with some highlights. I encourage you to read the whole sermon. Ephesians 4:3 (ESV) is the sermon text:

“eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.“

I. Unity of the Spirit.

This unity of the Spirit is manifested in love. A husband and wife may be, through Providence, cast hundreds of miles from one another—but there is a unity of spirit in them because their hearts are one. We, Brethren, are divided many thousands of miles from the saints in Australia, America and the South Seas—but loving as Brethren—we feel the unity of the Spirit. I was never a member of a Church meeting in the backwoods of America. I never worshipped God with the Samoans, or with my Brethren in New Zealand—but notwithstanding all this, I feel the unity of the Spirit in my soul with them and everything which concerns their spiritual welfare is interesting to me.

The unity of the Spirit is preserved, then, by the Holy Spirit infusing daily life-floods into the one mystical body. And in proportion as the life-floods become more strong, that union becomes more manifest. Let a spirit of prayer be poured out on all our churches and conventionalities will be dashed down—divisions will be forgotten and locked in each others arms—the people of God will show to the world that they are one in Christ Jesus!

II. Keeping this unity.

We must watch—the best of us must watch—lest we fight the Lord’s battles with Satan’s weapons and so even from love to God and His Truth violate the unity of the Spirit. The unity of the Spirit ought to be kept, dear Friends, because Satan is so busy to mar it. He knows that the greatest Glory of Christ will spring from the unity of His Church. “That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You. That they also may be one in Us: that the world may believe that You have sent Me.”

We must be more diligent in this matter! We must seek to purge out from ourselves everything which would divide and to have in our hearts every holy thought which would tend to unite us with our Brethren. I am not, when I join a Christian Church, to say, “I am quite certain I shall never break its unity.” I am to suspect myself of a liability to that evil and I am to watch with all diligence that I keep the unity of the Spirit.

III. A bond of peace.

Beloved, there should be much peace, perfect peace, unbounded peace between the people of God. We are not aliens. We are “fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God.” Realize your fellow citizenship! Treat not Christian people as foreigners and this bond of fellow citizenship will be one bond of peace. You are not enemies. Men may be fellow citizens and yet hate one another, but you are friends, you are all friends to Christ and in Him you are all friends to one another. Let that be another bond.

But you go farther—you are not mere friends, you are Brethren born of the same parent—filled with the same life. And shall not this be a bond? See that you fall not out by the way. Strive not one with another, for you are Brethren. This is not all. You are closer than this—you are members of the same body. Shall this mysterious union fail to be a bond of peace to you? Will you, being the foot, contend with the eye? Or will you, being the eye, contend with the hand and say, “I have no need of you”?

Spurgeon’s charge for the coming year.

May God give us this and from now on let us endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I commend the text to all Believers to be practiced through the coming year. And to those who are not Believers, what can I say but that I trust their unity and their peace may be broken forever and that they may be led to Christ Jesus to find peace in His death! May faith be given and then love and every Divine Grace will follow, so that they may be one with us in Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

Fellow Southern Baptist and blogger Trevin Wax tweeted something today that really stuck.

The world estimates your importance by how many people are serving YOU. God estimates your importance by how many people YOU are serving.

First, the world does measure one’s importance by their popularity in one vein or another. Tiger Woods is a recent example of this. (I pray Tiger Woods would turn to Christ.) If Woods was just some local golf club pro no one would really care. That is, except his family and those closest to him which actually speaks on the second part of the quote.

Even the rich and famous have loved ones in their lives they are responsible for serving in some manner. Self can still get in the way. So while the world is paying the price of admission the loved ones are paying what money can’t.

The world really does not care.

The second half of the quote really hit home. Do not concentrate on the statement of the quantity of people being served. Forget that potential quibble. As Christians we are hear to serve. We serve God by serving others as His servants.

Think of the convicting question – “Are you serving others?”

How many people are YOU serving? Who are YOU serving? Are YOU serving intentionally? Right on! Right, but…then I think about ME.

The YOU in the quote is actually ME! It is a wonderfully reflection of serving others that really stings sometimes. I think about how I am serving my family, my church, at work, this blog, etc. These questions always turn me to Christ in repentance seeking how I can be more like Him.

Scripture so beautifully brings it home.

For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. [Galatians 5:13,ESV]

Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins. Show hospitality to one another without grumbling. As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies—in order that in everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ. [1 Peter 4:8-11,ESV]

How do you serve others? Please feel free to share.

Can asking for prayer ever be a burden?

That might sound like a strange question. It just might be right now, but hear me out. I am not talking about prayer requests that turn into gossip. Those requests that ask for prayer for uncle Bill’s and aunt Martha’s marriage only to go on to give intimate details of the problems. No. Not those kind.

The potential burden comes from people asking others who have ongoing prayer requests about those requests. Let me explain further.

I did not know this to be a real issue at first until speaking with several people from different churches. Constant asking for updates on a prayer request can lead to probing questions on said request.

For example, a person could have an ongoing injury or illness. Then, every time that person is with the church gathered they are overwhelmed with questions like – How is your injury/illness? While that is understandable the people asking do not often realize they may be the 10th person asking in a very short period of time. The person might even be grieving about a particular issue.

A good illustration of this is found in the movie The Wedding Singer. Right after the wedding singer (who is the main character) is stood up at the marriage altar by his fiancee he meets with some friends. One guy in the group probes him about being stood up. The wedding singer replied..

“No, It felt really good. Thanks for bringing it up man. You know my parents died when I was ten, would you like to talk about that?”

That should help the perspective a little, but there is a little more to the story.

I have been told that other questions often get asked like:

• Did you try XYZ for your injury/illness, etc.?
• Have you thought about XYZ treatment, etc.?

To put this in perspective, think of asking a cancer patient or someone who just had a leg amputated questions like:

• With so many people diagnosed with cancer did you ever think about changing your diet prior to being diagnosed?
• Are you really doing all you can in your treatments?
• Does it bother you that your hair is falling out so soon from treatments?
• Did you really do everything you could to save your leg?
• I see how you’re limping, have you tried walking like this?
• Couldn’t the doctors have done more?
• It has only been a week, but do you miss your leg yet?

Constant inquiry on how one is doing combined with questioning how one is treating their injury/illness just weigh on the person. They act as constant reminders of their struggles. The questioning comes across as second guessing the person that they are not doing all they can to take care of their problems.

The people with the injury/illness might live daily struggling and praying to get well. I have been told that the questioning makes it that much harder to deal with. It can even make fellowship hard because of what seem like thoughtless questions. The injured/ill have most likely sought out several options and gone over them with their doctor(s). Yes, they have probably even been on WebMD.

Fairness to the concerned is due, however.

The people asking those injured/ill mean no harm. Even when they suggest “solutions” and appear to second guess they are trying to be helpful. They really do care. That is why they are asking. The intent is to help the person get well as they continue praying. The intentions are noble, but can come across as inconsiderate in a given situation.

This is where the injured/ill need to have some grace. They need to understand that people are only trying to care for them. They should be thankful for the concern and prayers.

So how do Christians better communicate in these situations? As mentioned above, these are not isolated occurrences. These experiences come from different people in different churches.

Seeking advice for future edification.

• Have any of you had any experiences like the above? Care to share how you dealt with the situation?

• What is the best way to explain to people who care and question like above?

• Thoughts in general on the whole situation?

Remember, be gracious in your reply.

Church is boring. Right?

No matter what setting one is in the same basic activities are done each worship service. Sing, pray, Scripture reading, announcements, some sort of preaching, fellowship. Did I mention singing? However a worship service is set-up it is most likely going to be similar week after week.

Even if worship time is more varied people will still think it boring at times.

Whether it is boredom or some other attitude of doom it all points back to the lens in which worship time is viewed. The lens of sin. Of course, everything you do is tainted by sin as God is sanctifying you. This does not mean that every thought is not taken captive and focused on Christ as Scripture commands in 2 Corinthians 10:5-6.

God gives everything from jobs to homes to families. Some even complain about these things! Many people hate their jobs yet put up with them daily because they feel they have to. Yet, the same people come freely to worship God and complain about being bored.

God is not here to entertain you.

God does not need worship as if it completes Him in some way. Sinners on the other hand… Sinners, you, need to worship God. You experience God’s grace in forgiveness, mercy, love, fellowship, etc. in worship. And, you get to go home thankful afterward.

You get all of this in spite of yourself. God accepts your worship in spite of that last sinful thought prior to singing or saying that last “Amen.”

God accepts your worship and feeds you spiritually during worship all because of what Jesus has done on your behalf in the Gospel. You do not even deserve to worship the way you do! Nor to complain about it.

If you think that your boredom problem is a need to be met, you do not understand your true needs in Christ.

What do you tell people who complain about being bored? Or who complain about any aspect of the worship service? What do you tell yourself?

To sign or not to sign the Manhattan Declaration(MD)? That… is a good question.

For the most part it seems to have been received on a positive note. There has been some push back though. For example, Albert Mohler felt the need to explain why he signed the MD. Fellow blogger Frank Turk explained why he did not sign. I will attempt to lay out my stance on this document. (Which basically agrees with those in the update below.)

As it is now, I stand more in agreement with Turk. It is not that the MD is not seeking noble causes.  Social change is also important and Christians should be involved. In a recent article Obama, abortion, health care, Solomon’s wisdom I said the following.

Of course, simply changing a law will not change someone’s heart. Though laws can make it more difficult to commit such an act. Changing a law could help someone consider what they are actually doing when getting an abortion. There is no harm in pursuing dialogue on such an immoral act via a change of law.

The answer for Christians is, of course, the Gospel of Jesus Christ which does change hearts. Since we live under a form of government that allows citizens to be involved and cause change the right moral thing to do is press on against abortion.

Christians will partner with those whom they do not theologically agree. This could be non-Christians or groups defined as Christian sociologically. These groups may work politically toward certain moral laws that are seen as best for society. For the Christian in these instances the Gospel should always be the grounding doctrine for why they act for such change. However, when Christians get politically involved the Gospel sometimes (many times?) gets blurred. The outside world gets the wrong idea of what is a Christian. There are also times when different groups with different Gospels unite for certain causes which again, in my opinion, blur the Gospel.

This is what I believe the Manhattan Declaration does.

There is an impressive list of religious leaders who have signed. For better or for worse, this should not automatically persuade one to sign. The full document along with those leaders who have signed can be found at The Manhattan Declaration & Signers. I would like to point out a few instances that give me pause in signing that have to do with the Gospel.

The Preamble states.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.

This is a good position from which to start. It grounds the motivation for such positions in the Gospel. The question becomes as one continues reading – Which Gospel?

Right after in the Declaration it reads.

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities.

These three traditions in general do not share a common faith neither historically nor as their current theological positions stand. This statement also lends itself for me to declare, as an individual Christian, not on behalf of my organization, that I have disagreements with statements pertaining to the Gospel in this document.

We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences…It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

These statements seem to further clarify the attempted unity of different Gospels from which to work. The statements demand a clear definition of the Gospel or there is no real foundation from which to build. The differences also seem to go beyond simple ecclesial differences to foundational differences.

Under Marriage.

Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

Another Gospel statement. Whose more excellent way? Which path?

Under Religious Liberty.

The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ.

This life and work of Jesus is, again, a proclamation of the Gospel. It demands a clear definition.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel.

Fine. We should all proclaim the Gospel. Which one? If these “ecclesial” lines can line up together in the Gospel without confusion then this statement and the others make sense. If not, where does the real agreement lie? My vote based on the way the MD is written brings confusion rather than clarity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself.

There is no doubt that King was used in a great way for positive political and societal change. The historical record stands. However, when it comes to the Gospel there is another record that stands. King’s own theological writings. For example, a section from Stanford’s King Encyclopedia quotes King.

At the age of 13 I shocked my Sunday School class by denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus. From the age of thirteen on doubts began to spring forth unrelentingly. At the age of fifteen I entered college and more and more could I see a gap between what I had learned in Sunday School and what I was learning in college. This conflict continued until I studied a course in Bible in which I came to see that behind the legends and myths of the Book were many profound truths which one could not escape. [emphasis mine]

In King’s The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus the encyclopedia states.

As he had done in his earlier outline of William Newton Clarke’s An Outline of Christian Theology, King dismisses the conception of an inherent divinity in Jesus and concludes: “The true significance of the divinity of Christ lies in the fact that his achievement is prophetic and promissory for every other true son of man who is willing to submit his will to the will and spirit [of] God.” [emphasis mine]

Those are two examples of King’s theology of which none of the above ecclesial bodies would agree. It is not know whether or not King changed his views later in life to embrace orthodox Christianity. Again, there is no denial of the great moral social and political change King was instrumental in causing. Yet, these historical statements from King deny the Gospel. It is yet another example of blurring the Gospel in this document.

The intention of this post is not to impugn my brothers and sisters in Christ. It is to express another view from one whose conscience says “no” to signing this document. Agree or disagree, I’ve expressed my concerns. If another Christian can sign with a clear conscience they are free to do so. Disagreeing with signing this document should not break fellowship. It should further healthy debate.

Iron sharpens iron.

Update: Others who declined signing

• Alistair Begg
• Michael Horton
• John MacArthur
• R.C. Sproul
• James White
• Steve Camp

In An Idol Called Evangelism Dr. Roy Hargrave states that evangelism rather than the glory of God is driving many churches today.

That might be too strong a position for some to fathom. Maybe unbiblical for others. It is not often that evangelism is spoken of in terms of idolatry. It is an uncomfortable question. Evangelism is very important, but people are good at making just about anything into an idol. So – Could there be a valid concern in this area?

Dr. Hargrave understands that evangelism is the “highest and loftiest” in importance for fulfilling the church’s mission. The issue he is tackling is slightly different as expressed on page 8 of An Idol Called Evangelism.

The problem, however, arises when evangelism is considered an end in itself. It is of utmost importance that the church recognizes evangelism as a means to an end-no an end in itself. The end of all things, including evangelism, is God and His manifested glory.

When evangelism is seen in this ligh, the motive becomes worship instead of mere duty, and it is properly centered upon God and not the creature.

I mentioned this page 16 booklet back in 2007 and recently took another look at it. Can evangelism become an idol? Is it? What are your thoughts? What does it look like when evangelism is an idol?

The sixth session of the Council of Trent,the Canons Concerning Justification, anathematizes me how many times?

Else where in the meta Dan Phillips mentioned to me that we should have a contest.

“How many Romish anathemas can you rack up?”

I decided to count the number of anathemas that I am under from the 33 canons on justification. My count is 23 anathemas as I understand the canons. I tried to consider any nuances. Keep in mind that this is only 1 of 25 sessions of Trent.

It is a wonder if the doctrines of faith alone and imputed righteousness matter anymore. Trent has not changed so the wondering is of the Protestant side. It would not be difficult to find evidence that the doctrines are minimized today. One example is the upcoming National Conference on Christian Apologetics to be held at a baptist church which includes three (as best I can tell) Roman Catholics presenters. (As James White mentions the speakers may not have known who they were to share the stage with.) Another example comes from one of the observations from a recent evangelical conference on evangelism at the 9Marks blog.

Jonathan Leeman in Beware Your Seminary Professors writes the following.

Most of the speakers seemed only too happy to treat Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox as “brothers and sisters in the faith,” as easily as a Baptist might refer to a Presbyterian. Now, I trust that some RC and GOs are Christians, but such unqualified, unnuanced passing remarks effectively dismiss the Reformation and jeopardize souls. Don’t you realize the effect your passing comments have on sheep?

There are two recent examples from the evangelical side of things that seem to gloss over the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics. To compromise the theological differences in an apologetics and an evangelism conference makes no sense. In both of these areas the Gospel is central. These mixes are like oil and water.

The canons in question are listed below. Also, here are two resources explaining sola fide: 1 – An mp3 from the Issues, Etc. radio show: The Reformation and Its Theology: Faith Alone. 2 – Justification by Faith Alone: The Relation of Faith to Justification by Dr. Joel Beeke.

Oh Anathema, My Anathema

Canon 4.
If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Canon 6.
If anyone says that it is not in man’s power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil as well as those that are good God produces, not permissively only but also propria et per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be anathema.

Canon 7.
If anyone says that all works done before justification, in whatever manner they may be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon 9.
If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 12.
If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 13.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema.

Canon 14.
If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that by this faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema.

Canon 15.
If anyone says that a man who is born again and justified is bound ex fide to believe that he is certainly in the number of the predestined, let him be anathema.

Canon 17.
If anyone says that the grace of justification is shared by those only who are predestined to life, but that all others who are called are called indeed but receive not grace, as if they are by divine power predestined to evil, let him be anathema.

Canon 18.
If anyone says that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to observe, let him be anathema.

Canon 19.
If anyone says that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel, that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor forbidden, but free; or that the ten commandments in no way pertain to Christians, let him be anathema.

Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe, as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

Canon 24.
If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 25.
If anyone says that in every good work the just man sins at least venially, or, what is more intolerable, mortally, and hence merits eternal punishment, and that he is not damned for this reason only, because God does not impute these works into damnation, let him be anathema.

Canon 26.
If anyone says that the just ought not for the good works done in God to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and by keeping the divine commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Canon 27.
If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief, or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.

Canon 29.
If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism cannot by the grace of God rise again, or that he can indeed recover again the lost justice but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Universal Church, instructed by Christ the Lord and His Apostles, has hitherto professed, observed and taught, let him be anathema.

Canon 30.
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened,[132] let him be anathema.

Canon 31.
If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, let him be anathema.

Canon 32.
If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.

Canon 33.
If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be anathema.

What did I miss? What did I let slip through?

Thoughts?

Today is Blog Action Day 2009. The topic this year is climate change. The most talked about in this area may be global warming. Global warming is here to stay. The question becomes – What are we going to do about it?

Global warming is here, but not necessarily in a literal sense. It exists as an assertion both politically and socially. Recently, Al Gore was asked some inconvenient questions at the Society of Environmental Journalists conference. The British High Court found many errors in Gore’s film and the journalist began asking about those errors until his microphone was turned off.

One of the solutions is an open and honest dialogue without the actions that took place at this conference. The main stream does not even consider sites like Global Warming Hoax or GlobalWarming.org. Instead, Al Gore gets a Nobel Peace prize and the press coverage to push his agenda. It is awfully hard to not call it an agenda when a politician gets his say, turns off microphones to his questioners and recent studies cited from the journal of Geophysical Research Letters get little to no coverage.

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009.

As a Christian, I believe the earth will continue to deteriorate until Christ comes again and brings in the new heaven and new earth. However, this does not diminish responsibility for the world which God has given man dominion over. The disagreement lies with out this is worked out.

The Cornwall Alliance is an organization that offers a more balanced and biblical approach to climate change. Like many issues both sides (the other side) need a better hearing. The proposed solution of government as the solution to alleged global warming may be the easy answer, but not necessarily the right one. It is not clear why so many find comfort in trying to decrease the carbon footprint while increasing Uncle Sam’s. It is a wonder if Al Gore’s carbon footprint has decreased to the point that he calls others’ to since his attempt to fight global warming started.

Thankfully, there are other movements to promote the other side of the debate. One such movement is in the upcoming movie of this trailer promo for the Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria. Also, more information is available in the press kit.

My friend and brother Nathan and I have had a short twitter discussion on whether Christian hip-hop harms the Gospel.

This issue came up in reference to Mark Dever’s recent interview with Christian rappers Shai Linne and Voice. I actually interviewed Christian hip-hop Artist Sho Baraka. Then, I attended the the Don’t Waste Your Life tour concert and posted a review. This should give the readers an idea of where I stand.

The verdict? I do not think Christian hip-hop harms the Gospel. However, Nathan believes that the medium of hip-hop music contradicts and is inconsistent with the message of the Gospel.

It seems that any style of music has the ability to be inconsistent with and contradict the Gospel.

What do you think? Love to know your answer above and explanation in the comments!

Mark

P.S. Nathan is a good friend and neighbor. Please do not be insulting toward him.

What can Christians learn about the Gospel and change from abortion counseling?

I recently attended a fundraiser for Cobb Pregnancy Services (CPS). It was a great night of fellowship and celebration of what God is doing at this organization. A young pregnant lady gave her testimony of how God used CPS to convince her to return to Christ and keep her baby. Great news, but she spoke of having a boyfriend not a husband.

Do not misunderstand. Praise be to God! She has come back to Christ, is keeping her baby and getting future plans in place the right way. However, she is not the issue. The issue is how she was counseled to keep her baby. Think in terms of the Gospel, morality and political activism.

These three items are fine for Christian involvement, especially evangelism. Some (many) times though Christians get the process a little backwards. Correct morality and political views often get the primary emphasis while the Gospel becomes secondary. Consider the abortion counseling in the above case. The young lady was not told that she first must marry her boyfriend and get her life in the “correct” order before considering keeping her baby. This would actually encourage an abortion so that another pregnancy could then take place in its proper order.

The conversation would sound something like – “I’m sorry. We do not want you to have an abortion, but since you have not done things in the proper order of marriage, sex, pregnancy, etc. you have to start all over and get right for God.” It is a good thing that this is not the counseling process that takes place in these situations. The person is met where they are sins and all, given the Gospel and then motivated to true change through Christ.

Person + Gospel = Change

People do not get right with God based upon proper moral order, etc. God transforms sinners making them right for Himself. This is not to say that Christians should not fight for what is biblically proper for a better society. But this only changes some laws and actions not people. The fight for a moral society must be grounded in the Gospel.

The Gospel is the reason for not aborting a baby just as it is the reason for working for both moral and political change. When the Gospel is assumed and unspoken the Christian offers nothing more than a personal opinion. If the person(s) who is presented with the Gospel rejects it, they will at least know the true motivation is not based on change for the sake of change. They will know it is based objectively on the Person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Sinners do not put on clean clothes so Jesus will meet them; Jesus meets them to give them clean clothes.

Tullian Tchividjian will stay as pastor of  Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church per a congregational vote of 69%-31% this morning.

“I’m staying!!,” wrote pastor Tchividjian in the title of today’s blog post about the future of his pastoral role at Coral Ridge.The pressure on this new pastor must have been unbelievable in anticipation of this vote. A great example of trusting God can be seen in a previous post saying, “I am not afraid.” in reference to today’s vote.  His mission is to glorify God regardless of the outcome.

What a great example to clergy and layman alike. There are some humble words by Tchividjian in the official press release.  He understands the difficulty a new pastor poses for a “church which has known only one pastor in its 50-year history.” Tchividjian was already pastoring a 700 member congregation when he took the pastorate at Coral Ridge.

Then, approximately six months* later he finds himself at the displeasure of six members. The reasons? According to the press release Tchividjian’s failings included changes in the “traditional style of worship and certain personnel changes.” Unfortunately, these are some what understandable since they are common complaints when such changes occur. However, the most unbelievable charges were:

Tchividjian’s failure to address issues such as “The Freedom of Choice Act, The Fairness Doctrine, Hate Crimes legislation and all kinds of efforts to promote socialism” from the pulpit.

This does make sense in light of how former pastor Kennedy approached such issues. Generally speaking one would hope the average church goer would reply with, “Huh?” This is not to say that these are necessarily bad causes. Yet, the Gospel must be at the center of such change.

Voting changes the rules not the heart. One might argue that to present the Gospel along side such legal/social issues is the real answer. Why? Does the Gospel alone change hearts? And then the biblical discipleship that takes place to shape that changed heart?

Yesterday’s post included Ephesians 4:12 “to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ” (ESV). This is a good description of what is desired from the pulpit. Including those American political/social issues as Tchividjian’s detractors wanted only takes away from the time the pastors preaches from the Bible. Not to mention the potential to blur the lines between Gospel and political action.

This seems the very thing the emergent crowd has complained about concerning conservative Christians. Some younger conservative Christian’s today seems to find a bit of agreement here. What might be called the “missional” (even if a bit over used) movement seem to agree that church is not a Political Action Committee.

The tough question is: What lessons can be learned from this whole experience?

*Corrected: Tchividjian was approved as pastor on March 15, 2009. Kennedy passed away approximately two years ago in Sept. 2007.

If the messages on the signs are not disturbing enough, how about the people holding them? They are children! My heart breaks to see a picture like this just hoping it is a photo-shopped picture. Unfortunately, it is not.

Last week I wrote Westboro Baptist To Share Hate In Atlanta to give folks a heads up. There are several recent church plants in Atlanta that are trying to save the city, so to speak, that it is sad that the Westboro folks come here allegedly in the name of Christ. It just ruins the witness of what Christians are seeking to do with bringing the Gospel to a broken city.

Thankfully, last year Pastor Josh Buice evangelized, interviewed and then reviewed the Westboro folks. I’ve provided links below to his posts. The series of posts is very insightful. It might help some of you Atlanta folks who might want to approach Westboro. I might be there myself, Lord willing. Though that is still being worked out.

• Why I Witnessed To Westboro ‘Baptist’
• OFFICIAL: Westboro Baptist Church Interview – PART I
• OFFICIAL: Westboro Baptist Church Interview – Part II
• RESPONSE #1: Westboro’s Gospel Error
• RESPONSE #2: Westboro’s Great Commission Error

UPDATE: I’ve compiled the above posts into one pdf file. Thanks again to brother Josh for his hard work in this area. Download here: Westboro Baptist Church Revealed

I’d love to hear some feedback on the above or if anyone has had any personal interactions.

Also, are there any Atlanta folks out there that would like to evangelize Westboro?

Bonus: Check out this Interview with Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church Chris Rosebrough did.

Should Christians feel guilty about just saying ‘no‘ when asked to do something for the church/member? When the answer is ‘no‘ is an explanation needed? Do you feel an explanation is demanded? Do you feel like you’re sinning if you just say ‘no‘?

Do you feel the need to explain every detail of the last week of your life to explain why your simple answer is ‘no‘?

Must we explain ourselves? I’m curious. What do you think?

Feel free to share your feelings too!

~Please answer the poll below~

So I’m driving. I hear “Lord kill me If I don’t preach the gospel.” What? Did I hear that right? Rewind! Again. Yep! That line really hit me. It made me think. Imagine singing that in church to the tune of Amazing Grace.

This was not from a hymn though. (Maybe we can add it somewhere?) “Lord kill me If I don’t preach the gospel” is the first verse in Lecrae’s song Go Hard from his album Rebel. Lord willing, I will be at the Don’t Waste Your Life concert this weekend hearing it live. That’s right, this not-so-old yet not-so-young white guy will be there.

So, this week I’ve been listening to music while driving rather than my normal geeked out theology podcasts. And don’t picture me as Michael Bolton in Office Space sitting in traffic listening to Scarface. I’ve been listening to Lecrae and Sho Baraka. I had the pleasure of interviewing Sho this week which was awesome.

I already knew the lyrics of these hip-hop artists were theologically solid. You’re not going to find any ‘God is my girlfriend’ songs as my friend Steve Camp puts it.

Instead, you will find verses like in my title. Or from Lecrae’s Change, “Now you got oprah on,thinking maybe she can help you out your hopeless zone.” Or Tedashii’s Make War, “Whatever the sin is we gotta go go go harder, By His grace no time to waste and just just just like there’s no tomorrow.” Or Sho Baraka’s 100, “Sometimes I see the wicked and I lust for their things, but then I see the Lord and I trust in the King.”

Not everyone is going to get the lyrics right away nor will everyone appreciate the sound. I get that. Since country music exists I really do understand! However, the target audience will like the sound and get the lyrics. I’m thankful these brothers in the Lord are out there reaching into a hip-hop culture of those who otherwise might be over looked.

I still can’t get that line out of my head. “Lord kill me If I don’t preach the gospel.” It might be a slightly different perspective, but what a thought. What a great reminder of our sovereign God who saves sinners through the preaching of the Gospel. A great reminder to preach the Gospel to ourselves and others.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry edited by Tom Ascol. Cape Coral: Founders Press, 2004. 384 pages.

Many times in life we wish we had a practical “how to” guide for the various activities of which we are involved (i.e. new job, volunteer work). Dear Timothy: Letters on Pastoral Ministry edited by Thomas Ascol is a book that could certainly be characterized as a “how to” for pastoral ministry. The book is not a “how to” in the sense of giving answers for every single issue a pastor might face. However, it does cover a wide range of that will help equip the pastor when he must deal with various issues. While this book is “written from experienced, active pastors to a young, inexperienced pastor” (10) it could be a great reference book for the experienced pastor. Much encouragement can be found from the advice of the 19 different pastors who authored the chapters.

The authors offer a full range of practical advice for pastoral ministry. The topics cover many areas of the pastors life from daily scheduling, loving his family and flock to preaching, training others and worship. This variety of topics really show that the pastors life is much more than just preparing sermons and then preaching them on Sunday.

One of the things that makes this book unique is that it is written in letter format. Taking its cue from the Apostle Paul writing letters of pastoral instruction to Timothy the book has a very personal feel and is easy to read. This style of writing is very helpful for a book like this that gives practical advice. In this format the advice seems much easier to heed. The authors themselves show by example how to graciously approach the “Timothys” to whom they wrote.

Even in their gracious approach they unapologetically express the challenges pastors face in their lives. The depth and responsibilities of a pastor are far greater than anyone on the outside can imagine. Those responsibilities are laid out and what it takes to handle them is explained. The charge for the pastor to apply to his own life the same biblical truths he leads others in are found throughout the book. Pastors should be an example for their flock. Part of this example is being spiritually healthy. The importance of the health of the pastor’s own spiritual life is well stated and dealt with throughout each chapter. The authors make this practical connection well.

The first chapter, for example, encourages pastors to set priorities in their own lives. Immediately, the author explains that a pastor’s balanced life is “one of the greatest ongoing challenges” (23). Helping others understand God’s priorities for their lives starts with understanding one’s own. This chapter will help the new pastor develop priorities in his life explaining how he is, in order: a Christian, husband, father, pastor. This is a very helpful advice by which to assess one’s self and not get bogged down in pastoral affairs leaving one’s family at bay.

This book starts with core spiritual foundations for the pastors life. For example, chapter two moves right into the charge that the pastor must watch his own life closely. This is so even for the gifted pastor whose handling of Scripture is “head and shoulders above an average preacher” because there is nothing more important than “self-watch” (38). The emphasis here is that the pastor is also a Christian in Christ’s flock. He too must constantly draw near to God and establish disciplines in his life. The book continues in this manner of touching on the major issues a pastor faces with many underlying minor issues.

Especially helpful was the first of two chapters by Joel Beeke which included several pages on how to meditate on Scripture. Meditation in the United States is often portrayed in the manner of Eastern religious type of practice i.e. sitting with ones legs crossed either silently or humming a certain word. Dr. Beeke’s first chapter takes the reader through the puritan practice of meditating on Scripture. It’s a very good section that not only lays out the process, but explains it along the way. He even offers advice on follow-up and application. This puritan process fits nicely into the framework of really seeking God in ones personal and quiet times.

Explaining how to meditate ties right back into the books emphasis on the importance of the pastors personal spiritual life. The importance of the pastors personal life is either explicit or implicit in each chapter. This really broadened and deepened my view of the work of the ministry in a pastors life. Not only is the pastor responsible for his flock, but he too must be aware of his own spiritual health. The health of the pastors personal life is deeply connected to the health of his flock. The reader should come away with a great respect for the work a pastor does day in and day out. If the reader takes this book to heart he might more clearly understand why the pastorate is not a vocation for everyone.

The material presented in this book is straight forward, honest and challenging. This makes it all the more worthwhile and applicable to young pastors who are the target audience. I would certainly recommend it to them. However, I would also recommend it to those aspiring to the office of pastor as well as those seasoned pastors. The simple yet practicalness of this book make for great reminders for all around self-examination. It is also an easy read with its letter format and personal approach. There is one more group of people I would recommend this book to, any church member. The understanding a member of the flock would gain would be nothing but beneficial for the body of Christ. By all means give it a read and be encouraged.

For the Kingdom…

Mark

Not long ago many people came to the conclusion that John Hagee denied that Jesus was the Messiah in his book In Defense of Israel. I was one of those people. What drove my conclusion was reading parts of the book and listening to audio of Hagee. Despite our theological disagreements this alleged belief of his was very disconcerting. Especially, given the amount of people he reaches each week.

Hagee has now offered some clarification explaining that he does not deny Jesus is the Messiah. He published his response in the article A Special Message from Pastor John Hagee Regarding His Book In Defense of Israel. Though we still don’t agree on several points I’m glad he clarified. It is good to know that he is not denying the Gospel on this point by denying Jesus is the Messiah.

I don’t have time to interact right now. I want to offer a few quotes from the article that stood out to me though. Maybe some of you can give some of your own feedback.

I chose to use challenging language that I hoped would confront the body of Christ to consider events from the Jewish and historical perspective and therefore develop greater empathy for our Jewish friends.

Over the centuries, Christians have been quick to condemn the Jews for failing to recognize Jesus as Messiah. This approach led to replacement theology and the viewpoint of some that God has rejected and broken covenant with the Jewish people. These ideas, in turn, opened the door to a vicious Christian anti-Semitism that led to the Crusades, the Inquisition and countless pogroms.

Jesus came the first time as the suffering Messiah, as exemplified by His persecution, rejection and crucifixion. Jesus will come back as the reigning Messiah, who will rule the world from His throne in Jerusalem as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

The primary change will involve how I use the word “Messiah.” In the expanded version, I will clarify the clear distinction between the “Suffering Messiah,” the Lamb of God and the “Reigning Messiah,” the Lion of the Tribe of Judah!

I also hope that we can return our focus to what I had anticipated to highlight all along, the fact that we Christians must shift from condemning the Jews for what they missed to thanking them for what they gave.

What do you think? Remember grace!

For what it’s worth…

Mark

As you go to worship tomorrow or whenever the next Lord’s Day is think about why your worshiping. Are you worshiping as a means to find total satisfaction in God? What might be some wrong motivations? Below I’ve reformatted a paragraph from Brothers, We Are Not Professionals by John Piper, page 240. Read this list and consider your reasons for worshiping.

We “worship” to raise money

We “worship” to attract crowds

We “worship” to heal human hurts

We “worship” to recruit workers

We “worship” improve church morale

We “worship” to give talented musicians an opportunity to fulfill their calling

We “worship” to teach our children the way or righteousness

We “worship” to help marriages stay together

We “worship” to evangelize the lost among us

We “worship” to motivate people for service projects

We “worship” to give our churches a family feeling, etc.

Now re-consider. Seek Jesus.

For the Kingdom…

Mark

So what do you do believe pastor? Do you hold to X-theology or Y-theology? Which is it Xism or Yism? If you hold to Xism we must have full disclosure!

OK, those aren’t exactly real questions. Though it’s been said more than once in Southern Baptist life that if a pastor holds to X-theology, he should offer full disclosure to the search committee. What hasn’t been say is that given the same situation that Y-theology should also be disclosed. It’s even been charged that a pastor holding to X or Y theology might come in and totally wreck an otherwise healthy church.

The wrecking of churches may or may not have merit. It’s hard to broadbrush in such a way. I would also add that what congregations do with their pastors is very sad today. Churches go through a pastor every 3 – 5 years depending on which stats you go by. I would argue that this hardly constitutes a “healthy” congregation all around. OK, off the rabbit trail.

A disclosure isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It may not always be the best idea either. Whatever the disclosure is either X or Y theology doesn’t always clear the mudd for the search committee. Depending on just how theologically astute the search committe members are can make the difference. So a flat out disclosure might hurt more than it helps. Even so, I have another suggestion for disclosure outside of Xism and Yism.

Better SBC Disclosure

OK, I’m speaking larger scale here as it comes to Southern Baptist theological disclosures. Recent emphasis has been on the Great Commission Resurgence which I don’t see as pointing to theology X or Y. Instead, I think the theological disclosure questions should be built around the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 (BFM). Even the SBC site’s Basic Belief’s section points to this document.

Southern Baptists have prepared a statement of generally held convictions called The Baptist Faith and Message. It serves as a guide to understanding who they are.

It may even been a good idea for the candidate to ask the search committee about the BFM. This may not be a perfect starting place, but it’s as good as any. This is the very theological document which Southern Baptist churches cooperate around. It only makes sense to start there as I see it.

My question might be: I understand your concern over theology X or Y. May I first ask you about the BFM and your churches stance on it? As I look to minister in a Southern Baptist church I do hold to the BFM and thought it wise that we first visit that document and work from there.

Good idea? Other thoughts?

Mark

David Fitch has asked if we agree or disagree with his views on the work of The Gospel Coalition (TGC).  His views are expressed at Christianity Today’s Out of Ur blog post: Gospel Coalition or Expedition? How effective will The Gospel Coalition be in post-Christendom?

One of the problems with Fitch’s approach can be seen in his introduction. 

Here are five statements that encapsulate what I think TGC is implying in their work so far. [Emphasis mine]

He is building his response to his personal implications he gathered rather than what TGC has actually put forth.   TGC has spelled out their positions, understanding of the Gospel, ministry vision, etc. in their foundation documents.  Let’s look Fitch’s issues.

Pure Doctrinal Foundations

… impulse in the TGC… just get our doctrine right (…version of Reformed orthodoxy) …then mission and church renewal will follow.

Is this merely an impulse in TGC or an actual position?  TGC is not about just getting doctrine right in the sense of mere intellectual knowing.  Getting doctrine right is beyond mere assent it is biblical and motivating.  My question is – If we don’t get our doctrine right then what will follow?  If we aren’t driven by doctrine, our beliefs, then what drives us?  If Fitch is arguing against TGC doctrine is he then arguing for his own doctrinal positions?  If this is so, then he is defeated by his own argument.  If not, then he is essentially agruing for nothing.  Or, no doctrine.

…this is not 16th-century Europe…not the 1920’s North America, where the majority mainline Protestant population, under the influence of modernist liberalism… In post-Christendom territory there are very few Christians of any kind left who have any doctrine to be renewed.

Correct, we are not in those time eras.  We are, however, dealing with liberalism today. The Roman Catholic church is still very influential today through there social and political actions.  I would argue that not only do we need doctrinal renewal.  We need explicit, indepth doctrinal teaching.

The Reformation

The Reformation gave birth to the solas, especially sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone), which in their time called people to renewed purity and personal commitment to the gospel… We must be sober about the doctrinal problems of the Reformation that elevate the individual and isolate Scripture (as an authority and conceptual document) away from the church and a way of life.

It was not sola scriptura and sola fide that promoted individualism and an isolated understanding of Scripture.  It was the misapplication of said doctrines.  In the USA, it would be the comingling of misapplication with the American Way that has caused many of the problems we have today.  This is the very thing TGC is seeking to combat.  A proper understanding and application of sola scriptura and sola fide takes us away from indivualism.  Sinful men will continue to abuse and misuse truths until the Lord returns.  It happened all throughout history even when God was literally speaking directly to His prophets.  The abuse and misuse of sound doctrine is no reason to abadone it.  All the much more reason for doctrinal renewal.

Female Pastors

I characterize the view of women in ministry in the TGC as 1) based in an inerrancy view of the text, which 2) latches on to texts as if they were isolated units of universal teaching on women, which then 3) leaves them blind to the New Testament’s overall elevation of women into ministerial authority in the church.

Fitch’s view of women in ministry seem to be based on 1) an errant and cultural conformity of the text, which 2) latches on to the text questioning the existence of any universal teaching, which then 3) leaves him blind in even being able to define women’s roles of ministry in the church.

Notice, Fitch’s statements are really just a pitch for his doctrinal position.  This is fine, but he shouldn’t act as if TGC should change their stance to comfort his when position cannot do likewise.

But I believe that the New Testament calls women into full participation in the new authority of the Kingdom unleashed in the church (this means I affirm the full ordination of women).

This is not merely a Protestant position.  Fitch is defining his view of women and “full participation” in a way that must include ordination.  There is no reason we cannot have full participation without ordination.  Just because he doesn’t hold the same position as TGC (or Roman Catholic and conservative Protestants) doesn’t mean this will cause a downfall for TGC’s vision.

I believe TGC will be impotent to engage the culture of post Christendom if it cannot give witness to the new “politics of Jesus” in its gender politics.

Is Fitch implying we must forgo our doctrinal beliefs just to be more culturally relevant?  Haven’t American evangelicals been involved enough in politics to the detriment of the Gospel?  Do we need more?  Maybe I don’t quite understand what Fitch means by “politics of Jesus”.  Besides, in this age of accept everyone and everything should TGC’s position on this be just fine?

The New Perspective

John Piper and Don Carson have energetically sought to dismantle the “new perspective” on Paul…it is a mistake to see the new perspective as the enemy. ..we will forever be hindered from socially embodying the gospel…worse, emerging Christians will continue to make the error of separating social justice from the redemption of the individual in Christ.

I agree with Fitch that the emerging folks do err in separating social justice from redemption.  This is one of the things TGC is seeking to answer with a proper understanding of justification and the Gospel.  The New Perspective also takes us back to one of Fitch’s earlier statements about the 16th century and Roman Catholicism.  The New Perspective might actually open the door for Protestants to move to the Roman church so even here it is a problem.  Again, these things are actually reasons to support TGC with its quest for renewal.

Megachurches

Because of their tendencies to individualize the gospel, the reading of Scripture, and salvation and to separate doctrine from “way of life,” TGC does not see the problem of the megachurch for the future.

I’m not necessarily a “fan” of megachurches.  They too have their problems.  This doesn’t mean though that they will be less healthy than a church of 50.  Also, is it the megachurch or the American cultural influences and improper undertanding of the Gospel that leads to individualism?

…gospel must take root in a social communal embodiment, where the gospel can be seen, heard, understood, and experienced by those completely foreign to our faith in Christ.

Agreed.

This kind of communal embodiment is nigh impossible in mega sized organizations (although I’ve seen it at least once).

Yes, this can be very tough in large groups.  I agree.  It doesn’t mean that this problem is limited to the megas though.  Yet, more reasons to promote TGC.

…solid preaching and culturally relative apologetics will gather post-Christendom into its churches. I fear TGC then becomes a force for coalescing mega-size churches that preach to the already initiated.

OK, if post-Christendom gathers in these megachurches wouldn’t this tell us that TGC’s vision is working?  Also, if these churches are growing via post-Christendom wouldn’t this mean folks are “already initiated” or else the churches wouldn’t be growing?  In the very least if post-Christendom regularly attend megachurches aren’t they being initiated?  As I understand it, primarly to worship God not to build around what does or does not attract post-Christendom.  TGC calls for much more than preaching and apologetics.  It calls for living out the Gospel in all areas, not just Sunday morning, but all areas of our lives.  It seems to be a good biblical solution to me.

The bottomline is TGC’s vision, if followed, will cause many renewed Christian lives for the Gospel.  Its motivation is for whole-life Gospel living.  If TGC’s vision fails it’s not for lack of its biblical roots.  It’s for lack of sinful men not living the Gospel.

Agree?  Disagree?  What did I miss?

For what it’s worth…

Mark