What would you do Wednesday!

Freemasonry is not as active as it was in the past. It was already on the decline when I left the lodge 13 years ago. Although I imagine the Shriners, of whom all are Masons, are still pretty active.

Freemasonry was once a concern in Southern Baptist life. In fact, the North American Mission Board’s apologetics website has a few resources on Freemasonry under “New Religions and Cults.”¹

A 1993 Southern Baptist study on Freemasonry concluded with a list of items showing where Freemasonry and Christianity were not compatible. However, the report also acknowledged:

That many oustanding Christians and Southern Baptists now are, and in the past have been Masons, including such notable past Southern Baptist leaders as B.H. Carroll, George W. Truett, L.R. Scarborough, W.T. Connor, Louie D. Newton, and J.B. Lawrence.²

What if you discovered that the deacons in your church were Freemasons?

Imagine that you have been attending a local church for a year. In the last few months you began to know a few of the deacons a little better. During that time you also began noticing that most of the deacons wore similar lapel pins.

Finally, you get a chance to privately ask one of the deacons about the pins. This deacon is glad you asked. He explains that they are Freemasonry pins and that all of the deacons are Masons. He was hoping that you would ask since Masons are forbidden from actively recruiting.

“Freemasons have always been part of this church,” the deacon explains. “Years ago we dedicated the Family Life Center in the name of our lodge,” he says as he walks you around to the dedicated stone that is etched with date, church name and Masonic symbols. The deacon encouragingly asks if you have anymore questions about Masonry?

What would you do?

• Ask more about Freemasonry including how to join.
• Ask about how Freemasonry lines up with Christianity.
• Say thanks, but no thanks.
• Talk with the pastor about this issue.
• Smash the Masonic stone and tell the deacon to repent.
• Or…

________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign
2. Ethics: Potential Deacon Struggling with Pornography
3. Ethics: Female Pastor Presented to Preach Sunday Morning

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

First, James White weighs in on his Dividing Line radio show for two hours. There were so many listeners that the servers crashed.  Find the link and a description below.

A Mega-Friday DL on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

In any case, I addressed the TD Jakes: is he a Trinitarian? issue head on during the first hour, and then took calls on the topic for a full hour after that. The callers were wide ranging, and while none defended the ER or Jakes, they did provide some good insights. Lots of positive feedback on Twitter and FaceBook. Hope it will be helpful! Here’s the program.

Next, a past resource from 9Marks by Greg Gilbert who reviews 11 various books by T.D. Jakes. It seems that Jakes’ theology improved somewhat with the new books on Ephesians. Check the link for more on the titles listed below. (HT: Keith L. Tolbert)

Book Review: T.D. Jakes: Various Works

• Woman, Thou art Loosed!  Treasure House:1993, reprinted 1999.
• Can You Stand to Be Blessed?  Treasure House: 1994, reprinted 1999.
• Naked and Not Ashamed.  Treasure House:1995, reprinted 1999.
• So You Call Yourself a Man?  Alsbury Publishing:  1997.
• Anointing Fall on Me.  Pneuma Life Publishing:  1997.
• The Lady, Her Lover, and Her Lord.  Berkley Books: 1998.
• Maximize the Moment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  1999.
• The Great Investment.  G.P. Putnam’s Sons:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Loved by God.  Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: Experiencing Jesus. Albury Publishing:  2000.
• Six Pillars from Ephesians: The Spiritual Worship of the Believer.  Albury Publishers: 2000.

Gilbert comments.

On the whole, most of T.D. Jakes’s works belong on the psychology shelves at the bookstore.  They have little to do with the gospel of the Bible.  Stories and truths in the Bible are used as encouragements to think positively and overcome hardship, or to prove that God is waiting to bless us if we’ll only believe more and stop feeling sorry for ourselves.  Sin is mostly absent and when it is discussed, it is usually no more insidious than a bad self-esteem.  Sometimes Jakes makes it sound as if we are innocent victims of sin, which has evilly placed us in bad circumstances and tries to shackle us to our past.  There is no mention of hell or punishment.  God’s grace is most often talked about as a way to release us from our past, or heal old wounds, or teach us how to handle difficult relationships.

P.s. Richard Barcellos interviewed former Oneness pastor and friend Jordan Dayoub about Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room. Below is one question and answer to whet your appetite.

ER2 Q&A with a former Oneness pastor

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?

JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: if elected, James MacDonald, James White, Mark Driscoll, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes, Trinity

On the Trinity

First, Pastor Tom Chantry has provided a actual transcript of T.D. Jakes words on the Trinity from The Elephant Room 2, session 4.¹

Chantry then made a follow-up post in which he shares his thoughts in the following five points.²

1. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.
2. Driscoll and MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes’ massive numeric success to call him on this.
3. James MacDonald is angry.
4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin’ family!
5. If you aren’t defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren’t really defined at all.

I have also asked E. Calvin Beisner³ his thoughts on Jakes’ recent statements on the Trinity at Elephant Room 2. Beisner has written two books covering the Trinity and answered as follows.

Those words are absolutely consistent with the modalist heresy of Oneness Pentecostalism, and they remind me precisely of the kind of intentionally vague, off-topic language used by Arius and his supporters at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. Jakes will be believable in saying he believes in “One God – Three Persons” when he renounces Oneness Pentecostalism and separates from the officially modalist, anti-Trinitarian United Pentecostal and other Oneness denominations, and enunciated the doctrine of the Trinity with clarity and precision and a clear repudiation of modalism. Jakes’s language above fits perfectly with Oneness Pentecostals’ belief that the only difference between Father and Son is that the Son is the Father manifested in the flesh. The crucial element of the doctrine of the Trinity is that the distinctions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed in Scripture to be utterly independent of anything external to God–i.e., they are internal distinctions. Jakes’s god is not the God revealed in the Bible, and his gospel is not the gospel revealed in the Bible.

Angry Apostles

Some will label those who say and agree with the above comments as haters, as angry or maybe both. However, the Apostles had much to say about carefully handling and teaching doctrine as well as false teachers. Below is a sample of such teaching.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.(2 Peter 2:1-3 ESV)

Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.(Acts 17:11 ESV)

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. (1 Timothy 1:18-20 ESV)

But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, (2 Timothy 2:16-17 ESV)

A little leaven leavens the whole lump. (Galatians 5:9 ESV)

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message. (2 Timothy 4:14-15 ESV)

you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:5 ESV)

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. (1 Timothy 6:9 ESV)

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18 ESV)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound1 doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9 ESV)

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)

____________________________

Related posts:

1. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?
2. Who Are They Really Angry At?
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s situation deals with the uncomfortable issue of church discipline. To make the situation more uncomfortable a church discipline contract will also be involved. The scenario is inspired by real circumstances surrounding a former Mars Hill Church member named Andrew who was issued a church discipline contract to sign.¹

Imagine that you (or a friend if you wish) has just confessed and repented of being sexually involved with a fellow church member who happens to be the child of one of the church elders. The confession took place in the covenant group that you are a part of where it was then taken to one of the pastors/elders.

The pastor then issued a church discipline contract which he expected you to sign and follow. The discipline contract laid out the following steps that would be taken on the road to restoration.

• You will attend a covenant group and meet with its leader on a regular basis.
• You will not be involved in serving in the church.
• You will not pursue or date anyone inside or outside of this church.
• You will write out in detail your sexual and emotional attachment history and share it with covenant group leader.
• You will write out in detail the chronology of events and sexual/emotional sin and share it with the covenant group leader and a pastor.
• You will write out a list of all people you have sinned against during this timeframe, either by sexual/emotional sin, lying or deceiving, share it with the covenant group leader and develop a plan to confess sin and ask for forgiveness.

How would you respond (or advise your friend to respond)?

• Follow the contract no questions asked.
• Possibly follow the contract after some clarification.
• Inquire as to whether or not the elders child was also issued a contract.
• Dispute the contract explaining that you have repented.
• Leave the church.

__________________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Resign Church Membership To Avoid Discipline
2. Ethics: Business Bribes
3. Ethics: Adding Alcohol Abstinence to the Church Covenant

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 11 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

As far as I know, being rebuked is not something to which most Christians look forward, especially, being publicly rebuked. However, Scripture says it is good for rebuke (2 Tim. 3:16). Scripture even includes the well-known example of one Apostle publicly rebuking another Apostle (Gal. 2:11, 14).

Today, there is no shortage of Christians rebuking one another online. Though direct, public rebukes in person is not often carried out. Occasionally, one might hear a public rebuke about  a particular person, but the more popular route is to address poor teaching in general leaving the teacher unnamed. In the past, I have argued whether or not the practice of general criticism aimed at the unnamed is a good biblical practice.¹

Furthermore, public rebuke as carried out by Paul toward Peter in Galatians 2 is almost unheard of today. However, a recent situation come very close. Matt Chandler offered what appears to be a public rebuke in his recent sermon at Steven Furtick’s Code Orange Revival at Elevation Church. It seems Chandler’s message could be easily set against that of the other speakers at Code Orange. Elevation Church was actually accused of censoring Chandler’s sermon.² Chris Rosebrough has further documentation and insights into the reasons why Chandler’s sermon was not replayed during the Code Orange re-broadcast.³

Chandler was certainly the odd man out at this conference. One may even argue biblically that he should have declined the offer to participate. However, his message and attendance were needed. He preached the gospel, did not boast in himself, and challenged those in attendance that God is about His glory. Chandler explained finding joy over happiness in the Christian life.

Chandler’s most direct rebuke is found in the following words.

I think God is for you, and I think God loves you and He delights in and He’s going to shepherd you, He’s going to lead you. But He’s going to do it all to make much of Himself and to point people towards Himself. So just be careful. Because with a little shift here and a little drift there, God’s name is still on it but you know, ‘That Pastor Steven, it was his vision’ and ‘We have the best worship in the world,’ and before long you can weave these things into your culture and into your ethos that are opposed to the things of God. So when I pray for this church and your pastor, I pray God will protect you.⁴

Chandler’s warning was clear, but the exact target subtle. He provided a good example of warning against a potential unbiblical practice in the church. He could have gone further though some may say that would have been in bad taste since he would have been clearly rebuking the church that invited him.

Would a clearer rebuke have been in bad taste?

I would like to use the example of Paul rebuking Peter to answer this question with a “no”. Before preceding, understand that I am not criticizing Matt Chandler by using his sermon as an example. I am thankful Chandler was courageous enough to say what he did. What I am saying is that Chandler could have gone further and it would have been biblically acceptable to do so.

In Galatians 2 beginning in verse 11, Paul writes about publicly rebuking Peter. A few verses earlier, however, Paul acknowledges that Peter was also entrusted with the gospel (v. 7) and viewed as a pillar of the faith (v. 9). Given Peter’s standing in the Christian community it would seem the Paul would be somewhat sensitive in his public correction of Peter. What Paul writes may lead one to think differently.

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11 ESV)

Paul uses strong, direct words. He continued.

But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all…(Galatians 2:14 ESV)

It is clear that the gospel is more important than the Apostle Peter. It is also clear that Paul is speaking publicly in his rebuke in which he directly corrects Peter’s errors.

Notice what Paul does not say and do. Paul does not excuse Peter because God used Peter’s gospel preaching at Pentecost to convert 5,000 people. Paul does not excuse Peter because of his Apostleship. Paul does not show signs of being judged as a hater as reason enough to cowardly back down and not publicly rebuke Peter while defending the gospel.

Rather, Paul shows what the two greatest commands given by Jesus look like in action. First, he loves God by defending His gospel. Second, flowing from Paul’s love for God, he expresses his love for others in caring for their souls by defending the gospel making sure God’s grace and Christ’s death are not made void (Gal. 2:21).

Finally, there is good reason, i.e. the sake of the gospel, for Christians to follow Paul’s biblical example of public rebuke just as they follow many of his other examples.

For what it’s worth…

Mark

P.s. I had other points to consider, but did not want to make the post too long. One of those points was about public rebuke being potentially more helpful if the person being rebuke is clearly stated. The reason may be shown in the example of Matt Chandler’s rebuke noted above. The careful listener, and even the person toward whom the rebuke was aimed, may have picked up on the theological issues Chandler was reproving. However, judging by the audience applause, it was not clear that they got it. Therefore, the way Paul pointedly addressed Peter along with Peter’s theological errors provides a further illustration of how a public rebuke may be carried out. If it is not clear which messenger and message is being reproved this may lead the audience to theological confusion or simply leave them embracing theological error.
__________________________

Related posts:

1. Internet fellowship
2. Christless Christianity Q and A With Michael Horton
3. The Albert Mohler Program

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 7 comments | Add to
Post tags: Code Orange Revival, Matt Chandler, public rebuke, rebuke, Steven Furtick

What would you do Wednesday!

The question of plagiarized sermons comes up every now and then. Whether or not one should preach someone else’s sermons has been debated in the blogosphere, too. Selling sermons must not be too bad of a business considering the eight sites listed on Sermon Source that continue to sell sermons. There are probably more than just these eight sites selling sermons.

Of course, buying someone else’s sermons does not mean that they will be delivered as original work from the pulpit. However, this does happen to the extent that one pastor recently stepped down over sermon plagiarism.

Today’s scenario is slightly different though it is based on a true situation. The situation is that one relatively prominent pastor  has used sermons of another prominent pastor with no citation of who the work belongs to.

The situation is that someone discovered the same sermon on two different church websites from two different pastors with both listing the source of the sermon as that church’s pastor. One pastor has had the sermon on the website dating eight years earlier than the other. It would seem that the pastor with the later dating copied the work of that of the earlier dating.

Consider the following ethical questions concerning this situation keeping in mind that you are not part of either congregation.

Are you obligated to say anything to anyone? Is it best to keep silent? If you don’t keep silent, what biblical principle should be followed? Is Matthew 18 to be followed? How would you start the process and the follow-up?

Is using someone else’s sermons immoral or unethical? Do the churches have a right to know? Should the churches who pay these pastors have a right to original sermons?

Maybe the second pastor has permission from the first pastor to use his material. Maybe neither man cares if anyone is cited as doing the original sermon, then what?

Would you feel responsible if you reach out to the churches and reveal what has happened and a pastor loses his job? What about his family? Does it matter that the sermons are spiritually healthy and the flock is being fed by them?

What would you do?

What would you do if one of the above were your pastor?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Whether or Not To Leave a Church Over the Pastor’s Sermons
2. Ethics: If Your Pastor Says You Suck?
3. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 10 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

The New York Times reported that Roman Catholic charities in Illinois must comply with a new requirement to “consider same-sex couples as potential foster-care and adoptive parents if they want to receive state money.”¹ Catholic bishops claim that these requirements infringe on freedom of religion. Catholic charities in other cities have closed their adoption services rather than comply with the new requirements. The article also states that five Catholic Charities in Illinois get 60 – 92% of their revenue from the state.

For today’s scenario, let’s move the above situation to your local church.

Your church has been providing adoptive services for the community and surrounding areas for 20 years. State legislation was just passed requiring your church adoption services to consider homosexual couples as potential adoptive parents or foster parents. If this new requirement to consider homosexual couples is not met, state funding will be cut-off.

State funding makes up 60% of the adoption services revenue while the other 40% comes from donations from various outside sources. You have only been on the board of directors for a year. Yet,  you must consider all of the options on what’s best for serving the community while not compromising your Christian beliefs.

What would you do?

• Comply and take the money because it’s needed and we shouldn’t judge anyway.
• Comply and take the money for now, but slowly ween the charity from state funding.
• Don’t comply and just shut down the charity.
• Don’t comply and trust God to continue providing.
• Don’t comply, stand on your beliefs and fight on the basis of freedom of religion.
• Move the charity underground and offer black market adoptions.

_________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: A Church Member Wins the Lottery
2. Ethics: Christian Converts to Islam to Marry Muslim
3. Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

Elephant Room II is only 20 days away. T.D. Jakes is still on the schedule.¹ Several of us disagreed with Jakes being a participant², including Mark Dever who withdrew³, but I did suggest some questions for Jakes.⁴ Although I am still not very excited about Jakes participation, I am interested in what he will have to say, especially, in his session with Mark Driscoll where the following issues are supposed to be addressed.

What are the ‘majors’ of Christian doctrine that cannot be diluted or denied for a person to be a Christian? How can we help one another move beyond the bare minimum of accepted belief, to a pursuit of robust, soul-satisfying, biblical substance? How should we relate to those who do not yet embrace the benefit and priority of sound biblical doctrine? Is there a difference between a person in error and a wolf in sheep’s clothing? What benefits derive from keeping the majors on a separate list and not letting the ‘minors’ divide us? Is it possible to love the truth without compromise and still work passionately for unity?⁵

In light of the answers I received to recent questions, an additional question of ministry associations would be interesting. T.D. Jakes has long been affiliated with the organization Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA). On their Facebook page I asked (screenshot below), “Is T.D. Jakes still the Vice-Prelate of Higher Ground? Also, is Higher Ground still Oneness in their theology of the Godhead?”⁶

The answer from Timothy Starkey was “Yes and yes.” Yet who is Mr. Starkey? The West Virginia & East Tennessee Council of Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, Inc. lists Mr. Starkey as “Minister Timothy Starkey” of the “United Apostolic Faith Church.”⁷ This Council is a Oneness organization as evidenced by their statement of faith which states, “There is but one GOD in essence and in person” who is the triune manifestation, the divine three-fold manifestation and relationship.”⁸

Little did I know that all I had to do was check out the flyer for the “2012 Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies, Inc. National Convention.” The flyer has Jakes’ picture with his title of “Vice Prelate” under it.⁹

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that even if T.D. Jakes proclaims a clear, unequivocal belief in the Trinity¹⁰, the question remains of why Jakes continues to serve in ministry with Oneness folks. (Other doctrinal concerns remain as well.¹¹)

Would an alleged former Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness get a pass in the same situation? If Jakes’ claimed to be raised in a Mormon or JW congregation, later alleged that he has moved beyond those communities, yet was still a officer serving with a Mormon or JW organization, would the Elephant Room organizers ignore the obvious? I hope the answer is that the ER folks would address such affiliations, but if they were consistent, it seems that the invitation would still have been issued.

Will the question of associations go unasked and unanswered? I have no idea though I hope both with be asked and answered. Let’s hope there is truth in advertisement since the ad on the ER website states:

“You know the rules…No wavering. No sidestepping. No Excuses.”

___________________________

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2012. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, modalism, Oneness, TD Jakes

The following top 10 posts are those that received the most traffic from July 2011 through December 2011. The amount of attention some of these topics received on the web at the time they happened is amazing. However, thinking over the topics now is like thinking about ancient history that happened years ago.

We really do live in a soundbite society. Here today, cached tomorrow.

1. TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment? – A reply to James MacDonald’s defense of using discernment and association for inviting T.D. Jakes to Elephant Room II. The post includes interesting quotes from T.D. Jakes giving insight into his theological perspectives from the Trinity to his ministry associations. I have an upcoming post verifying Jakes’ continued association with Oneness folks.

2. The Shack Review – A review of William Young’s The Shack that continues to draw attention.

3. Dynamite Sermon Illustrations – A brief look at the misuse of the Greek word “dunamis” which means “power”. This post uses D.A. Caron’s Exegetical Fallacies to show how dunamis is used anachronistically.

4. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2? – I was alerted by a reader that Mark Dever had withdrawn from participating in Elephant Room II. Dever withdrew quietly probably due to the participation of T.D. Jakes. This post references Dever’s explanation of his practice of separation.

5. A Look at Passion City Church – A post critiquing Louie Giglio’s interview about an Atlanta church plant. Interesting that this post still gets traffic.

6. Mark Driscoll On Prophetic Dreams and Seeing the Future – Very interesting assertions by Mark Driscoll on God giving him visions into the private lives of people.

7. Was Anders Breivik a Christian? -An attempt at refuting some of the media claims after Breivik murdered several people that he is a Christian. I used Breiviks own words in the refutation.

8. A NASCAR Prayer, Parody or Blasphemy? – An unusual public prayer by a pastor that seemed to make light of prayer.

9. Southern Baptist Church Offices, Elders et al. – A defense of the use of a plurality of elders in SBC churches including documentation that the current SBC President pastors a church with a plurality of elders.

10. Brewing Controversy: A Respectful Disagreement with John MacArthur – A local friend of mine responds to MacArthur’s assertions about alcohol and the Young, Restless, and Reformed.

Related posts:

1. Top 10 Posts for 2011 at the Halfway Point
2. Top 9 Posts for May 09
3. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | No comment | Add to
Post tags: blogging, top 10

What would you do Wednesday!

The Michael Medved Show recently covered the topic of the discrimination lawsuit filed against Aloha Bed & Breakfast by a lesbian couple. The B&B owner, Phyllis Young, allegedly denied the couple a room due to her Christian views on homosexuality. The lesbian couple is suing claiming a violation of Hawaiian law by discrimination based on sexual orientation. Young is being legally represented by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization which defends religious freedom.

This should be an interesting lawsuit to follow.

As a Christian, would you do the same as Young? As I understand it, Young actually lives in the Bed & Breakfast which is common among B&B owners. At least one Medved Christian caller said that he would have a problem renting a room inside his home to a homosexual couple, but would not be troubled renting a house or apartment.

What would you do?

• Follow Young’s actions and not rent to them.
• Rent a room to them.
• Rent a room to them, but share the gospel first and explain how their lifestyle is sinful.
• Tell them you’ll rent them the shed.
• Or…

Also, would your decision be different if you were renting a house or apartment rather than a room in your B&B home?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation
2. Ethics: Church to Lose Funding Over Homosexual Adoption
3. Ethics: A Homosexual Asks About Christianity

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

Today’s scenario is an interesting one involving blogging, although it could be applied to any online writing. The online exchange of words and ideas is amazingly fast.

If a blogger has any kind of audience and he posts something that challenges that audience there is probably going to be a response. The large technology and political blogs certainly get responses, but a blog need have a huge following to get feedback. Even in the small world of Christian blogging one can get into some pretty heated discussion.

So what if one Christian blogger asks another not to quote any of his words without permission?

This recently happened on another Christian blog. The following was requested.

 Jared,
On a personal note, I would request that you NOT use my comments on other blogs or websites in your blog articles … without …my permission.  My written comments are personalized to that blog article and its context.  I would appreciate you honoring my request for the future. Blessings! – Ron Hale¹*

Interesting request. For readers who are unaware, the U.S. Copyright office has a doctrine of “fair use” which states that quoting others may be considered fair in areas “such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.”² The commenter above responded again admitting that permission to quote him is not required, but that he is asking that his request be honored nonetheless.

What would you do?

• Honor the request no questions asked.
• Honor the request, but ask questions.
• Not honor the request in general.
• Not honor the request as long as he continues writing online.
• Write extra blog posts quoting him as much as you can.

*Note: The example used above is just an example of a situation that has occurred on this topic and it is not the topic of this thread. The topic is to answer the question of what you, the reader, would do in this situation.

______________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Renting to a Homosexual Couple
2. Quote of the Day
3. Ethics: Pastor Admits to Homosexual Orientation

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 23 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

NFL quarterback Tim Tebow gets a lot of news coverage because of the way he and the Broncos are winning football games and, more specifically, for his outspoken faith in Jesus Christ. It could be argued that his Christianity has become more of a story than the last minute wins.

Today’s hypothetical scenario might bring Tim Tebow to your church.

In an upcoming Sunday, your church is holding a youth outreach event that will be held after the morning service. The church youth have been encouraged to invite friends and neighbors.The whole church was asked to think of how they might contribute to this event.

Well, one of your fellow church members just happened to get connected with Tim Tebow through the friend of a friend. He was very excited about inviting Tebow, but he knew he would have to run it by church leadership. Tebow is willing to help with the youth event and would like to share his story and give an invitation at the end of the sermon to close the service.

In his excitement, this church member told a few people and the news spread like a wildfire throughout the congregation. Before he could contact the pastor about inviting Tebow, the pastor had already received a dozen calls.

Your pastor tells you that he will get back with you in a week with his decision about inviting Tebow. A week goes by taking with it dozens of phone calls to the pastor about his decision. Based on the phone calls the congregation does not seem to be of one mind about having Tebow speak.

The pastor decides to bring this decision to a congregational meeting since this is a congregational church and everyone is not on the same page. (I know, but stay with me here!)

At the meeting the pastor explains that as a congregation everyone does not agree that inviting Tebow is the best thing for their local body. He then states his personal reasons why he does not think Tebow is the best idea. After some research, your pastor explains that he does not agree with Tebow’s methods which include the following.

Inviting everyone to ask Jesus into their heart, decisional regeneration, an altar call, leading a sinners prayer and then proclaiming the salvation of those who recited the prayer welcoming them to the family of God.¹

 It is time for the congregation to vote.

What would you do and why?

• Trust the spiritual leadership of your pastor and vote no.
• Vote no for other reasons.
• Vote yes.
• Try to get Tebow to your house for dinner.

____________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign
2. Ethics: Prominent Pastor Plagiarizes?
3. Jimmy Fallon on Tim Tebow: Comedy or Blasphemy?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 16 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, NFL, Tim Tebow, WWYDW

What would you do Wednesday!

In one of the episodes of TLC’s new TV show All-American Muslim a local high school football team changed their practice time for the observance of Ramadan.¹ Ramadan is a month of Islamic fasting where “Muslims refrain from eating, drinking, smoking and sex during daylight hours.”²

Today’s scenario is based on the above true story.

Your son’s high school football coach sends notice home with each player that practice is changing for the month of Ramadan. The notice is sent a month before Ramadan begins. Instead of practicing at the usually time immediately after school practice will be moved to the early morning hours.

The coach’s note explains that during Ramadan Muslims can’t eat or drink during daylight hours. Since he and most of the football team are Muslim the coach explained that practicing under such malnourished conditions would not be healthy for those observing Ramadan. He also claims that practice itself be less effective.The players will also be somewhat tired from the workload of their regular school days. Therefore, the new football practice schedule during the month of Ramadan will be as follows.

Monday through Friday from 1o p.m. to 5 a.m.

What would you do?

• Nothing and let your kid practice with the new schedule.
• Express disagreement with the coach, but ultimately go along with him.
• Go the principle and school board if need be to stop the new schedule.
• File a formal complaint about religious favoritism toward Islam.
• Or…

___________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Christian Converts to Islam to Marry Muslim
2. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching
3. Ethics: Immodest Dress In Church

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

Sin and responsibility may not be the most comfortable topics about which to talk or preach. No one really wants to consider that they are responsible for something they did i.e. sin. It is much easier to blame sins on someone else as if they some how caused the sin and, therefore, avoid personal responsibility. It is much easier to compare one’s sin to another person’s much worse sin in order to minimize sin and personal responsibility.

Is taking personal responsibility of sin minimized because of the way sin is expressed at times from the pulpit? Is the sinner a victim of sin or a perpetrator? Is it all Satan’s fault?

When thinking about preaching on sin and responsibility one approach that seems popular today is that the sinner is the no-fault victim of their sin. The sermon isn’t usually worded in such a straight forward victim-hood manner, but an illustration is used in which the sinner plays the part of the victim.

For example, an illustration may be given where a person finds himself in a burning building with no way out. The person is afraid, helpless and trapped inside by no fault of their own. The message to the person in the pew is that they are a victim of this burning building. The building, of course, represents their sin. Jesus may then be rightly presented as the only Savior who can rescue them.

But what does this approach to sin express to the sinner about responsibility and repentance?

A better illustration of a person trapped inside a burning building would be that the person is a rebel sinner who started the fire. Scripture tells us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23 ESV). The sinner is a rebel against God who commits and is responsible for their own sin which, without Jesus, earns him death.

The sinner is trapped in a burning building because that is where they want to be in an effort to get away from the authorities (who represent God). The sinner has, in essence, taken himself hostage with his own sin as he destroys the building with fire. And he loves it. Jesus arrives on the scene to rescue the rebel. Only Jesus, the living water, can put out the destructive flames of sin for all who turn/repent of their sin and trust in Him.

When thinking about sinners being guilty perpetrators of sin one’s understanding of the gospel and sinfulness before God is affected. There is also a clear measure of grace and humility that shines through in the gospel when it is presented to at-fault, guilty sinners. Trusting the gospel’s power in evangelism to convert the rebel sinner is also encouraged when it is understood that the sinner is not a victim for the sinner does not save himself.

As for Satan, he is not a cuddly baby in a costume luring innocent victims to rebel against God and people should not walk away believing they are such victims.

Thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Preaching: Young, Restless and Four?
2. Was Jesus a victim?
3. Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 5 comments | Add to
Post tags: punishment, responsibility, sin, victim

What would you do Wednesday!

Thanks to my friend Rhology for this week’s topic.

Your main preaching pastor is about to offer a Sunday morning pastoral prayer. Before praying one of your associate pastors steps up to the pulpit to make an important announcement and asks everyone for prayers on the issue. He begins.

As you all know I’ve served as a pastor here for several years. You also know that I have remained single the whole time. What I am about to tell you is not easy to openly admit.

The fact is that my sexual orientation…is…homosexual.

But please hear me out. I am fully convinced, and profess to you now, that the only justifiable and acceptable sexual expression is heterosexuality within a heterosexual marriage, one man and one woman committed for life.

I have put specific guidelines in place to protect myself and the whole congregation. For example, I always leave the door open when counseling people. I am accountable to other pastors about this issue and I even have internet filtering software on my computer.

Finally, it is important for you all to know that I have not engaged in any illicit sex and have no plans to. I also meet with a Christian counselor about the same-sex attractions. Please stand with me in prayer on this issue. Thank you.

This pastor serves the church faithfully and has a great relationship with everyone.

What would you do?

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Deacons Call for Pastor to Resign
2. Ethics: Female Pastor Presented to Preach Sunday Morning
3. Ethics: Pastor Opposes Tim Tebow Preaching

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 46 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

The following true story is about a seminary student sharing the gospel in a liquor store. The student is an acquaintance and the story is shared with permission. This is all that will be revealed of this student.

One of the most divisive disagreements among conservative Christians is the subject of Christians drinking alcohol. Tim Challies highlighted and commented on some of the recent disagreements about Christians and alcohol.¹ Challies provides a big picture view of the subject with a caution to younger Christians to use their freedom wisely when it comes to alcohol.

I pray the following story is received as portraying the wise use of circumstances involving a Christian buying alcohol.

The Gospel in the Liquor Store

The seminary semester was starting soon and one student knew they would have to sign an agreement they he would not drink alcohol while enrolled as a student. Being a good Baptist he did not want to violate a signed promise. He is also believes that Christians have the biblical freedom to drink alcohol in moderation. Nevertheless, he knew he may not be able to enjoy a glass of beer for another year or so depending on his seminary circumstances.

The student decided he would stop at a liquor store on the way home and buy two beers until who knows when. Upon entering the store he asked an employee if they sold a certain brand of beer. The store carried the brand so the student grabbed two of bottles. The employee, busy stocking the shelves, was standing close by and asked the student about the beer he just picked up because he had never heard of it. The employee was a man in his mid-50′s.

The conversation lasted about 20 minutes and gist of it went something like this…

Employee: I’ve never tried that kind of beer before. Does it make you feel really good?

Student: Well, I don’ t drink for that feeling. I enjoy the taste and getting drunk is something from my past life.

Employee: So do you just get a nice buzz then?

Student: Well, I don’t do that either. Believe it or not, I’m actually a seminary student. I’m a Christian now and those things you asked about are in my past now.

Employee: So, you used to get drunk, but you don’t anymore? Do you miss it?

Student: I don’t miss it at all. The good news of Jesus has actually set me free from even desiring to get drunk or get a buzz. Do you know what the good news is?

Employee: Yeah, I was raised Catholic. I know all of that stuff.

Student: Do you consider yourself to be Catholic now?

Employee: Nah, Catholics have all of those rules and stuff to follow. I can’t keep up with them all and that’s not what makes you right with God.

Student: So where are you now with God? What is your relationship with God today?

Employee: Oh, I believe the Jesus Christ alone is the only way to heaven. He is the one and only Savior. Nothing I can do can save me. It’s all Him.

Student: Man, that’s great! So you believe the Jesus died on the cross for sinners and rose on the third day so everyone who believes this has their sins forgiven and has a right relationship with God? You believe that Jesus righteousness becomes ours through faith and that our good works contribute nothing in the way gaining acceptance into God’s Kingdom?

Employee: I believe that.

Student: I believe that too and it’s had a transforming affect on my life. As the Bible says, I am a new creature in Christ which is why I’m free from drinking beer in order to get drunk. I may not be able to have another beer for a year or so.

Employee: Wow! Really? Why not?

Student: Well, I’m Baptist. (smile) And I’m about to start seminary and the school has every student sign an agreement that they will not drink alcohol while attending.

Employee: That’s crazy. Drinking is not a sin.

Student: I know, I know, but that’s their rules. The good thing is that alcohol is not an important part of my life. Like I said, the gospel changed me and my desires. Just like I don’t need to eat quarter pound cheeseburgers, I don’t need to drink beer either. But I’m free to do both.

Employee: I hear you. I think it might be hard not to have just one beer for over a year.

Student: Since you said you believe the good news of Jesus let me ask you something. What does your life look like in light of believing in Jesus?

Employee: (Somewhat ashamed) It doesn’t really look all that good.

Student: Would you like it to be better? Do you have any Christian friends or a church that you could attend?

Employee: Nah, I don’t have anything like that.

Student: Would you agree that having those kinds of Christian relationships are important? Christians are supposed to be there for each other and encourage one another in our walk with the Lord. What do you think?

Employee: I agree. I know you’re right. I need to find a church to go to.

Student: Well, I’m part of XYZ Baptist church just a few miles down the road. You’re always welcomed to join us and I will certainly look for you so you won’t feel like a stranger.

Employee: You know. I’m getting the chills right now from this whole conversation. 

Student: Why is that?

Employee: I’ve been thinking about God and my life lately. You just show up here and we talk about all of this stuff.

Student: Providential, huh?

Employee: Yep! I know it’s God working.

Student: Yeah?

Employee: Yep. I’ve always believed that God is in control of everything. My Baptist grandparents always taught me that God is in control of everything so I trust God and just go on and not worry. When I was serving in the military I trusted God through some hard times. I just prayed and gave it to him and didn’t worry.

Student: Awesome! So if you trust that God brought us together will you trust that He is also the one inviting you to church?

Employee: Yeah, I’m going to make it over there to see you all. I’m telling you, this whole thing is giving me chills.

Student: I’ll be praying for you and looking for you then. If I don’t see you I may come back and check on you, okay?

Employee: Yeah, that’s fine. Nice meeting you. Take care.

Student: You, too. See you soon. God bless.

My acquaintance had an insightful thought as he drove home from the liquor store. He wondered who would share the gospel with this employee, and those like him, if so many Christians dogmatically and unbiblically shun alcohol as if the substance itself along with drinking it is inherently sinful. I agree. Abusing alcohol is a sin problem, not an alcohol problem, just as with any other thing that is sinfully abused.
_________________________

Related posts:

1. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling
2. SBTS, Mohler & Moore: Alcohol &
3. Church Sign: Gospel or Moralism?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 15 comments | Add to
Post tags: alcohol

What would you do Wednesday!

TLC’s new TV show All-American Muslim recently had an episode where a Roman Catholic converted to Islam so he could marry a Muslim woman.¹ My wife and I had some interesting discussions about this situation. The Roman Catholic mother and father did not seem to be bothered as much as I suspect most people would be over their son’s conversion to Islam.

Today’s scenario is along the same lines as the above situation.

A married couple who is a long time member of your church comes to you with a dilemma. Their child who has just graduated college plans to marry in six months. The child was also a long time member of your church until going to college four years ago.

The problem is that this recent college graduate plans on marrying a Muslim. Upon finding this out the parents questioned their child asking how this planned interfaith marriage could work. The child informed the parents that they will be converting to Islam and having a Muslim wedding so there will not be an interfaith problem.

The parents are shocked. They do not know whether or not they should even attend the wedding. While they want to see their child marry they don’t want to promote the conversion to Islam.

How would you advise the parents?

• Go to the wedding and support their child?
• Go and support their child to keep the relationship on good terms?
• Stand by the child in disagreement hoping to influence change in their life?
• Refuse to go to the wedding, but try to keep the relationship alive?
• Refuse to go to the wedding and have minimal contact?
• Or…

Bonus!

Would you give different advice if the child were to instead plan on marrying an atheist or agnostic? Why?

________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: Christian, a Former Muslim, Wants to Burn Qur’an
2. Is Islam special?
3. Ethics: High School Football Practice Changed for Ramadan

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 60 comments | Add to
Post tags: ethics, WWYDW

I’ve always been intrigued about why a Christian would want to date or marry a non-Christian. A solid biblical case can be made that a Christian should only date or marry another Christian.¹ In a mixed dating situation the Christian is not trusting Christ nor finding Him sufficient, but is looking elsewhere to satisfy certain needs. Of course, as with many areas in life Christians fall short and there is always places in their lives where Christ is not primary. This is an admission rather than an excuse for Christians to date non-Christians. As one friend of mine said about a Christian girl dating a non-Christian guy, “you’ve already told him that Christ isn’t all that. You’re just haggling over price.”²

I’m almost more intrigued by a non-Christian wanting to date or marry a Christian. A non-Christian seeks a relationship with a Christian who believes that person is going to hell if they don’t accept Christ. They have foundational opposing worldviews even if there is some agreement of life values. If the non-Christian truly cared for the Christian why would they not respect the Christian and stop trying to get them to go against their Lord? Why would the non-Christian encourage the Christian to go against their Christian values? Is that non-Christian, whether atheist, agnostic, etc., really showing love for the Christian?

Some non-Christian guys might ask a Christian father why he is not good enough for their daughter. Simply put, you are not good enough for my daughter because you think you are too good for Christ.

While thinking about who is good enough for a Christian daughter I think Voddie Baucham gives a nice starting point in the middle chapters of one of his books.  Below I’ve listed some of the table of contents with a few additions from the text which makes for at least a nice skeletal structure on the issue.

What He Must Be: …If He Wants To Marry My Daughter
by Voddie Baucham Jr.

4. He Must Be a Follower of Christ

5. He Must Be Prepared to Lead

6. He Must Lead Like Christ (Ephesians 5)

7. He Must Be Committed to Children

8. He Must Practice the Four P’s
Protector which includes:
Personal Holiness
True Gentleness
Great Resolve
Genuine Compassion
True Bravery

Provider which includes:
A Job
Work Ethic
A Plan

Prophet/Priest which includes:
Pray with and for family
Preach to family

_____________

Related posts:

1. Christianity Without Christ?
2. Gospel Then Morality: Lesson From Abortion Counseling
3. Frank Turek Refutes Judge Walker’s 10 Gay Marriage “Facts”

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 20 comments | Add to
Post tags: courtship, dating, marriage

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, a mighty city, he found in the temple many altars, Acts and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but did not touch any one of them even with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the market-place and said they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake them; yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord, and in consequence idolatry fell of itself. Now, if I had seen that they held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning it. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won; if not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things; the Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.

In conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I Luther’s will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and with Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing; the Word did it all. Had I desired to foment trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany. Yea, I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? A fool’s play. I did nothing; I left it to the Word. What do you suppose is Satan’s thought, when an effort is made to do things by violence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools will make for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the Word, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will fall of itself.¹

________________

Related posts:

1. Reformation Radio
2. The Story of Jesus’ Birth by Martin Luther
3. Reformation Day 2008: Protestant Courage

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to
Post tags: Martin Luther, Reformation Day

Richard Dawkins recently explained why he would not debate William Lane Craig.¹ Dawkins does not like that Craig defends God’s commands to the Israelites in the Old Testament to destroy certain people groups that were inhabiting the Promised Land. He claims that Craig has a “dark side” and that “Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.”

Dawkins quotes Craig on the extermination of the Canaanites and takes issue with Craig defending God’s commands for such actions. In one of my Old Testament text books I came across a perspective (shared below) on the command to exterminate the Canaanites.

The suggestion that God could command anyone to kill another or require the complete extermination of every living being in a city seems offensive or even outrageous. To dodge the problem some have proposed that the God (Yahweh) of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the Father of Jesus Christ of the New Testament. This, of course, runs counter to the teachings of Christ and the apostles, who clearly identify their God with the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and with the God who revealed himself to Moses and the prophets.

A partial answer to this puzzle is the fact that religious “devotion” was a part of the culture of the day. Ancient Near Eastern peoples “devoted” persons and possessions and captives to their gods. That such action was customary does not, of course, make it right, but it does help explain why the Israelites did not think it necessarily wrong. God takes the people where they are, and leads them step by step until at last they will be where God is. Divine revelation is progressive. At this point, the Israelites did not have as their Torah the Sermon on the Mount (“love your enemies”). This understanding of love had to wait for the New Joshua (Jesus) to make it known in his life and death.

But this is not the whole answer. The biblical position regarding the Canaanites is not simply “Exterminate them!” There is good reason behind the command. In Yahweh’s eyes, the Canaanites with their culture and religion were exceedingly evil sinners, who not only committed abominations against God but also sought to entice Israel to join them in these “religious” acts. The discovery of Ugaritic documents at Ras Shamra in Syria has opened up detailed information about Canaanite religious practices. Religious prostitution, child sacrifice, and other features of this religion plagued Israel for centuries, as the books of Kings and of the early prophets bear witness.32

Yahweh, the Israelites were often reminded, is holy, a God who does not tolerate such abominable practices, especially in the name of serving a deity. This was idolatry against both creation and Creator. The Canaanites merited punishment. Further, the purity of Israelite religion had to be preserved. The sensual attractions of Canaanite religion (as at Baal-peor; Num. 25:1) posed a serious threat to Yahwistic life. A surgeon does not hesitate to remove an arm or a leg, or even a vital organ, when life is at stake. The very existence of Israel — and ultimately the salvation of the world — depended upon Yahweh’s blessing.

Admittedly, this is only an interpretation and a partial attempt to justify the difficult biblical position. But there is the verdict of history. The Israelites, sickened by slaughter or seduced by sensual religious rites, ceased exterminating Canaanites, and Canaanite religious practices gradually pervaded Israelite religion. The punishment this brought upon Israel was terrible. Yahweh inflicted on them foreign oppression, invasion, destruction of Israelite cities, and the destruction of Jerusalem and exile from the promised land.

To repeat, Yahweh did not order the Israelites to exterminate all Gentiles but only the Canaanites. This policy was not a permanent or eternal principle. It was intended for an immediate situation, when the Israelites were occupying the land God had promised their fathers. Later, the moral and ethical teachings of prophets such as Amos, Micah, and Isaiah would be presented just as stridently to Israel as the word of Yahweh. Still later Jesus Christ would claim that he came to fulfill the law and prophets. The “devotion” of the Canaanites in the land must be seen against all these factors.²

__________________________

Related posts:

1. De-baptism Thoughts
2. Alcohol: Of Greeks and Barbarians

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: Canaanites, Richard Dawkins, William Lane Craig

Trevin Wax has an excellent post on how he wishes the homosexuality debate would go between TV hosts and pastors.¹ Trevin offers an example of good dialogue with the Christian re-directing the conversation so it is not concentrating on homosexuality. The dialogue could actually work with a dose of patience, focus and enough time.

I wish the homosexuality debate would be as Trevin described too, but I also wish something else.

TV show hosts like to press on hot button. Some of the on going hot button issues are just about anything on homosexuality, on whether Mormonism is Christian, or a la Larry King – whether or not “good” Jews go to hell. It can be tempting and easy for Christians to debate within the premise of a secular worldview and go into defense mode. Part of the problem is the short time allotted for such debates in this sound-byte culture. There is not often time to challenge the presuppositions of the worldview of the host.

Two Christians in particular stand out in such public sound-byte debates – John MacArthur and Al Mohler. Both have done well to direct the conversation to the gospel when they have been guests on shows like Larry King Live.² These men provide a good example in their dialogue by continuing to bring the gospel to the forefront as the most important aspect of Christianity.

What I wish TV hosts would ask Christians whom they are challenging on hot button issues is about the gospel. I wish they would ask about Jesus dying for sinners, rising from the dead and saving all who repent and believe in Him. While I understand the TV shows schedule specific topics it is interesting how the gospel can not even been addressed in order to get back to the topic of homosexuality, for example.

Host: So you believe that all homosexuals in loving, monogamous relationships are going to hell?

Christian: I believe that all sinners who repent of their sins and believe that Jesus who was born of a virgin, died for their sins on a cross, rose from the dead after three days defeating death for all who believe in Him will have eternal life. Those who don’t believe this gospel will suffer in hell.

Host: So homosexu…..wait! You believe Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead?!

Imagine that…
_____________________

Related posts:

1. Are Christians to Blame for Gay Teen Suicides?
2. Keller On Fanatical Christians (with example?) Update
3. Talking Theology with Non-Christians: Contextualization

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to
Post tags: Christianity, interview

Geoff Ashley of The Village Church recently wrote an article on John Calvin’s role in the death of Michael Servetus.¹ Ashley gives seven points to consider before “harshly judging Calvin a heartless tyrant.”

While not absolving Calvin of any and all wrong doing for his role in Servetus’ trial it may be pointed out that Servetus did call for Calvin’s arrest and possible death for making false accusations against him. In a second letter from prison Servetus wrote the following.

Honrable Seigneurs. I am detained for the criminal charges made by lehan Calvin who falsely accuses me saying that I have written: 1. that the souls are mortal 2. that Jesus Christ took from the Virgin Mary only the fourth part of his body. These are horrible and execrable things. Among all heresies and all crimes there is none so great as to make the soul mortal. For in all other there is a hope of salvation, whereas there is none in such a heresy. Whoever says so does not believe that there is a God, nor justice, nor resurrection, nor Jesus Christ, nor Holy Scripture, nor anything else. He believes only that everything dies and that the man and the beast are the same. If I had said or written this, for offending the world I should condemn myself to death. Therefore, messeigneurs, I ask that my accuser be punished according to the law of poena talionis and detained as prisoner with me, until the matter is settled by his death or mine or any other punishment. And for this I submit myself to the mentioned poena talionis. I am content to die if he is not convicted both of this and other things which I list below. I demand from you, messeigneurs, justice, justice, justice.

Written in prison of Geneva, 22 of September 1553.

Michel Servetus in his own cause.²

It seems that Servetus believed he should have been condemned to death had he taught that the soul is mortal. On the grounds of false accusations Servetus asks for Calvin to be punished according to poena talionis. Poena talionis is a retaliatory punishment which basically would have worked like this: if Calvin could not substantiate the two claims above about Servetus then Calvin would be subject to the same punishment that Servetus would have been given if found guilty. Also note that Servetus subjected himself to poena talionis.

Both Calvin and Servetus appeared to be men of their time. Sadly, Calvin was a key player in the trial and conviction of Servetus; while Servetus was content in seeking the death penalty, if so warranted, for Calvin’s accusations against him.

Thankfully, the gospel is bigger than any man from any time period.
_______________________

Related posts:

1. Poisoning Calvin’s Well
2. Lord’s Day 05/16 death transformed
3. Considering Death

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 4 comments | Add to
Post tags: death, death penalty, John Calvin, Michael Servetus

Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:1-2 ESV)

Notice how Paul begins the letter to the Philippians. He calls Paul and Timothy “servants” or “slaves” of Jesus. He then refers to the rest of the Christians at Philippi as “saints.” Paul sees them as having their identity in Christ.

Paul’s approach makes me think about how those in one’s local and extended church families should be addressed. And not just how they should be addressed, but how to think of them in general. It seems Paul had an “in Christ” mindset and he took time when writing to make sure this mindset toward others was known.

It’s amazing what observations and convictions may come out of a simple introductory sentence from the Bible.

How do I identify my brothers and sisters in Christ? How do I think about them? Do I think of them as servants of Christ first? Do I think of my own local church family as saints first? Is the “in Christ” mindset toward other Christians an afterthought or is it a thought at all?

How would others respond if I asked them whether or not they thought I had an “in Christ” mindset toward them?

Paul’s opening sentence shows a healthy Christian mindset good for personal reflection. This “in Christ” mindset should help  when praying for, or when frustrated with, other Christians. Paul’s mindset reflected in Christians today would go a long way for the body of Christ. Having this mindset is not an impossible task since the same Holy Spirit Who inspired Paul’s words lives in Christians today to inspire such holy attitudes. Amazing.

How do you think of other Christians?

For what it’s worth…

Related posts:

1. Keeping Christ in Christmas so we can sleep in?
2. Christianity Without Christ?
3. Christmas Jingle: Jesus Christ Is Coming To Town

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 6 comments | Add to
Post tags: grace, Philippians, seminary

I my previous post I shared that I leaned toward Mark Dever withdrawing from participating in Elephant Room 2(ER2) due to T.D. Jakes scheduled participation.¹ A commenter on that post informed me that Dever’s bio, pictured above, is missing from the ER2 website.

If Dever does or did withdraw from the event it should not come a surprise. In 2008 he was challenged on the issue of biblical separation. Dever answered the challenge explaining that he does practice separation. Others may be able to learn from his practice. The following quote is part of Dever’s article on separation which applies to events like ER2.

…I have tried to have a wider ministry of encouraging godly cooperation and discouraging ungodly associations. This is one of the sources of my being unpopular and even unwelcome in some circles. So we declined an invitation to give leadership in DC to a Graham-like crusade. Furthermore, we worked to get the Southern Baptist Convention to de-fund the local DC Baptist Convention, because (among other reasons) the convention’s organ, the Capital Baptist, had mocked those who believed that faith in Jesus was the only way to be forgiven for our sins, or who believed that Mormons need to be evangelized. I could go on. In fact, our own giving to the Southern Baptist Convention is targeted—it is focused on the International Mission Board, in order to help us fulfill the Great Commission. I regularly decline to speak at conferences because of who else is speaking there. On the 9marks website we critically review books. In our Together for the Gospel statement of faith, we deliberately had Affirmations AND DENIALS. In personal and private conversations I seek correction from others, and try to faithfully and lovingly rebuke others.²

Given Dever’s words on separation it would be easy to understand if he withdrew. The question asked in the title of this post because when going to the ER2 page that once displayed Dever’s bio the following page loads.

Whether Dever withdrew or not at this point is unclear. However, it should not be a surprise to anyone given his wise words on separation which may help others see why some may choose not to participate in certain venues.
___________________

Related posts:

1. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 44 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Dever, TD Jakes

The announcement T.D. Jakes participation at Elephant Room 2 (ER2) has generated much digital ink in the last week. I’ve shared some of the trouble I have with Jakes participation.¹ Other Christians have provided more thorough responses than I explaining their concern over James MacDonald inviting T.D. Jakes.² Note that no one is disputing that MacDonald can host whoever he wants at ER2 even while disagreeing with him.

It is, however, too soon to know for sure whether or not ER2 will take place as scheduled. Anything can happen, right? Outside of Jakes withdrawing or having his invitation withdrawn the event will most likely happen though. I wonder if someone like Mark Dever were to withdraw if that would shake things up? Personally, I lean toward Dever withdrawing, but I would also love for Dever to ask pointed, biblical questions of Jakes about the Trinity. This brings me to the question at hand.

What would you ask T.D. Jakes at Elephant Room 2?

While I think the most loving thing to do would be to not have Jakes participate in ER2 maybe some of us on this side of the issue can offer some constructive questions.  Contrary to possible opinion, I don’t dislike T.D. Jakes, but I do care about him enough to want him to embrace the second Person of the Trinity, the true Jesus of the Bible.

As I see it, pointed doctrinal questions may ultimately have three effects on Mr. Jakes.

1. He continues his unclear, uncommitted position on the Trinity.
2. He clearly shows that he does not embrace the Trinity.
3. He repents of Modalism and embraces the true biblical God as He has revealed Himself inthe Trinity.

Maybe pointed doctrinal questions can help minimize any negative impact on the Body of Christ, and those outside of the Body, that Jakes appearance might have. Of course, there is no guarantee that any suggested questions would be used by MacDonald, Driscoll or the other participants, but it may give them and the potential ER2 viewers a few things to think about.

In no particular order, here are a few suggestions to which I hope some readers will add their own questions.

• What is the gospel?
• What is justification?
• What is sanctification?
• Do you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity summarized as: (1) There is only one God. (2) The Father is God. (3) The Son is God. (4) The Holy Spirit is God. (5) The Father is not the Son. (6) The Son is the not the Holy Spirit?³
• Why does the Potter’s House belief statement state that God exists in three manifestations?
• In a 2010 interview you stated that you “adamantly” defended Oneness doctrine as a teenager, so should it be understood that you clearly understand the doctrinal differences between Oneness and Trinitarian beliefs?
• Why have you seemingly been so unwilling to answer directly about your beliefs on the Trinity in the past?
• How important is one’s understanding of the Godhead as it relates to Scripture and the gospel?
• Given the significant theological differences, why do you consider both Oneness and Trinitarian doctrine as valid Christian beliefs?
• You stated that your views of the Godhead are evolving, would it be prudent to think that one who holds the title “Bishop” should have a more solid position on the Trinity?
• Why have you continued to use the title “Bishop” since your views of the Godhead are evolving and the title was given to you by a Oneness group?
• You have stated that you don’t want to attack doctrine. Would you consider Paul publicly correcting Peter’s doctrine in the book of Galatians to be an attack?
• You have stated that you don’t want to attack doctrine. But aren’t pastors, bishops and elders charged with teaching sound doctrine while rebuking and correcting false doctrine and teachers?
• Is the doctrine of the Trinity any more or less important today than it was in the early church?
• Do you believe the Jesus was materially wealthy while He walked the earth?

What would you ask T.D. Jakes?

__________________

Related posts:

1. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books
2. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
3. Did Mark Dever Withdraw from Elephant Room 2?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, TD Jakes, Trinity

It has been recently revealed that T.D. Jakes will be a participant in Elephant Room round 2.¹ Elephant Room is hosted by James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll. Its format is for influential pastors to have “blunt conversations” around “differing approaches to ministry” with the purpose of modeling “loving confrontation and gracious disagreement that honors relationship and allows diversity of opinion but stands without compromise on the revealed word of God.”²

Many of us hold that there is a biblical compromise with Jakes given his fellowship with Oneness Pentacostalism and his position on the Trinity as documented in the past by the Christian Research Institute³ and others. James MacDonald responded to the concerns over having Jakes participate in Elephant Room. MacDonald stated that he does not believe that “association is the same as categoric endorsement,” but more importantly that he does “not agree that T.D. Jakes is a Modalist.”⁴ Carl Trueman responded to MacDonald explaining the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity.⁵

But is there cause for concern regarding T.D. Jakes’ position on the Trinity? Many disagree with MacDonald and believe there is cause for concern. The most recent comments by Jakes on the Trinity that I am aware of are from a 2010 interview which is provided below.

There are some areas of discernment to consider in Jakes’ interview. This man is an influential pastor bishop and yet he does not see the problem with differing views on the nature of God. He claims to have defended Oneness doctrine in his youth, but has been evasive for years on explaining his own views on the Trinity. He refers to those concerned with doctrine as wolves while Scripture teaches that it is the false teachers who are the wolves. He says he is not called to correct doctrine, but the Bible calls church leaders to teach sound doctrine and rebuke and silence those who don’t. False teachers are not to be partnered with, but to be exposed and corrected. Correcting false teachers is not an end unto itself, but a means to save their souls! Jakes mentions that he still fellowships with Oneness folks because he loves people. Yet, if he really loved them he would correct their false doctrine.

On July 18, 2010 Sheridan Voysey interviewed Jakes on his show Open House Interviews. The show description reads: “The pastor of the 30,000 strong Potter’s House church talks to Sheridan Voysey about his ministry, his theology and answers his critics.”⁶

At ~22:50 the host points out Jakes affiliation with Oneness Pentecostalism and how they deny the Trinity as one God in three persons. He then asks if Jakes has changed his view. Jakes says he still fellowships with them, infers that they are Christians, yet says his views have evolved and he was pressured to walk away from them.

Voysey: You have a criticism which is probably of more concern for those within your…your fellow Evangelical community would be the connections with Oneness Pentacostalism. Oneness Pentacostalism traditionally denying the historic understanding of God being a Trinity. One God, three Persons for eternity. You have actually had a Oneness Pentecostal background. Have you changed your views when it comes to the Triuness of God?

Jakes: Well first of all I’m laughing at the word connections because I have connections with everybody. I..atheists, agnostics, Jews, everybody and if that’s going to bother Evangelicals they’re really gonna hate me. I love people and I have not broken up with people because I don’t see everything they way they did.

And yes, I did grow up in a Oneness church. I started there. I started in a Baptist church, but at around 16 or so I did become involved with Oneness. I used to adamantly defend every tenant of what they believed. I’ve evolved since then. I’m on a journey since then. But I’ve not used my journey to attack other Christians just because I don’t agree with every line of what they say about the Trinity. I’m not sure any of us can really fully explain it as well as we think we can who God is.

Uh, so I’ve kind of evolved. I still fellowship. I’m still involved and have connections with the Oneness people. And under pressure was asked to kinda step away. It would have been easy to walk away. To point my finger at them and criticize them and attack them and satisfy my critics. But in my heart it was betrayal because, because you love people.

I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I do. And my understanding has grown a lot about that. But I’ve not used my platform as a whipping post for any other Christian. I really don’t feel called to do that. And I’m not gonna succumb to pressure to become that. And I will not feed the wolves. I just don’t do it. I let them grip and say whatever they want to say.

I’m on a journey. I’m still learning. If they know more than me, good. But just because you graduated don’t burn down the school.

Voysey laughs and comments that Jakes is a master with his words and that he is going to be taking notes.

Jakes: You know what I am? I’ve come to a point in my life that I say what I mean. And that is a wonderful place to be ’cause I’m not trying to do anything anymore. I’m not trying to do anywhere. I’m not trying to build a career. Please accept me so I can come to your church. I’m older. I’m comfortable in my own skin. I want to know…I know Jesus for myself. I want to know Him better everyday. And you’d be surprised how much peace He gives you when you’re not trying to feed the wolves. They’re endless. They’re always gonna be coming. Jesus came that we might have peace. And I’m finally getting me some. It feels wonderful.

At ~25:40 the host brings Jakes back to the question of Modalism emphasizing the position of one god “manifesting himself as father, son and holy spirit” versus the traditional Trinitarian view of God. The host even states that Modalism was declared heresy in the 4th century. He explains it is an important issue that must be address because one who holds to Modalism is putting themselves outside of orthodoxy.

It is at this point that Jakes explains more clearly his views of the Triune nature of God.

Jakes: First of all, it’s not true. Not all Oneness people teach or believe the same thing about anything. Having been in those camps I know for a fact they don’t all teach the same thing the same way. People in our country (I don’t know about over here) they don’t really tie into denominations like they once did. So the assumption that because you go to a church you believe everything that they believe and you think they way they think is an assumption. And in the Oneness there are people that think everything from plain Trinitarian, God in three Persons, to everything imaginable. I’ve heard everything imaginable.

Voysey: But what about your personally? [There is some crosstalk and the host points out that Jakes' church has a doctrinal statement that uses the word "manifestation" which is a term used by Oneness groups.]

Jakes: Yes, but my church is non-denominational. And we embrace people regardless of what denomination they come from. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three Persons. I believe that in a way that Persons is a limited word for the Godhead. And even those who adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is that they are distinctive. There are things that can be said about the Father that couldn’t be said about the Son and then the Holy Spirit… I believe that. I’ve grown into that, but I came into a Pentacostal church that happened to be Oneness. They loved me at a time that my father died. I became friends with them and in covenant with them and embraced them. And though I don’t agree with everything, and they don’t agree with everything, they’re evolving as a people.

I’m not gonna use my platform, again, to attack people or attack a doctrine. That’s not my mission and even though there are others who say that it is, I know my calling. And I don’t do that about anything. I mean you could listen to my tapes for hours and hours and hours and hardly ever hear me attacking people.

I asked Facebook friend, author and scholar, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner⁷, who has published two books on the Trinity, his thoughts on Jakes’ comments in the above interview. Beisner replied:

Far, far, far too little evidence there to justify reclassifying Jakes as Trinitarian granted all he’s said before and his continuing to consider United Pentecostals his Christian brothers. Nothing quoted there falls outside what any reasonably sly and sophisticated United Pentecostal could say. Let Jakes clearly and explicitly affirm such clear Trinitarian statements as the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, or even just Warfield’s summary–There is but one God; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is a distinct Person–and then let him also repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects, and it’ll be time to declare him converted to the true God. My impression is that Jakes is simply out to gain the trust of larger groups than the Oneness and Pentecostal crowd in which he’s been at home.

As I see it, there is cause for concern over giving Jakes a platform with Evangelical Christians. It would be great if Jakes were loving confronted on his positions with Scripture so he can clearly say what he means. Even if it could be shown that Jakes is now Trinitarian it would seem from the few examples listed above that he is not carrying out the pastoral duties of the role which he claims to fill.

When it comes to T.D. Jakes and Elephant Room it seems there is a lack of discernment when it comes to association.

For what it’s worth…
_____________________

Related posts:

1. Elephant Room II and TD Jakes’ Oneness Association
2. What Would You Ask TD Jakes at Elephant Room 2?
3. TD Jakes Reviews: Elephant Room and 11 Various Books

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 23 comments | Add to
Post tags: Elephant Room, James MacDonald, modalism, TD Jakes, Trinity

An interfaith prayer vigil will be held at the National Cathedral for the tenth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks. It seems that no Evangelicals were invited to participate along side the “dean of the Cathedral, the Bishop of Washington, a rabbi, Buddhist nun and incarnate lama, a Hindu priest, the president of the Islamic Society of North America and a Muslim musician.”¹

Should Evangelicals have been invited? Carl Trueman addressing Southern Baptists seems to think that not being invited is a good thing since no invitation means no compromise.² Mike Horton weighs in with a thoughtful response asking if Christians “can participate (much less encourage) such acts of “non-sectarian” worship.”³

I understand Trueman’s concerns and believe Horton spells the issues out nicely. I am almost persuaded that I would absolutely not pray at Ground Zero if asked. Almost.

My indecision lies at the feet of the interfaith aspect of the event. Interfaith cooperation does not really exist. Interfaith dialogue? Yes. Two different faiths praying together act like parallel lines running side-by-side, each proclaiming their own “truth” will never actually meeting. Such an event looks like nice on the outside and may feel emotionally satisfying, but is spiritually vacuous.

The question then becomes not would I pray, but how would I deal with the prayers of the others? What would I do during the time which the Muslim, Hindu, or Rabbi were praying? Would I bow my head out of respect? Respect for whom, the person speaking? What about respect for the Triune God? The dilemma would be how to participate without being seen as giving a nod of approval to other religions thereby inferring a denial, or at the very least a compromise, of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, I could pray to God the Father in Christ’s name while proclaiming the gospel though I’m not sure yet if I would. If I could here is an example of how I would pray.

Heavenly Father, 10 years have passed since the great tragedy of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Many have mourned and still mourn the loss of loves ones. Oh sovereign God, You are our great Comforter. You have not left us to mourn and walk blindly through this life. Father, You sent your Son, Jesus Christ, to comfort us with the good news that we are to receive by faith alone. Thank You for the good news that Jesus died on the cross in the place of sinners; that three days later He rose from the dead defeating death and securing hope in this life and in the afterlife for all who turn from their sin and believe in Him by faith alone. When Jesus ascended back to Heaven the Holy Spirit was sent as another Comforter to those who believe the good news and to convict those who don’t believe of their sin. Father, I ask that the good news of Jesus Christ go out today by the Holy Spirit to empower those who do not believe in Jesus that they will find comfort and hope in Him through their mourning. Thank you for the great hope of the good news of Your Son, Jesus.
I pray all of this in the most precious name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

What about you? Would you pray at this event?

For what it’s worth…
____________________________

Related posts:

1. Ethics: To Pray In Jesus Name Or Not?
2. Update: Christians and the Ground Zero Mosque
3. The Ground Zero Mosque An Artificial Controversy?

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 9 comments | Add to
Post tags: 9/11, Ground Zero, prayer

Steve Sjogren is know for what is called Servant Evangelism which, as I understand it, is a way of doing outreach through acts of kindness in hopes of sharing the gospel. At SermonCentral.com Sjogren has an article titled 94 Servant Evangelism Ideas for Your Church. The ideas he lists are certain good, kind things to do for your neighbors. How should we think about such acts in light of evangelism?

When this topic comes up it reminds me of something I call Amway Evangelism. This involves churches hosting events to draw non-Christians and then at some point unexpectedly springing the gospel on them. I use Amway to describe this approach because in the past Amway reps would try to get people to come to business meetings without revealing they were with Amway until somewhere near the end of the meeting. As I’ve thought about this approach to evangelism I’m not sure whether or not Servant Evangelism may be labeled Amway Evangelism.

The beginning of Sjogren’s article is quoted below. I’m curious to hear from people who have used this type of outreach (and, or course, those who haven’t).

Servant Evangelism (SE) connects people to people in a natural, easy, low-risk, high grace way.

Who doesn’t like to be given a cold soda on a hot day? Especially by someone who is smiling, happy, and having fun. SE wins the heart before it confronts the mind. A small act of kindness nudges a person closer to God, often in a profound way, as it bypasses one’s mental defenses. The average Christ-follower is willing to hand a stranger a can of soda (low-risk). The high grace is seen in the typical reaction. “Oh, thank you!” “This is so nice!” “I can’t believe this is for free!” And, “Why are you doing this?”

Kindness builds the bridge for the person to receive a touch of love from God. Add an invitation to church or other method of connection—even a simple card with your church’s name, phone number, and times of services—and you’ve reached someone with the love of Christ! (Click here to read the full article and ideas.)

Does this approach come across as a gimmick? Or is this approach a good one for hopefully sharing the gospel? Is Sjogren correct that such acts nudge “a person closer to God”? Though the most important question is – Is this approach biblical?

Thoughts?

Related posts:

1. Poll: Can Evangelism Be An Idol?
2. Grace No More
3. An Idol Called Evangelism booklet now out

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 12 comments | Add to
Post tags: servant evangelism

Paul wrote to Timothy and stated, ” Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12 ESV) I don’t think Paul had a four year old preacher in mind as one way this Scripture may be applied.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Starting at the 1:44 mark the clip shows four year old Kanon preach:

Hallelujah. I’m preaching about…I’m preaching about the one God. Like a man’s church to the man’s church of Pentecost…of Pentecost…of Pentecost is what I do for the one Lord. The red hot revival. If the Lord has the words you have the Pentecost! Grenada, Mississippi! The Lord is here tonight and his name is Jesus. There’s only one God and then he’s going to praise out his tears and just worship God. And then He’s going to worship God. But the Lord is going to do it that means God has to do it and then Jesus has to do it and then God is going to do it and then Jesus. Woah! I love to preach here tonight.

That is an interesting message to say the least. Kanon’s father believes he is partly mimicking what he grew up hearing while also believing God’s hand is on him “in a special way.” The father admits that some things out of Kanon’s mouth can’t really be “put together.” Kanon’s mother believes he understands what he is saying “to a degree” and is learning.

To the critics the father says that people are entitled to their opinion. He then references Proverbs 22:6 about training a child up in the way he should go and states that Kanon was not forced into preaching. I can’t imagine these parents just letting the child do whatever he wants in other areas of life with the reasoning that – “Well, we didn’t force in down that road he just did it himself.” That is actually not training a child up biblically.

So why are they doing this to their child if he doesn’t fully understand all that he’s saying and is mimicking others? I can’t answer that, but I will say that this boy is now set to be featured on a National Geographic special.

While the world laughs…

Related posts:

1. Young Life: Doctrine Divides Staff?
2. Preaching On Sin and Responsibility
3. 9 Marks Journal: Young Pastors

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 3 comments | Add to
Post tags: 4 yr old preacher, Kanon

[The following reply is a guest post originally published on spencernix.com (hyperlink removed the site is currently hacked) by friend and fellow blogger Spencer Nix. Spencer is a north Georgia native and Lead Pastor of Isaac's Keep in Canton, Georgia. He enjoys connecting with people and their story and living life simply and beautifully in his corner of Creation, the intersection of north Atlanta and Southern Appalachia.]

Or it’s more Puritan title: Brewing Controversy: A 12 Point Respectful Disagreement to the Estimable Rev. John MacArthur over the subject of Beer, which We Greatly Enjoy and Hope He Someday Will, too.

This post is a response to John MacArthur’s latest blog post. In no way was I ever contacted or asked about anything regarding the post prior to its posting. I was singled out along with a few others, through hyperlinks in Dr. MacArthur’s post. I do not represent anyone but myself and Reformation Brewery.  I don’t feel the need to respond directly to the author, nor to every point in the post.  I simply want my friends and those who associate with me and the ministries I’m involved with to know that I’m encouraged and grateful even as I disagree with a dear brother.  We can disagree and remain faithful to the Gospel, I can disagree and still love Big Mac.  The common criticism from those disillusioned with Christianity is often, “they can’t stop fighting with each other”. I’m mindful of that criticism and would prefer to have not been singled out by MacArthur on this issue, my hope is that my response communicates a deep respect for a fellow Christian even in disagreement.

First, I love John MacArthur without really knowing him personally, he is a hero to me in the Christian faith. When I first became a believer at age 20, his course material, Fundamentals of the Faith, was solid gold in my life. As a young Christian I read many of his books, I traveled the country to conferences in large part to hear him preach.  He has been used by God in my life and his heritage is not short or lean.  I pray the best for Dr. MacArthur and his continued ministry in the Gospel.

Second, I agree with what I believe is MacArthur’s largest point in the post. I believe his primary point is the danger of elevating any freedom over the primacy of the Gospel itself.  While I think MacArthur overstates his case against alcohol, the warning should be heard and I am hearing it.  Anything elevated over the Gospel is simply wrong and should be destroyed and repented of.  The fact is, we can take anything, even restrictions, and elevate them above the Gospel. John Calvin wrote that the human heart is an idol factory. Beer can indeed be an idol, but then so, too, can tee-totaling when it becomes your source of righteousness.

I understand the temptation to use a common existential experience we’ve all had, loved ones affected or tragically killed by the abuse of alcohol, and then to draw the line from there to an abstinence-only position. But trying to do exegetical gymnastics with biblical texts to prove that point is frankly disappointing. If you abstain because of pain and your association with the substance to the pain, I completely understand and respect, but don’t play fiddle with a grand piano. My wife and I have both painfully experienced how the abuse of alcohol destroys, and I agree that the larger culture of alcohol that we see mass marketed is deplorable and tasteless; it needs to be changed. But there exists more than one biblical and historical option in changing that reality.

Respectable and historical scholars understand that Jesus changed water into something much more potent than beer. Furthermore, beer and Christianity have risen hand in hand throughout history. It wasn’t to make anyone hip or worldly or whatever else, it was simply a gift to be enjoyed.  The last century isn’t total beer history, in fact it is the worst in terms of American beer, and why is that? It could be argued the abuses we see today are in large part from a misguided prohibition movement that essentially laid the path for mega corporations to take over the American beer culture and turn it into the sleaze it is today.  Perhaps if the church taught and lived a more healthy respect for food, alcohol and other gifts of God, we would change history. We can reform it to a more biblical balance.

MacArthur’s argument goes deep south from his primary point, as he appears to me to be arguing that liberty is imprudent at best and sinful at worst given the real dangers of alcohol and addiction. While I agree that alcohol does have intrinsic temptation towards addiction and idolatry, I would simply ask what doesn’t? As a pastor I assure you I see all kinds of temptations wreck a believer’s life.  I have witnessed and ministered to those desiring something as wholesome as children, and have seen that desire radically test their faith. Do we avoid children simply because there is intrinsic temptation towards desiring them above the Gospel?  Maybe something even more relevant in my context, what about food and sex? We all know the dangers and havoc pornography has played, should we abstain from sex too? Should we abstain and not talk about the good things regarding food and sex enjoyed under the right boundaries that God has given?  I mean no offense, but I meet a lot more people on the street and in the church who are struggling to push away french fries more than they are Fat Tires. The Centers for Disease Control reports that obesity is actually killing more Americans than alcoholism, drugs and car accidents combined, it’s not even close.  Who is railing against gluttony?

I have witnessed Dr. MacArthur’s increasing stream of criticisms toward so many who respect him, it has saddened me personally and now I am in that stream. I don’t know Dr. MacArthur’s heart, I only know some of his writings and some of his sermons, I have been tremendously blessed by them.

I close with a few thoughts and quotes from some of my other heroes. Martin Luther, a father to us all, was not known for backing down, he gave stern warning to those who retreated from everything that might tempt them, “do not suppose that abuses are eliminated by destroying the object which is abused, men can go wrong with wine and women. Shall we prohibit women?” John Calvin writes in the Golden Booklet section, that God “made the earthly blessings for our benefit, and not for our harm.” Later in the Institutes he writes, “we are nowhere forbidden to laugh or to be satisfied with food… or to be delighted with music, or to drink wine.” He also wrote, “it is permissible to use wine not only for necessity, but also to make us merry.”  And finally this from C.S. Lewis, “It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotalers; [Islam] not Christianity, is the teetotal religion. Of course it may be the duty of a particular Christian, or of any Christian, at a particular time, to abstain from strong drink, either because he is the sort of man who cannot drink at all without drinking too much, or because he is with people who are inclined to drunkenness and must not encourage them by drinking himself. But the whole point is that he is abstaining, for a good reason, from something which he does not condemn and which he likes to see other people enjoying. One of the marks of a certain type of bad man is that he cannot give up a thing himself without wanting every one else to give it up. That is not the Christian way. An individual Christian may see fit to give up all sorts of things for special reasons – marriage, or meat, or beer, or the cinema; but the moment he starts saying the things are bad in themselves, or looking down his nose at other people who do use them, he has taken the wrong turning.”

There is a difference in being merry and being drunk, from practicing abstinence from alcohol and requiring all others to do the same. I’m grieved and frightened by those who don’t see it. Heroes are not immune to wrong turns, grace is sufficient, the Gospel is prime.

Grace be with you,

Spencer Nix

I would like to thank my church elders and Nathan Maphet specifically for helping me think through this response, may God be glorified through the Gospel of His Son.

What would it look like if Satan took control of a city? Bars would close, pornography banished, tidy, smiling pedestrians filling pristine streets. No swearing. Children would say “yes sir” and “no ma’am”. And churches would be filled every Sunday…where Christ is not preached. -Donald Grey Barnhouse

Related posts:

1. John MacArthur’s Truth War
2. The SBC, Alcohol, Patterson and MacArthur
3. Frank Page and Alcohol Use: Heart of the Disagreement

© Mark for Here I Blog, 2011. | Permalink | 22 comments | Add to
Post tags: alcohol, beer, John MacArthur, reformed, restless, young, young restless reformed