Greg has done a tremendous job with this. No, it's not perfect, but it's convicting, none the less.
http://95thesestotheevangelicalchurch.blogspot.com/
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE HONORS AT SBTS....
Recently I blogged about the outrageous expenditure of $$$ for extravagant buildings, etc, at "Christian" colleges and seminaries, with an additional remark or two regarding the SBTS honor afforded Bible-denier and former seminary president Duke McCall. That was prompted by the arrival of that month's issue of the SBTS magazine.
Yesterday, my current issue arrived. Apparently it is designed as fodder for my rants....because this current issue celebrates the 15th anniversary of the "Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism" there on the Louisville campus. Billy Graham!....ain't that wonderful?
Yes, that naming did take place 15+ years ago, but.....even then, I had a pretty good idea where Billy Graham was coming from, so it's hard to believe that Al Mohler, Thom Rainer, et al, were duped like the large majority of churchdom which still views Graham as a reincarnation of the Apostle Paul.
So, two issues, two great bits of man-worship: one guy who as a theologian was a great politician, and one man who made decisional regeneration and ecumenism the American Standard. (I might excuse Mohler and the teaching staff at SBTS somewhat because I know they do not make these decisions. This is the stuff decided by dollars; whoever pays the piper calls the tune. What I rebuke them for is not standing against these "honors" publicly)
Anyway, in the spirit of the moment, I am privileged to announce some future plans for Honors at SBTS. Several other such events are in the works; I am privy to the "inside dope" and am going to give you a peek at these exciting developments right here, and now!
The next three events will honor some well-known public figures who are also Southern Baptist deacons and leaders. Here are the names and the Honor which is forthcoming:
BILL CLINTON: He will have a chair endowed in his honor: The William Jefferson Clinton Chair for Ethical Studies.
AL GORE: SBTS is adding a wing onto the Science Building to be named in Al's honor: The Gore Global Warming Wing.
JIMMY CARTER: Another endowed chair--this one The Jimmy Carter Chair for Studies in International Diplomacy and Terrorist Appeasement
I'm sure you will all agree that those 3 Southern Baptist gentlemen are every bit as deserving as the two previously discussed.
The Powers That Be have also decided, in the spirit of ecumenism, to honor someone from outside the SBC camp. The first recipient of such an honor will be:
ORAL ROBERTS. This pioneer in televangelism and mass-marketing of religion will be honored with a new building on campus:
The Oral Roberts Student Medical Center
(actually, this will not be a large building.....more of a kiosk or gazebo-type structure which contains a portrait of Roberts and an icon or relic, perhaps one of his sweat-stained hankies. Students who are ill can come into the kiosk, into the presence of the portrait, touch the relic, and be healed!)
I'm sure all of you are excited by these prospects as I am....and I'm sure there will be more such Honors down the road--just so the $$$ keep rolling in to support this Kingdom Work.
Yesterday, my current issue arrived. Apparently it is designed as fodder for my rants....because this current issue celebrates the 15th anniversary of the "Billy Graham School of Missions and Evangelism" there on the Louisville campus. Billy Graham!....ain't that wonderful?
Yes, that naming did take place 15+ years ago, but.....even then, I had a pretty good idea where Billy Graham was coming from, so it's hard to believe that Al Mohler, Thom Rainer, et al, were duped like the large majority of churchdom which still views Graham as a reincarnation of the Apostle Paul.
So, two issues, two great bits of man-worship: one guy who as a theologian was a great politician, and one man who made decisional regeneration and ecumenism the American Standard. (I might excuse Mohler and the teaching staff at SBTS somewhat because I know they do not make these decisions. This is the stuff decided by dollars; whoever pays the piper calls the tune. What I rebuke them for is not standing against these "honors" publicly)
Anyway, in the spirit of the moment, I am privileged to announce some future plans for Honors at SBTS. Several other such events are in the works; I am privy to the "inside dope" and am going to give you a peek at these exciting developments right here, and now!
The next three events will honor some well-known public figures who are also Southern Baptist deacons and leaders. Here are the names and the Honor which is forthcoming:
BILL CLINTON: He will have a chair endowed in his honor: The William Jefferson Clinton Chair for Ethical Studies.
AL GORE: SBTS is adding a wing onto the Science Building to be named in Al's honor: The Gore Global Warming Wing.
JIMMY CARTER: Another endowed chair--this one The Jimmy Carter Chair for Studies in International Diplomacy and Terrorist Appeasement
I'm sure you will all agree that those 3 Southern Baptist gentlemen are every bit as deserving as the two previously discussed.
The Powers That Be have also decided, in the spirit of ecumenism, to honor someone from outside the SBC camp. The first recipient of such an honor will be:
ORAL ROBERTS. This pioneer in televangelism and mass-marketing of religion will be honored with a new building on campus:
The Oral Roberts Student Medical Center
(actually, this will not be a large building.....more of a kiosk or gazebo-type structure which contains a portrait of Roberts and an icon or relic, perhaps one of his sweat-stained hankies. Students who are ill can come into the kiosk, into the presence of the portrait, touch the relic, and be healed!)
I'm sure all of you are excited by these prospects as I am....and I'm sure there will be more such Honors down the road--just so the $$$ keep rolling in to support this Kingdom Work.
Monday, October 26, 2009
FACEBOOK'S FADING FASCINATION
I once wrote on the subject of dispensationalism's loosening grip (on me).....today it's a similar thing, in a way. My two-year-old fascination with Facebook is fading, fast.
Not Facebook's fault, either. It is defined as a "social networking" enterprise. Fact is, I am not "social". The older I get, the more single-minded I am. There's not much I'm interested in.
The problem with that is, I think others should be the same way....that ain't working out too well. I have only 70-odd "friends" on Facebook. I cull that list continually in an effort for it to be meaningful, not just a collection of names. It is, more or less, a small group of folks with whom I have much in common......and those interests are theological and, for the most part, fall within a very narrow view of theology.
Despite my best efforts, these people still will not "do right"! I think I'd be better off not knowing that "preachers" and "pastors" can spend hours, even on the Lord's Day, posting play-by-play results from whatever the Game of the Day might be. A pastor can post a "status" comment about an athlete and have thirty or more responses within an hour and all sorts of interest and excitement is generated. Contrary-wise, one can post some reflection on spiritual matters and perhaps have a response from one or two readers.
Now, I'm not as stupid as this might make me sound. I know this is not new; I know it is not Facebook's fault. It's really just my problem. First, I'd like someplace to fellowship with fellow believers where the things of God are the primary focus. It's me who's trying to force Facebook into a box for which it was not designed.
Secondly, I know that it's me who finds this national obsession with sports to be a dismaying idolatry not acknowledged by most Christians--apparently because they're into it themselves. Compounding my most recent upset in this area is the fact that it was on Sunday. Of course, I have all kinds of problems there......I guess I'm almost a sabbatarian. I'm one of those guys who cannot "get it" why God gave Ten Commandments but only 9 of them mean anything today.
So, I get all bent out of shape when preachers and ministers, not to mention their flock, cannot wait to get away from the church building, the preaching, the fellowship of the saints, and settle down in front of the wide-screen on Sunday after Sunday to watch whatever sport is du jour. I mean the "whew!....glad that's over.....now let's play ball" is palpable in some circumstances.
Sabbatarianism aside, can we not, even those of us supposed "elders" and "pastors," give over completely to the things of God, one day out of seven? Maybe I am oversimplifying, but the Word says that which comes out of our mouth is born in our heart and reflects its state....and I find all these believers barely out of the building on Sunday all excited and carrying on about ball players and so forth, with an expenditure of energy rarely seen in Gospel endeavors. I had the temerity to tell one group that it was too bad that the Gospel was not so exciting as the subject of the sports discussion.....but was promptly informed by more than one that they had done their Gospel duty earlier in the day......Well, good to get that drudgery out of the way, I guess....then we can have a good time.
Oh, well. I'm just old and tired.....really sick of this world and the way it has utterly corrupted the "church" and most of its membership....especially saddened and discouraged to see that the leadership is just as bad, thus offering no hope for change. Maybe I'll turn on the tv and see if there's a game on......
(I could extend this rant and substitute "political raving" in place of sports.....it's just as bad, just as distracting from the Gospel, and just as wasteful of the little time we have remaining......but I'll spare you for now)
Not Facebook's fault, either. It is defined as a "social networking" enterprise. Fact is, I am not "social". The older I get, the more single-minded I am. There's not much I'm interested in.
The problem with that is, I think others should be the same way....that ain't working out too well. I have only 70-odd "friends" on Facebook. I cull that list continually in an effort for it to be meaningful, not just a collection of names. It is, more or less, a small group of folks with whom I have much in common......and those interests are theological and, for the most part, fall within a very narrow view of theology.
Despite my best efforts, these people still will not "do right"! I think I'd be better off not knowing that "preachers" and "pastors" can spend hours, even on the Lord's Day, posting play-by-play results from whatever the Game of the Day might be. A pastor can post a "status" comment about an athlete and have thirty or more responses within an hour and all sorts of interest and excitement is generated. Contrary-wise, one can post some reflection on spiritual matters and perhaps have a response from one or two readers.
Now, I'm not as stupid as this might make me sound. I know this is not new; I know it is not Facebook's fault. It's really just my problem. First, I'd like someplace to fellowship with fellow believers where the things of God are the primary focus. It's me who's trying to force Facebook into a box for which it was not designed.
Secondly, I know that it's me who finds this national obsession with sports to be a dismaying idolatry not acknowledged by most Christians--apparently because they're into it themselves. Compounding my most recent upset in this area is the fact that it was on Sunday. Of course, I have all kinds of problems there......I guess I'm almost a sabbatarian. I'm one of those guys who cannot "get it" why God gave Ten Commandments but only 9 of them mean anything today.
So, I get all bent out of shape when preachers and ministers, not to mention their flock, cannot wait to get away from the church building, the preaching, the fellowship of the saints, and settle down in front of the wide-screen on Sunday after Sunday to watch whatever sport is du jour. I mean the "whew!....glad that's over.....now let's play ball" is palpable in some circumstances.
Sabbatarianism aside, can we not, even those of us supposed "elders" and "pastors," give over completely to the things of God, one day out of seven? Maybe I am oversimplifying, but the Word says that which comes out of our mouth is born in our heart and reflects its state....and I find all these believers barely out of the building on Sunday all excited and carrying on about ball players and so forth, with an expenditure of energy rarely seen in Gospel endeavors. I had the temerity to tell one group that it was too bad that the Gospel was not so exciting as the subject of the sports discussion.....but was promptly informed by more than one that they had done their Gospel duty earlier in the day......Well, good to get that drudgery out of the way, I guess....then we can have a good time.
Oh, well. I'm just old and tired.....really sick of this world and the way it has utterly corrupted the "church" and most of its membership....especially saddened and discouraged to see that the leadership is just as bad, thus offering no hope for change. Maybe I'll turn on the tv and see if there's a game on......
(I could extend this rant and substitute "political raving" in place of sports.....it's just as bad, just as distracting from the Gospel, and just as wasteful of the little time we have remaining......but I'll spare you for now)
Labels:
Christless Christianity,
Gospel,
Idolatry,
Ministry,
Worldview
Thursday, October 22, 2009
"WE'RE A MISSIONARY CHURCH"
In a comment on my previous article, Brother Mike said "There seems to be a lack of "go do" in our churches today. At least there is on the local front.
Now if you call for a 'mission trip' to some country whose name is difficult to pronounce everyone seems to jump on board. Why? Because it's the trendy and popular thing to do."
This is an excellent example of the mind-set I am at war with. We have church members allowed to "fall through the cracks" right in front of our eyes because we can not or will not expend the effort because it's laborious, mundane, and (publicly) unrewarding. Fact is: our hearts simply are not in it.
But let come the announcement of that "mission trip" to Mexico, Costa Rica, Alaska, etc, and it's "Sign me up, brother! I want to reach people for the Lord!" (I know in advance that this is a real "rant arena" for me and I'm trying to stifle myself....a bit) Maybe some good comes of these things; I'll allow that I am probably not 100% right on this.......however, I am probably never going to be convinced that in most cases these things are not simply glorified vacations which serve further to assuage the consciences of church members who have never lifted a finger on the home front. Their neighbors are untold; their family is untold; their work associates are untold.....but they want to spend $6000. to go to Timbuktu for a week and "win souls"
And this can be extrapolated (with some loss of accuracy, I'm sure) to entire congregations which "Go For The Glory" They have elaborate, well-promoted, well-funded foreign missions programs. Most all this involves supporting financially men and women already on the field, around the world. The maps are up in the hallway and reports are received regularly. Missionaries on leave come by the "supporting church" and do the slide show....."We're a Missionary Church!"
This same church, it might be noted, has no prison or jail ministry; they have no nursing home ministry; they have no food pantry, kitchen, clothing supply, disaster work crews, homeless care ministry, etc, etc, and ETC. None! Fact is, they have no local outreach at all. This "Missionary Church" says to the community where it lives: "We don't have time or patience to deal with you; we're involved in the Lord's work all over the world."
Please correct me here.....but it looks to me like it boils down to this: "We're a Missionary Church" ain't hittin' a lick except to write the check once a month to fund someone else to do the dirty work....and that does not translate into anything local. I mean, it's hard to send out a missionary to your own town, right? So, we can have this big budget, big annual meeting, and big map on the wall, and we can look really good! The idea of actually gettin' off the pew and out into the streets and talking to real people, even dirty, uneducated, uncouth, people not of "our kind"......now that's a bit much. Don't even talk about going into a nursing home to those smelly, pathetic, mindless old people....or a jail or prison and associating with those people!
"We're a Missionary Church" all right.....just so we can keep it convenient, clean, with lots of acclaim, and maybe even get some time on the beach, huh?
Now if you call for a 'mission trip' to some country whose name is difficult to pronounce everyone seems to jump on board. Why? Because it's the trendy and popular thing to do."
This is an excellent example of the mind-set I am at war with. We have church members allowed to "fall through the cracks" right in front of our eyes because we can not or will not expend the effort because it's laborious, mundane, and (publicly) unrewarding. Fact is: our hearts simply are not in it.
But let come the announcement of that "mission trip" to Mexico, Costa Rica, Alaska, etc, and it's "Sign me up, brother! I want to reach people for the Lord!" (I know in advance that this is a real "rant arena" for me and I'm trying to stifle myself....a bit) Maybe some good comes of these things; I'll allow that I am probably not 100% right on this.......however, I am probably never going to be convinced that in most cases these things are not simply glorified vacations which serve further to assuage the consciences of church members who have never lifted a finger on the home front. Their neighbors are untold; their family is untold; their work associates are untold.....but they want to spend $6000. to go to Timbuktu for a week and "win souls"
And this can be extrapolated (with some loss of accuracy, I'm sure) to entire congregations which "Go For The Glory" They have elaborate, well-promoted, well-funded foreign missions programs. Most all this involves supporting financially men and women already on the field, around the world. The maps are up in the hallway and reports are received regularly. Missionaries on leave come by the "supporting church" and do the slide show....."We're a Missionary Church!"
This same church, it might be noted, has no prison or jail ministry; they have no nursing home ministry; they have no food pantry, kitchen, clothing supply, disaster work crews, homeless care ministry, etc, etc, and ETC. None! Fact is, they have no local outreach at all. This "Missionary Church" says to the community where it lives: "We don't have time or patience to deal with you; we're involved in the Lord's work all over the world."
Please correct me here.....but it looks to me like it boils down to this: "We're a Missionary Church" ain't hittin' a lick except to write the check once a month to fund someone else to do the dirty work....and that does not translate into anything local. I mean, it's hard to send out a missionary to your own town, right? So, we can have this big budget, big annual meeting, and big map on the wall, and we can look really good! The idea of actually gettin' off the pew and out into the streets and talking to real people, even dirty, uneducated, uncouth, people not of "our kind"......now that's a bit much. Don't even talk about going into a nursing home to those smelly, pathetic, mindless old people....or a jail or prison and associating with those people!
"We're a Missionary Church" all right.....just so we can keep it convenient, clean, with lots of acclaim, and maybe even get some time on the beach, huh?
Friday, October 16, 2009
"WIN SOME, LOSE SOME" or 'ONE MONKEY DON'T STOP THE SHOW"
Despite loud (very loud) protestations to the contrary, it seems to me that the local churches are writing off a certain number of folks who "fall through the cracks"....just as in a business model where there are bound to be losses through shoplifting or breakage: part of the game, they say.
Mostly this is a characteristic of large congregations.....how large? who can say specifically? It does seem to me, in my thoroughly subjective view of this, that the larger the congregation, the more likely it is to happen, and the more likely it is to be "written off" as a natural consequence.
It's like there is an unwritten protocol, a time frame in which absent members or wayward members are dealt with. If a family absents itself for a week or two, they get the phone calls, perhaps even personal visits. After a month, this contact diminishes; after two months or so, all communication ceases. The times vary but the end result is the same: "members" of the body are amputated. The attitude out of which this is born reminds me of the old Hollywood line "What have you done for me lately?" If someone is not currently behaving in a manner befitting your ideal, they are to be cut off and forgotten!
If my reader here is naive, he might be thinking I am harsh. Let me give you just one example. Several years ago, we joined a prominent church in a new (to us) community. I was in the very early days of prison ministry. Our new pastor gave us a directory of church members and I spent some time looking though it, identifying folks whom we'd met and wondering about those whom I'd never seen in the services. Most of the photos were of families or couples but there was one which caught my eye: a single man, 35-40....I'd never seen him around. I asked the pastor about him. "Oh, he's in jail I think...."
"Have you been to see him?" I asked. Nah, he thought some one had, one of the deacons. I asked around and no one knew much. (Turns out I asked the wrong people, but didn't learn that til later) About a year later, after we had started weekly meetings in one of the state prisons in this county, that very fellow from the directory walked into the chapel. He'd been in prison for 4 years at that point. He'd had no contact with anyone from the church.
That story has a happy ending. He is out on parole now, working, and attending church regularly (not the church where he was once a member, however...nor am I, for that matter). You see what I'm saying?....after a certain period of time, people are just written off, forgotten. "oh, he doesn't go here any more"
I know I said "one example" and this is not another, just a generality. Nursing home residents are another forgotten group. At one time, we did a lot of nursing home ministry. I cannot tell you how many folks I talked with week after week and asked if they were Christians, if they were "church members" and so forth, and how many responded along the lines of "I used to be a member of such and such a church"...but they'd lived in that nursing home for years and had no contact with their "church family"
"Well, they quit coming......." Yep, sure did! Locked up, shut in, disabled, paralyzed, mind's slipping, immobilzed by aging and illness.....they quit coming. And the "church" quit caring......
No, the "church" never cared. It was all "form" When one is there, in the proper place, making the proper sounds and motions, they are cool......they are part of the show. When one becomes anomalous, some effort is made to bring him back into the expected pattern, but if those efforts fail, the anomalies are quickly abandoned. Too much effort required, too much a departure from the routine, the sacred routine.
As we used to say in the insurance business, when 90 or so of us gathered for the hated, mandatory "sales meeting".....and the start was delayed because one guy was late..."One monkey don't stop the show"....The church is down with that! Those who fall by the wayside are left after minimal, token efforts....we cannot slow down the juggernaut simply to minister to a single person or couple. You win some, you lose some......
Mostly this is a characteristic of large congregations.....how large? who can say specifically? It does seem to me, in my thoroughly subjective view of this, that the larger the congregation, the more likely it is to happen, and the more likely it is to be "written off" as a natural consequence.
It's like there is an unwritten protocol, a time frame in which absent members or wayward members are dealt with. If a family absents itself for a week or two, they get the phone calls, perhaps even personal visits. After a month, this contact diminishes; after two months or so, all communication ceases. The times vary but the end result is the same: "members" of the body are amputated. The attitude out of which this is born reminds me of the old Hollywood line "What have you done for me lately?" If someone is not currently behaving in a manner befitting your ideal, they are to be cut off and forgotten!
If my reader here is naive, he might be thinking I am harsh. Let me give you just one example. Several years ago, we joined a prominent church in a new (to us) community. I was in the very early days of prison ministry. Our new pastor gave us a directory of church members and I spent some time looking though it, identifying folks whom we'd met and wondering about those whom I'd never seen in the services. Most of the photos were of families or couples but there was one which caught my eye: a single man, 35-40....I'd never seen him around. I asked the pastor about him. "Oh, he's in jail I think...."
"Have you been to see him?" I asked. Nah, he thought some one had, one of the deacons. I asked around and no one knew much. (Turns out I asked the wrong people, but didn't learn that til later) About a year later, after we had started weekly meetings in one of the state prisons in this county, that very fellow from the directory walked into the chapel. He'd been in prison for 4 years at that point. He'd had no contact with anyone from the church.
That story has a happy ending. He is out on parole now, working, and attending church regularly (not the church where he was once a member, however...nor am I, for that matter). You see what I'm saying?....after a certain period of time, people are just written off, forgotten. "oh, he doesn't go here any more"
I know I said "one example" and this is not another, just a generality. Nursing home residents are another forgotten group. At one time, we did a lot of nursing home ministry. I cannot tell you how many folks I talked with week after week and asked if they were Christians, if they were "church members" and so forth, and how many responded along the lines of "I used to be a member of such and such a church"...but they'd lived in that nursing home for years and had no contact with their "church family"
"Well, they quit coming......." Yep, sure did! Locked up, shut in, disabled, paralyzed, mind's slipping, immobilzed by aging and illness.....they quit coming. And the "church" quit caring......
No, the "church" never cared. It was all "form" When one is there, in the proper place, making the proper sounds and motions, they are cool......they are part of the show. When one becomes anomalous, some effort is made to bring him back into the expected pattern, but if those efforts fail, the anomalies are quickly abandoned. Too much effort required, too much a departure from the routine, the sacred routine.
As we used to say in the insurance business, when 90 or so of us gathered for the hated, mandatory "sales meeting".....and the start was delayed because one guy was late..."One monkey don't stop the show"....The church is down with that! Those who fall by the wayside are left after minimal, token efforts....we cannot slow down the juggernaut simply to minister to a single person or couple. You win some, you lose some......
Labels:
Christless Christianity,
Ministry,
Prison Ministry
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
BATTING .333
If I'd ever been good enough to play pro baseball, a .333 average might have been pretty good.....but in this world of picking and recommending doctrinally-sound ministry sites, it ain't too hot.
That's what I did about 2 or 3 months ago when I posted an article here recommending 3 sites I had just discovered.
About a month later, I had to delete one when I found out the main emphasis was the bitterness of the author who used the site for his personal ax-grinding.
Today, I had to delete another one, having learned that the leader of this one is just another "I am not accountable to anyone" ego-driven juvenile. I'm sure there are lots of Godly people involved in that one but fear that they'll not get much guidance from this "pastor"
Sad, but not surprising.
That's what I did about 2 or 3 months ago when I posted an article here recommending 3 sites I had just discovered.
About a month later, I had to delete one when I found out the main emphasis was the bitterness of the author who used the site for his personal ax-grinding.
Today, I had to delete another one, having learned that the leader of this one is just another "I am not accountable to anyone" ego-driven juvenile. I'm sure there are lots of Godly people involved in that one but fear that they'll not get much guidance from this "pastor"
Sad, but not surprising.
Labels:
Christless Christianity,
False Teachers,
Ministry
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
HOUSE CHURCHES part 4
I think it's time for another Reformation. The first one did great things with regard to theology, particularly the theology of Justification. Unfortunately, those reformers carried over the trappings of the Roman church with regard to nearly everything else.....paedo-baptism, formalism, this firmly-entrenched clergy-laity dichotomy, the idea that a church building must rival the Taj Mahal, the idea of centralizing power in one man (within a congregation or within a denomination).
House churches could be the genesis of such a reformation. The potential is there, but so is the potential to end up with something which is different but not better. I saw a poignant example of that the other day on the website of a prominent house church advocate where a guy was railing against the perversion of "authority" in traditional churches, "one-man dictatorships" and how the church should be a democracy. Then, in the next breath, as he made the pitch for selling his sermon recordings, he warned that his sermons were "harsh" dogmatic and might seem mean-spirited........So, in his effort to unseat the present problem, he acts just like his "enemy"......wonderful!
The old cliche about "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is apropos in this situation. I do not dispute that traditional churches are fraught with problems. The problems do not exist because these churches are following the Biblical examples and instructions, however, but because they are not following them. The house church which begins by ignoring or manipulating clear Biblical structures is bound for failure...failure to be a Biblical church, anyway. It might be a success in the eyes of those who were looking for an escape from church discipline, from accountability, etc, but it will be no better than the traditional off-course congregation of today......just same mess, different location.
I've been reading house church stuff since the 70's but I don't pretend to be an expert on all the "schools of thought" in the field. I've been a leader in 3 church starts, one of which began in our living room 30 years ago. Nearly every camp I've visited soon throws a curve regarding Biblical structure. One early leader had my attention until he advocated the ordination of women; the idea of "democracy" is very big in some circles nowadays. "We're all teachers" I've heard over and over. That stuff reminds me of the old, worthless Sunday school nonsense "and what does this verse mean to you?"
It's clear in the Word that God gives His local churches gifts including teachers. Not everyone is a teacher. Not everyone is a deacon. Men are so pride-filled they are unable to sit down and learn, to shut up and listen....even when God has provided teachers for that very purpose--fulfilling the local church's mission: the edification of the saints. That edification does not come about through a bunch of scripturally-ignorant people sitting around in a circle nattering about "what this verse means".
I'm not sure what it will take......an act of God, for sure.......to put the house church movement on the right path. Too many times, the ones who rise to the top are the most vocal, stridently so, axe-grinders, the disaffected, the hurt, the bitter, out of the traditional church world. Their "house church" becomes a cult of the personality, every bit as much as the traditional church they disdain.
On the bright side, I think most of the negative stuff is localized in the U.S. Elsewhere in the world, where folks have not (yet anyway) been poisoned by the koolaid of "American Christianity" house churches do very well. Missionaries who are where they are for the purpose of declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than westernizing someone's culture are able to plant churches more in line with the "Jewish community" model as opposed to replicating American-Constantinian model churches (see part 3 regarding this nomenclature).
House churches could be the genesis of such a reformation. The potential is there, but so is the potential to end up with something which is different but not better. I saw a poignant example of that the other day on the website of a prominent house church advocate where a guy was railing against the perversion of "authority" in traditional churches, "one-man dictatorships" and how the church should be a democracy. Then, in the next breath, as he made the pitch for selling his sermon recordings, he warned that his sermons were "harsh" dogmatic and might seem mean-spirited........So, in his effort to unseat the present problem, he acts just like his "enemy"......wonderful!
The old cliche about "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is apropos in this situation. I do not dispute that traditional churches are fraught with problems. The problems do not exist because these churches are following the Biblical examples and instructions, however, but because they are not following them. The house church which begins by ignoring or manipulating clear Biblical structures is bound for failure...failure to be a Biblical church, anyway. It might be a success in the eyes of those who were looking for an escape from church discipline, from accountability, etc, but it will be no better than the traditional off-course congregation of today......just same mess, different location.
I've been reading house church stuff since the 70's but I don't pretend to be an expert on all the "schools of thought" in the field. I've been a leader in 3 church starts, one of which began in our living room 30 years ago. Nearly every camp I've visited soon throws a curve regarding Biblical structure. One early leader had my attention until he advocated the ordination of women; the idea of "democracy" is very big in some circles nowadays. "We're all teachers" I've heard over and over. That stuff reminds me of the old, worthless Sunday school nonsense "and what does this verse mean to you?"
It's clear in the Word that God gives His local churches gifts including teachers. Not everyone is a teacher. Not everyone is a deacon. Men are so pride-filled they are unable to sit down and learn, to shut up and listen....even when God has provided teachers for that very purpose--fulfilling the local church's mission: the edification of the saints. That edification does not come about through a bunch of scripturally-ignorant people sitting around in a circle nattering about "what this verse means".
I'm not sure what it will take......an act of God, for sure.......to put the house church movement on the right path. Too many times, the ones who rise to the top are the most vocal, stridently so, axe-grinders, the disaffected, the hurt, the bitter, out of the traditional church world. Their "house church" becomes a cult of the personality, every bit as much as the traditional church they disdain.
On the bright side, I think most of the negative stuff is localized in the U.S. Elsewhere in the world, where folks have not (yet anyway) been poisoned by the koolaid of "American Christianity" house churches do very well. Missionaries who are where they are for the purpose of declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than westernizing someone's culture are able to plant churches more in line with the "Jewish community" model as opposed to replicating American-Constantinian model churches (see part 3 regarding this nomenclature).
Sunday, September 20, 2009
SHALL WE "MOVE ON" FROM THE CROSS?
A friend asked recently, in so many words, "Should we not move on from all this emphasis on the Cross....move on to the Throne, where Christ is now?"
Of course, "No!" pops into my mind immediately. Following that, as I began thinking about the ramifications of the question, I posted this blurb: "...the centrality of the Cross. No event in history approaches the magnitude; no event in eternity will overshadow it. Nothing good or worthwhile is possible apart from it."
But, the question deserves more than a one-word answer or a clever blurb. It's difficult first of all because it's impossible to know exactly what a questioner means, what's in their heart, how they define their terms, etc. So misunderstanding and miscommunication are real threats. Nevertheless, I am going to undertake if not to answer, to open up this area for thought and discussion.
The original question included the phrase "...Cross more of a doorway to the throne where we ought to be" We'll start there....Background: we have a race of fallen men, sinners, alienated from God because of their sinful state/nature......and we have God who wills to reconcile some of those fallen men to Himself for His glory. In order to maintain His righteousness, to continue to be the Just God, He must execute His wrath, His justice in response to those sins. He chooses the only way to be both Just and Justifier: the sacrifice of His perfectly holy, sinless Son in the place of those whom He will redeem. That work took place on that cross and is referred to in various terms like "the Cross" "the Blood" and "the Death of Christ"....all connected to this work of sin-bearing, wrath, expiation, atonement.
The questioner's specific reference to the "throne" came from Hebrews 4:16--
Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Yes, we may now draw near to this throne of Grace and receive mercy and grace.....but it seems impossible to leave the Cross out of this picture. A couple of random thoughts:
1. Throne. Generally, God's throne is pictured as a place of judgment. Often it is portrayed as a courtroom scene where guilty sinners stand before a Holy God to hear their doom pronounced. In this instance, the throne is a "throne of grace and mercy".....How can that be? Because of the Cross! The required Judgment has been executed upon Christ for those who are His.
2. This throne is not a "dwelling place" for believers, but a place to which we can draw near as necessary. So far as positional standing, Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6 that believers are presently (right now) seated with Him in heavenly places. Note well the last three words of that phrase: in Christ Jesus. This is spiritual positioning. Believers are "in Christ" so we are wherever He is, spiritually.
Paul (ok then, the "writer of Hebrews...lol) says "draw near to the Throne"....How are we able to do that? What man can stand before the Throne, in the presence of God? Only the man who is "in Christ"...Further along in Hebrews, chapter 10, it is written:
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
.....let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
See? The only means by which we can "draw near the throne" is the Blood of Christ, the Cross. They are inseparable.
Believers are still sinners--saved sinners, to be sure--but sinners. Were we not "in Christ" we could never approach the throne except as we were dragged before God in judgment. Believers are commanded continually to avail themselves of this cleansing stream. Though spiritually seated with Christ, we are physically still walking in this filthy world, in our sin-corrupted flesh, and are wracked by sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1)
So, what are believers to do about their sin? If we've left behind the Cross, we're in trouble, because God's provision is:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. .......If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1)
We must visit the Cross regularly, daily. It, the Blood of Christ, is the birthplace of the forgiveness we receive from God. It's not a "one time deal" from we can "move on" to higher or better things. There are no "higher or better things"!
For some, this kind of question may be born out of a low view of the Gospel (not the case with my questioner, but others I have met). There is this notion that the "gospel" is some one-trick pony in which a lost man recites a wrote prayer and presto-chango becomes a child of God. Recently I was engaged in an internet discussion where a man reduced the "gospel" to one verse in his argument that there was so much more of importance in the Bible than the Gospel.
My view is that there is nothing in the Bible but the Gospel. God's word is His revelation to man of His plan and work for redeeming unto Himself a people and glorifying Himself in so doing. The redemption of sinners, their reconciliation to a Holy God is the Gospel. The centerpiece of the Gospel is the Cross. Every other "good thing" which believers have is a product of the Cross. Apart from it, we have nothing. We dare not leave it behind.
I feel that all scripture supports my view on this but am particularly led by a couple of passages from Paul's epistles:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(1 Corinthians 2:2)
To this troubled church in Corinth, Paul had only one message and it was born out of that foundational event--the crucifixion of Christ--the Cross.
Earlier he had written to the church in Rome of his desire to come to them and minister to them.....what did he say specifically?--
So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
(Romans 1:15-16)
See that? He wanted to preach to this church, this local assembly of believers.......and his desire was to "preach the Gospel" to them. There is no "moving on" in his heart. The Gospel is the power of God to those who believe!
Really, this is much of what's lacking in today's churches. They have moved on.....and now get sermons on financial practices, sex technique, and electoral politics. But lives are not transformed by that; God is not glorified by that.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(Ephesians 2:13-16)
Of course, "No!" pops into my mind immediately. Following that, as I began thinking about the ramifications of the question, I posted this blurb: "...the centrality of the Cross. No event in history approaches the magnitude; no event in eternity will overshadow it. Nothing good or worthwhile is possible apart from it."
But, the question deserves more than a one-word answer or a clever blurb. It's difficult first of all because it's impossible to know exactly what a questioner means, what's in their heart, how they define their terms, etc. So misunderstanding and miscommunication are real threats. Nevertheless, I am going to undertake if not to answer, to open up this area for thought and discussion.
The original question included the phrase "...Cross more of a doorway to the throne where we ought to be" We'll start there....Background: we have a race of fallen men, sinners, alienated from God because of their sinful state/nature......and we have God who wills to reconcile some of those fallen men to Himself for His glory. In order to maintain His righteousness, to continue to be the Just God, He must execute His wrath, His justice in response to those sins. He chooses the only way to be both Just and Justifier: the sacrifice of His perfectly holy, sinless Son in the place of those whom He will redeem. That work took place on that cross and is referred to in various terms like "the Cross" "the Blood" and "the Death of Christ"....all connected to this work of sin-bearing, wrath, expiation, atonement.
The questioner's specific reference to the "throne" came from Hebrews 4:16--
Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
Yes, we may now draw near to this throne of Grace and receive mercy and grace.....but it seems impossible to leave the Cross out of this picture. A couple of random thoughts:
1. Throne. Generally, God's throne is pictured as a place of judgment. Often it is portrayed as a courtroom scene where guilty sinners stand before a Holy God to hear their doom pronounced. In this instance, the throne is a "throne of grace and mercy".....How can that be? Because of the Cross! The required Judgment has been executed upon Christ for those who are His.
2. This throne is not a "dwelling place" for believers, but a place to which we can draw near as necessary. So far as positional standing, Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:6 that believers are presently (right now) seated with Him in heavenly places. Note well the last three words of that phrase: in Christ Jesus. This is spiritual positioning. Believers are "in Christ" so we are wherever He is, spiritually.
Paul (ok then, the "writer of Hebrews...lol) says "draw near to the Throne"....How are we able to do that? What man can stand before the Throne, in the presence of God? Only the man who is "in Christ"...Further along in Hebrews, chapter 10, it is written:
Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus,
.....let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.
See? The only means by which we can "draw near the throne" is the Blood of Christ, the Cross. They are inseparable.
Believers are still sinners--saved sinners, to be sure--but sinners. Were we not "in Christ" we could never approach the throne except as we were dragged before God in judgment. Believers are commanded continually to avail themselves of this cleansing stream. Though spiritually seated with Christ, we are physically still walking in this filthy world, in our sin-corrupted flesh, and are wracked by sin.
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1)
So, what are believers to do about their sin? If we've left behind the Cross, we're in trouble, because God's provision is:
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. .......If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1)
We must visit the Cross regularly, daily. It, the Blood of Christ, is the birthplace of the forgiveness we receive from God. It's not a "one time deal" from we can "move on" to higher or better things. There are no "higher or better things"!
For some, this kind of question may be born out of a low view of the Gospel (not the case with my questioner, but others I have met). There is this notion that the "gospel" is some one-trick pony in which a lost man recites a wrote prayer and presto-chango becomes a child of God. Recently I was engaged in an internet discussion where a man reduced the "gospel" to one verse in his argument that there was so much more of importance in the Bible than the Gospel.
My view is that there is nothing in the Bible but the Gospel. God's word is His revelation to man of His plan and work for redeeming unto Himself a people and glorifying Himself in so doing. The redemption of sinners, their reconciliation to a Holy God is the Gospel. The centerpiece of the Gospel is the Cross. Every other "good thing" which believers have is a product of the Cross. Apart from it, we have nothing. We dare not leave it behind.
I feel that all scripture supports my view on this but am particularly led by a couple of passages from Paul's epistles:
For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
(1 Corinthians 2:2)
To this troubled church in Corinth, Paul had only one message and it was born out of that foundational event--the crucifixion of Christ--the Cross.
Earlier he had written to the church in Rome of his desire to come to them and minister to them.....what did he say specifically?--
So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
(Romans 1:15-16)
See that? He wanted to preach to this church, this local assembly of believers.......and his desire was to "preach the Gospel" to them. There is no "moving on" in his heart. The Gospel is the power of God to those who believe!
Really, this is much of what's lacking in today's churches. They have moved on.....and now get sermons on financial practices, sex technique, and electoral politics. But lives are not transformed by that; God is not glorified by that.
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
(Ephesians 2:13-16)
Thursday, September 17, 2009
HOUSE CHURCHES part 2
Recently I read parts of a doctoral dissertation by a Facebook friend. It's over my head; I am finally acknowledging that my lack of formal education is a handicap, not something to boast about, but it's too late!
Anyway, the portion of this thesis which caught my eye was on the dichotomy of Constantinian church structure versus the Jewish community structure. Most of what follows here is what I infer from what I have read so far, which quantity is really insufficient for drawing the conclusions I'm heading for.......so I'm subject to correction (as always) and open to criticism.
To me, the ideal local church has always been one modeled after Acts 2:41-47. This is also the "church" which I've never found......it seems not to exist today. Apparently this is the "Jewish community" model which dominated Christianity for some time after Acts 2--until the fourth century when Constantine came into power.
The Constantinian model is described as "a move from house churches to large basilicas, infant baptism (since now citizenship in the state was equivalent with membership in the church, which was no longer voluntary), a move from multiple church leadership to more authority vested in the priest and in the church hierarchy, and a shift of emphasis from awaiting God's final victory over the powers in the age to come, to primary concern about the fate of each individual's soul."
That quote is from an article by Lois Barrett:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2794
She actually identifies 4 models of the "church" but I think the first 3, generally speaking, can be lumped together with the Constantinian model in opposition to the Jewish community model. One of the others is described as follows (this is so good I kept expanding the quote...so it's quite lengthy....but "Hello, 21st Century 'church'"!!!
"...the church as voluntary association in somewhat like a religious civic club. This model assumes a segmented life: the soccer club takes care of one's recreational needs; the business association takes care of one's professional needs; the church takes care of one's spiritual needs. The church is a place to mold good citizens, civil people, good people who will go out and do good things that benefit society as a whole. Relationships with government are often of the reform variety. The good people in the church are sent out to work in their particular vocation in a Christian manner. Churches of this model can be liberal or conservative, evangelical or mainline. They are interested in operating by democratic principles. They sometimes have a type of civil religion. They think that the real power lies in Washington and Ottawa. They are as much a part of the establishment as the previous model."
(more to come....)
Anyway, the portion of this thesis which caught my eye was on the dichotomy of Constantinian church structure versus the Jewish community structure. Most of what follows here is what I infer from what I have read so far, which quantity is really insufficient for drawing the conclusions I'm heading for.......so I'm subject to correction (as always) and open to criticism.
To me, the ideal local church has always been one modeled after Acts 2:41-47. This is also the "church" which I've never found......it seems not to exist today. Apparently this is the "Jewish community" model which dominated Christianity for some time after Acts 2--until the fourth century when Constantine came into power.
The Constantinian model is described as "a move from house churches to large basilicas, infant baptism (since now citizenship in the state was equivalent with membership in the church, which was no longer voluntary), a move from multiple church leadership to more authority vested in the priest and in the church hierarchy, and a shift of emphasis from awaiting God's final victory over the powers in the age to come, to primary concern about the fate of each individual's soul."
That quote is from an article by Lois Barrett:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2794
She actually identifies 4 models of the "church" but I think the first 3, generally speaking, can be lumped together with the Constantinian model in opposition to the Jewish community model. One of the others is described as follows (this is so good I kept expanding the quote...so it's quite lengthy....but "Hello, 21st Century 'church'"!!!
"...the church as voluntary association in somewhat like a religious civic club. This model assumes a segmented life: the soccer club takes care of one's recreational needs; the business association takes care of one's professional needs; the church takes care of one's spiritual needs. The church is a place to mold good citizens, civil people, good people who will go out and do good things that benefit society as a whole. Relationships with government are often of the reform variety. The good people in the church are sent out to work in their particular vocation in a Christian manner. Churches of this model can be liberal or conservative, evangelical or mainline. They are interested in operating by democratic principles. They sometimes have a type of civil religion. They think that the real power lies in Washington and Ottawa. They are as much a part of the establishment as the previous model."
(more to come....)
THE BIBLICAL HOUSE CHURCH
I've made a few comments about unBiblical house churches which have stirred some hysterical reactions, from coast to coast, Syracuse to LA......mostly cases of "hit dogs yelping"
Lest I be misunderstood by the brethren, however, I thought I might make a few observations about what I hope is the great majority of house churches--the Biblical ones.
Most of us agree that the majority of local churches today, which from here on will be referred to as "traditional" or "TC" for the sake of brevity, most of these are greatly flawed, ineffective, and often worse than that.
So, what goals should one have in mind, what motivation should one have, if he is starting a house church?
1. First, it must NOT be about you. This is the category I've been belaboring in other posts and I'll not dwell on it here. Churches started by men who are in rebellion, had their feelings hurt, etc, are not "churches" Local churches are established by God as the Holy Spirit leads Godly men, for the purpose of bringing glory to His name.
2. House churches must not be ingrown, insular, isolationist...as are so many TC. The commandment from God is still to "go out" to the world, not sit in your pew and wait for the lost to come to you....especially not come to you because your "church" looks like the Ringling Brothers Circus or MTV live.
3. House churches should spread by division, like cellular growth. I've seen TC with a dozen, or 20, or 30 preachers in the congregation. What in the world are they doing? Nearly all of us will be quick to complain that there are so few doctrinally-sound churches....but here we have the manpower to lead a dozen or two dozen congregations, men who are doctrinally sound.....and they are sitting in the same room on Sunday rather than ministering to the countless hundreds and thousands of folks who wish they had a "good church" to attend.
That's among the worst of mistakes in the TC which house churches should avoid.....it's quite avoidable if folks keep their eye on the Vision. Briefly, the Vision for house churches should be something like this:
It begins with a gathering of 6-10 of God's redeemed and over time, as God moves, grows to 40 or 50 or 100.......All during this growth time, it sends out (ordains) church planters to new areas, new neighborhoods, adjoining towns, and another 6-10 folks repeat the process. This kind of growth by division will lead to the Biblical idea of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, ends of the earth.
What you will not have is this TC stultification, this "delegation" of the Great Commission to "someone else"--contentment in financially supporting a few missionaries overseas or sending a check every month to some mission board; contentment in the hearts of 99% of the "church membership" who never lift a finger toward spreading the Gospel.
Neither then will the house church ever get into the Castle on the Corner mentality where the driving force in their congregation is to have the finest physical plant of any group in the city. They will never be Big.......because they keep splitting off and going rather than staying put and building $40 million "campuses"
Nor will they ever become "magnet" churches like some TC--those institutions which have become prominent perhaps even world-wide, known for strong preaching. Too often, these magnets attract people from far and wide who then end up in one city, one congregation, and who sit there for the rest of their lives enjoying the "good preaching, good teaching" but without a burden for those who can't make the long drive or move to another city and remain "churchless" and untaught. That kind of stuff is what I mean by "insular" and "ingrown"
(end of part 1)
Lest I be misunderstood by the brethren, however, I thought I might make a few observations about what I hope is the great majority of house churches--the Biblical ones.
Most of us agree that the majority of local churches today, which from here on will be referred to as "traditional" or "TC" for the sake of brevity, most of these are greatly flawed, ineffective, and often worse than that.
So, what goals should one have in mind, what motivation should one have, if he is starting a house church?
1. First, it must NOT be about you. This is the category I've been belaboring in other posts and I'll not dwell on it here. Churches started by men who are in rebellion, had their feelings hurt, etc, are not "churches" Local churches are established by God as the Holy Spirit leads Godly men, for the purpose of bringing glory to His name.
2. House churches must not be ingrown, insular, isolationist...as are so many TC. The commandment from God is still to "go out" to the world, not sit in your pew and wait for the lost to come to you....especially not come to you because your "church" looks like the Ringling Brothers Circus or MTV live.
3. House churches should spread by division, like cellular growth. I've seen TC with a dozen, or 20, or 30 preachers in the congregation. What in the world are they doing? Nearly all of us will be quick to complain that there are so few doctrinally-sound churches....but here we have the manpower to lead a dozen or two dozen congregations, men who are doctrinally sound.....and they are sitting in the same room on Sunday rather than ministering to the countless hundreds and thousands of folks who wish they had a "good church" to attend.
That's among the worst of mistakes in the TC which house churches should avoid.....it's quite avoidable if folks keep their eye on the Vision. Briefly, the Vision for house churches should be something like this:
It begins with a gathering of 6-10 of God's redeemed and over time, as God moves, grows to 40 or 50 or 100.......All during this growth time, it sends out (ordains) church planters to new areas, new neighborhoods, adjoining towns, and another 6-10 folks repeat the process. This kind of growth by division will lead to the Biblical idea of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, ends of the earth.
What you will not have is this TC stultification, this "delegation" of the Great Commission to "someone else"--contentment in financially supporting a few missionaries overseas or sending a check every month to some mission board; contentment in the hearts of 99% of the "church membership" who never lift a finger toward spreading the Gospel.
Neither then will the house church ever get into the Castle on the Corner mentality where the driving force in their congregation is to have the finest physical plant of any group in the city. They will never be Big.......because they keep splitting off and going rather than staying put and building $40 million "campuses"
Nor will they ever become "magnet" churches like some TC--those institutions which have become prominent perhaps even world-wide, known for strong preaching. Too often, these magnets attract people from far and wide who then end up in one city, one congregation, and who sit there for the rest of their lives enjoying the "good preaching, good teaching" but without a burden for those who can't make the long drive or move to another city and remain "churchless" and untaught. That kind of stuff is what I mean by "insular" and "ingrown"
(end of part 1)
Saturday, September 12, 2009
OSTENTATIOUS DISPLAY OF WEALTH BY THE "CHURCH"


Those of you who have previously written me off as an ascetic and a crank can just skip this post...nothing new here folks, move along!
Recently I saw a blog post which included a comment about being entertained by Paige Patterson and Mrs Patterson at "Pecan Manor." That's the mansion provided for the President of South Western Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft Worth.
That picture of the house was taken by Dr Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville. He also took this picture of the mansion he lives in there....(on the right).
So, I'm wondering why it is necessary for the "Church" to provide luxurious living like this for its leadership? These guys are not President of General Motors (ooops, bad example.....showing my age)...these are servants of Christ's church.
Financial data on such situations is hard to come by. I'm good at "finding stuff" by searching the internet....I can find your phone number, address, maybe a picture of your house or at least the street you live on; I can find out how much the President of AIG makes.....but I sure can't find out what these two fellows are paid. It's even tough to find out what some Big Name pastors are paid....their salary is lumped into large budget categories, thus obscured, like "Preaching Ministry" $1,000,000. That could include 3 or 4 salaries, for example.
I'm trying to keep this short. I'd like some discussion. And I'm not picking on Al Mohler or Paige Patterson.....they were just in the room when the thought hit me. They are not the problem; they are just in a problem-fraught system.
Thinking about the book of Amos. "Come to Bethel and transgress" In chapter 4, Beth-El "the place of God" had become representative of corrupted religion.
"Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob," declares the Lord GOD, the God of hosts, "that on the day I punish Israel for his transgressions, I will punish the altars of Bethel, and the horns of the altar shall be cut off and fall to the ground. I will strike the winter house along with the summer house, and the houses of ivory shall perish, and the great houses shall come to an end," declares the LORD.
(Amos 3:13-15)
In this world populated with lost souls and impoverished men, it is incomprehensible to me how the "Church" can possibly justify corporate-level salaries and aristocratic mansions for the leadship...leadership which according to Biblical example is humble and self-sacrificing....in a Church where those who "had" were willing to sell all and give to those who "had not"
We've come a long way.......
We've come to Bethel.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
TO DIE IS GAIN.....
This past month has been such as to get me thinking about death--particularly about my death, impending as it is. (Heb 9:27) I am not being maudlin, nor am I morose, but I am certainly MORTAL.
Of course, in its wanderings my mind strayed soon enough to Philippians 1 and Paul's comment "to live is Christ, to die is gain" Really, what a thing to say! Frankly, for me, the second clause is easier than the first. I have no doubt that my death will usher me through a doorway to inexpressible joy and eternal blessings. And, I grow weary of this world. The political situation in this country is ugly and offers no sensible hope for improvement in the near term, rather going from bad to worse. That doesn't weigh on me too heavily, however, not nearly so much as the decline of the church. (See my previous blog article for some of that)
All the forces of the flesh continue to hammer away at the professing church and more and more inroads are made, undermining once-sound bodies with one form of theological HIV or another. The "American Church" stands aloof from the persecuted church in China, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.....seeming impervious to persecution and martyrdom. Unfortunately, the reason it is untouched is that it is not an offense to the world. So long as this "church" goes along, it gets along. Millions warm a pew for an hour or two on Sunday morning, then spend the remaining 166 hours of the week living the most worldly, Godless lives, totally indistinguishable from the non-church going, non-Christ-claiming population.
Paul said the only reason he would stay in this world was for the benefit of his flock-- " I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,..." I do not mean to equate myself with Paul in any way except to say that I feel like that with regard to the ministry I have. So long as I am useful, able to minister the Gospel to my inmate brothers or elsewhere, I am content. It is disconcerting to think of being physically unable to do anything like what I consider ministry. This is at war with my intellectual understanding that God has people paralyzed in hospital beds, incapacitated in nursing homes, etc, all for His glory. Me, I'd rather just go on..........(not that He's going to ask my opinion)
Albert Barnes' listed 7 ways in which it is gain for a Christian to die:
1. The Christian will be freed from sin. (Hallelujah!)
2. He will be freed from doubts.
3. He will be freed from temptation.
4. He will be delivered from his enemies.
5. He will be delivered from suffering.
6. He will be delivered from death.
7. He will be immediately and eternally ushered into the presence of our Savior. (which makes the other 6 almost irrelevant)....and if we ever get accustomed to His presence, we will also be in the presence of all the saints of all the ages, forever!
So, understand me when I say with Paul:
My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
(Philippians 1:23)
Of course, in its wanderings my mind strayed soon enough to Philippians 1 and Paul's comment "to live is Christ, to die is gain" Really, what a thing to say! Frankly, for me, the second clause is easier than the first. I have no doubt that my death will usher me through a doorway to inexpressible joy and eternal blessings. And, I grow weary of this world. The political situation in this country is ugly and offers no sensible hope for improvement in the near term, rather going from bad to worse. That doesn't weigh on me too heavily, however, not nearly so much as the decline of the church. (See my previous blog article for some of that)
All the forces of the flesh continue to hammer away at the professing church and more and more inroads are made, undermining once-sound bodies with one form of theological HIV or another. The "American Church" stands aloof from the persecuted church in China, Africa, Asia and elsewhere.....seeming impervious to persecution and martyrdom. Unfortunately, the reason it is untouched is that it is not an offense to the world. So long as this "church" goes along, it gets along. Millions warm a pew for an hour or two on Sunday morning, then spend the remaining 166 hours of the week living the most worldly, Godless lives, totally indistinguishable from the non-church going, non-Christ-claiming population.
Paul said the only reason he would stay in this world was for the benefit of his flock-- " I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith,..." I do not mean to equate myself with Paul in any way except to say that I feel like that with regard to the ministry I have. So long as I am useful, able to minister the Gospel to my inmate brothers or elsewhere, I am content. It is disconcerting to think of being physically unable to do anything like what I consider ministry. This is at war with my intellectual understanding that God has people paralyzed in hospital beds, incapacitated in nursing homes, etc, all for His glory. Me, I'd rather just go on..........(not that He's going to ask my opinion)
Albert Barnes' listed 7 ways in which it is gain for a Christian to die:
1. The Christian will be freed from sin. (Hallelujah!)
2. He will be freed from doubts.
3. He will be freed from temptation.
4. He will be delivered from his enemies.
5. He will be delivered from suffering.
6. He will be delivered from death.
7. He will be immediately and eternally ushered into the presence of our Savior. (which makes the other 6 almost irrelevant)....and if we ever get accustomed to His presence, we will also be in the presence of all the saints of all the ages, forever!
So, understand me when I say with Paul:
My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better.
(Philippians 1:23)
Death is the crown of life:
Were death denied, poor man would live in vain:
Were death denied, to live would not be life.
Were death denied, even fools would wish to die.
Death wounds to cure; we fall; we rise; we reign!
Spring from our fetters; fasten in the skies;
Where blooming Eden withers in our sight.
Death gives us more than was in Eden lost,
The king of terrors is the prince of peace.
(Edward Young
Night Thoughts, iii.)
Were death denied, poor man would live in vain:
Were death denied, to live would not be life.
Were death denied, even fools would wish to die.
Death wounds to cure; we fall; we rise; we reign!
Spring from our fetters; fasten in the skies;
Where blooming Eden withers in our sight.
Death gives us more than was in Eden lost,
The king of terrors is the prince of peace.
(Edward Young
Night Thoughts, iii.)
ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF THE CHURCH
The Church has been under assault in this country for over 100 years--primarily, or initially, by the modernists, the "higher-criticism" crowd, the "Jesus was just a good man" crowd, and so forth. In the past 30 years or so, a new front opened by forces within the Bible-believing church. This front is waged upon the ground of God's sovereignty vs Man's ability. Decisionism and various aspects of pelagianism and semi-pelagian theology are involved on this front.
During the time I've been watching this war, a new front opened and I just about missed it. Maybe it hasn't had much action yet, but I can see major battles forthcoming in this area. In the back of my mind, I've been aware of what I'll call the "Americanization of Christianity"--the conforming of church practice and teaching to the underlying tenants of American cultural fundamentals. Politics and this Americanized Christianity are often melded. Churches have big patriotic services on national holidays, do the pledge of allegiance, feature American flags on the podium, allow politicians to stand in the pulpit, etc.
The American concepts of democracy, freedom, individual liberty, etc, are incorporated into some theologies as fundamentals of the faith. Essentially, men have taken the Biblical Christianity which was born in Eastern culture, in enslaved nations, among enslaved people, and labeled it: Made in U.S.A. In order to pass as genuinely American, however, some changes had to be made! This nation of rugged individualism, self-made men cannot be brought down to the point of submission, humility, and meekness called for in the Christianity of the Bible. Some modification required.
Just today I saw some signs of what might be the beginning of the end for Biblical churches in the United States. Right-wing politics has always been more comfortable in the Bible-preaching world than left-wing politics. The lefties, if claiming Christ at all, tend toward the social-gospel, liberal churches. At least one right-winger, would-be presidential contender, Chuck Baldwin, is touting on his website a new organization of churches.
This is a group called "Black Regiment" churches. (Named after a Revolutionary War situation, apparently. I'm not certain if there is any historical accuracy in that). Baldwin is creating a directory of churches which "will courageously preach and promote the principles of liberty and independence....Men who support and defend the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence."
In all the qualifications for making this directory, the Gospel is not mentioned; the Bible maybe once. What is important to them is the political structure of the nation. Baldwin states that his list has churches which represent a wide divergence in theology, but he leaves that to us to "discern"......Never mind they're heretics, boys; they're on Our Side!
The really scary part of this to me is that I can see it being very popular. I've written before about church members who have their worldview shaped and influenced by Fox News, etc, rather than by the Word of God. Those folks will fall right into this mess. Churches led by men whose grasp of the Bible is weak and shallow, by men who can more easily play on the emotions of patriotism and nationalism, than preach with power in the Spirit of God, will thrive in this environment, especially during these days when we are seeing the destructive effects of left-wing government for the first time, up close and personal. It will be very easy for men to be swayed into answering the siren call of political activism, nationalism, even revolution, rather than resting in the promises given by a Sovereign God in His Word.
Churches in this movement will abandon the Gospel, if they have not already done so. The political icons will be seen as equal to or greater than the Word of God (if they are not already so seen). Men will follow the politicians with the loudest voices and most appealing agenda.....and they will be led down this path of destruction by "pastors" in such movements as this.
During the time I've been watching this war, a new front opened and I just about missed it. Maybe it hasn't had much action yet, but I can see major battles forthcoming in this area. In the back of my mind, I've been aware of what I'll call the "Americanization of Christianity"--the conforming of church practice and teaching to the underlying tenants of American cultural fundamentals. Politics and this Americanized Christianity are often melded. Churches have big patriotic services on national holidays, do the pledge of allegiance, feature American flags on the podium, allow politicians to stand in the pulpit, etc.
The American concepts of democracy, freedom, individual liberty, etc, are incorporated into some theologies as fundamentals of the faith. Essentially, men have taken the Biblical Christianity which was born in Eastern culture, in enslaved nations, among enslaved people, and labeled it: Made in U.S.A. In order to pass as genuinely American, however, some changes had to be made! This nation of rugged individualism, self-made men cannot be brought down to the point of submission, humility, and meekness called for in the Christianity of the Bible. Some modification required.
Just today I saw some signs of what might be the beginning of the end for Biblical churches in the United States. Right-wing politics has always been more comfortable in the Bible-preaching world than left-wing politics. The lefties, if claiming Christ at all, tend toward the social-gospel, liberal churches. At least one right-winger, would-be presidential contender, Chuck Baldwin, is touting on his website a new organization of churches.
This is a group called "Black Regiment" churches. (Named after a Revolutionary War situation, apparently. I'm not certain if there is any historical accuracy in that). Baldwin is creating a directory of churches which "will courageously preach and promote the principles of liberty and independence....Men who support and defend the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence."
In all the qualifications for making this directory, the Gospel is not mentioned; the Bible maybe once. What is important to them is the political structure of the nation. Baldwin states that his list has churches which represent a wide divergence in theology, but he leaves that to us to "discern"......Never mind they're heretics, boys; they're on Our Side!
The really scary part of this to me is that I can see it being very popular. I've written before about church members who have their worldview shaped and influenced by Fox News, etc, rather than by the Word of God. Those folks will fall right into this mess. Churches led by men whose grasp of the Bible is weak and shallow, by men who can more easily play on the emotions of patriotism and nationalism, than preach with power in the Spirit of God, will thrive in this environment, especially during these days when we are seeing the destructive effects of left-wing government for the first time, up close and personal. It will be very easy for men to be swayed into answering the siren call of political activism, nationalism, even revolution, rather than resting in the promises given by a Sovereign God in His Word.
Churches in this movement will abandon the Gospel, if they have not already done so. The political icons will be seen as equal to or greater than the Word of God (if they are not already so seen). Men will follow the politicians with the loudest voices and most appealing agenda.....and they will be led down this path of destruction by "pastors" in such movements as this.
Labels:
Christless Christianity,
False Teachers,
Idolatry,
Politics,
Worldview
Sunday, August 9, 2009
"JOHN MACARTHUR IS NOT SAVED" (The Accuser)
Based on an interview in which MacArthur cannot pinpoint the exact date and circumstances of his conversion, a handful of internet "preachers" are now pronouncing him "unsaved." I've not seen the interview and am not focused on it at this moment.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
My concern is with these accusers. We are somewhat accustomed to the calvinists accusing the arminians and vice versa. This is a case of fratricide: calvinists slandering calvinists, making it all the more disturbing.
Just for the record, those of us who were converted as adults (I was a week short of 32, for example) can usually remember the date, etc, but what if God saved you at age 5? How much do you remember of your life from that time? That was 60 years ago for me, and if I had been converted then, if would not have been from a life of open, blatant immorality, so I can understand being unable to pinpoint a dramatic change.
Regardless, this slandering of a brother is inexcusable and, I suspect, is born out of other, unresolved grievances, out of bitterness. The "ringleader" of this group of accusers has previously written to me complaining of how he was treated by folks including MacArthur. I suspect this bitterness is festering in him like a poison and that he has been seeking something like this with which to avenge himself.
The sad part is that one bitter soul can have a cult-like following, younger believers who think whatever the Leader says is gospel...and they fall for the accusation and start to parrot the poisoner. Let me refer all these "preachers" to a couple passages of scripture:
First, God does not say we will recognize His children because they can recite date and time for His regenerating work in their lives. He says "by their fruits ye shall know them." John MacArthur's fruits are out there to be seen. Mr Accuser, where are your fruits? You might have the date and time down, but where are your fruits?
Second, that this takes place among brothers, especially brothers "like-minded" theologically, is an abomination. I urge you to take a serious look at Ephesian 4:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.
(Ephesians 4:29-32)
If MacArthur offended you, you need to confront him in the Biblical manner. You're instructed to forgive him. Give up your bitterness and forsake your slander. Your words serve not to give grace to the hearers but to strengthen the enemy.
Labels:
Christless Christianity,
False Teachers,
Preaching,
Sin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





