WHAT ABOUT CHURCH "MEMBERSHIP"--IS IT SCRIPTURAL?

I've been thinking about this subject for two months and trying to get started on this article. I cannot get my thoughts organized, so I've decided to write anyway, disorganized as it might turn out to be.....random thoughts, shall we say?

Some time ago, I commented about a pastor who "snuck in" a new member for his congregation by concealing the fact that the man was not "scripturally baptized"--that is, according to Baptist practices and tradtions. Most all my experience in this regard (or any other) is Baptist in one way or another. I read about other denominations; I see talk among the "reformed" folks about baptism as a "means of grace" and all that but don't buy into it.

Anyway, the thinking I've done since writing about that membership issue has led me to a more radical position regarding church membership in general. Within the tradition, what I said about that particular incident is correct but now I question the validity of the tradition itself. I have several questions for us to ponder and am uncertain as to the order in which to present them. Let's start with this one: What is baptism?

Baptism is the center of much controversy in Christendom. I think it's clear from Scripture that there are two forms of baptism: Holy Spirit baptism and water baptism. It seems that the two are often confused, though I don't know why, unless it's a deliberate effort to support an otherwise untenable doctrine.

Water baptism is purely symbolic or pictorial. It is not efficacious with regard to salvation. As I understand "means of grace" it is not a "means of grace" It is testimonial; it is an effort to demonstrate visually to an audience something which has transpired on a spiritual level, to wit: one's death to the things of the flesh, his burial with Christ, his resurrection with Christ to live a life in Christ, for Christ, and by the power of Christ. Water baptism is an act incumbent upon a believer; it is to be done because of the transforming work of God which made that believer a "new creation"--it is done after salvation, as a demonstration of what God has already done. It is not done in order to effect change but to demonstrate the change which has been effected.

That change, that transforming work of God in the life of a man results from the "other baptism"--the baptism of the Holy Spirit. This is not an external, visible thing in which man plays a role, but the sovereign work of God. This is the work by which God makes men "new creations" and unites them with Christ. Some groups make a big deal about what man immerses another man in water baptism....they actually boast about it (in a spiritual way, of course)..."I was baptized by Jim Bob Miller!" Idolatry takes many forms......

Well, if one is gonna brag, he should go to the Top. As a believer, I can say I was baptized by Jesus Christ. Yes! He is the Baptizer....in the baptism which is most important: the baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John the Baptist in Matthew 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

The confusion over two baptisms and the conflation of purposes has led us into a real mess about church membership, baptismal regeneration, and numerous other issues. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body,,,,(1 Corinthians 12:13) Water or Holy Spirit baptism? Clearly, "one Spirit"--so, what is this "one body"? And he is the head of the body, the church. ....(Colossians 1:18). So, believers are, by the work of the Holy Spirit baptism, united with the Body of Christ, the Church.

This forces us to state what the "Church" is and is not. The Greek word ἐκκλησία is rendered "church" throughout the New Testament when referring to both the Body of Christ and to local assemblies. This is the underlying source of confusion. Men begin to equate the local gatherings of believers with the Body of Christ. I have even heard pastors refer to their congregation as "the Body" when in fact they are not. Does Christ have more than one body? No. These local congregations, at least the truly regenerate persons therein, are members of the Body, but the entire Body is not there. I think we would be better off if we were able to purge our minds of the idea that these local assemblies are The Church (but that's probably impossible). If only we could call them something other than "church" so as to give the only True Church its full import and standing.

From my limited experience, I have the feeling that Baptists are particularly bad about overstating the nature of the local assemblies. I rank as one of the most outlandish statements ever heard one from a Baptist pastor who was "teaching" through Ephesians that "Ephesians is all about the local church" It was notable also that when he finished Ephesians and started into Philippians, he told his congregation that "Philippians is all about the local church" So, maybe his view of the local church is a bit warped.....

And, it's out of this confusion that we see arising ideas about water baptism and "church membership" To all my Baptist friends, what is the scriptural basis for this idea of being "baptized into church membership"? You see, it must be born out of the "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one Body"....the confusion of water baptism with Holy Spirit baptism and the confusion of being united with Christ by that work of God and becoming a "member" of a local assembly by immersion into water.

In my work as a missionary to prison inmates, I have been criticized by Baptists for baptizing inmates. "What church do you baptize them into?" "What church has given you authority to baptize those men?" Can you believe those questions? They're real....from sincere brothers. I ask them "What church did Phillip baptize the Ethiopian eunuch into?" "Where is the scripture outlining authority to immerse converts?" You want to tell me that the gathering of believers I met with last night is deficient with respect to being a local assembly of God's children? Oh! They don't have business meetings, they don't take up offerings, and they don't belong to the ministerial associations......and I'll assure you, some of those gatherings are closer to the model given in the Book of Acts than 99% of modern "churches" I'm familiar with.

So, what is this "membership" thing? The only Biblical references to "member" (primarily in I Cor 12) refer to individual believers being members (as in body parts) of the Body of Christ.....united with Him by the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no mention of being a "member" of a local assembly; there is no procedure outlined for "joining" a local assembly. Men and women can join clubs, become members of Rotary or the Country Club, but there is no provision for "joining" a local assembly of believers via the baptistery. This is a man-made tradition and has the effect of continuing misunderstanding and promoting ignorance about baptism and the constitution of the Church.

We are commanded to forsake not the assembling of ourselves with other believers. God gives teachers and pastors to local assemblies for the purpose of edifying His saints. That assembly is not, however, a club or society which we "join" by being immersed (or by any other means). Believers are "members" of only one Church--the Body of Christ and union with that Church is effected by the Holy Spirit.

ONLY ONE LIFE--by C. T. Studd

I get a high number of hits on this blog from folks searching for "only one life...." because I have an article by that title. I took it from this oft-quoted poem which, apparently, some people are interested in but apparently don't know the author or complete text. For their benefit, here it is. If you are not familiar with C. T. Studd, I encourage you to read the biography written by his son-in-law Norman Grubb.

ONLY ONE LIFE

Two little lines I heard one day, Traveling along life’s busy way;
Bringing conviction to my heart, And from my mind would not depart;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, yes only one, Soon will its fleeting hours be done;
Then, in ‘that day’ my Lord to meet, And stand before His Judgment seat;
Only one life,’ twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, the still small voice, Gently pleads for a better choice
Bidding me selfish aims to leave, And to God’s holy will to cleave;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, a few brief years, Each with its burdens, hopes, and fears;
Each with its clays I must fulfill, living for self or in His will;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

When this bright world would tempt me sore, When Satan would a victory score;
When self would seek to have its way, Then help me Lord with joy to say;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Give me Father, a purpose deep, In joy or sorrow Thy word to keep;
Faithful and true what e’er the strife, Pleasing Thee in my daily life;
Only one life, ’twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Oh let my love with fervor burn, And from the world now let me turn;
Living for Thee, and Thee alone, Bringing Thee pleasure on Thy throne;
Only one life, “twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

Only one life, yes only one, Now let me say, “Thy will be done”;
And when at last I’ll hear the call, I know I’ll say ‘twas worth it all”;
Only one life,’ twill soon be past, Only what’s done for Christ will last.

CRAZY CHRISTIANS!

Robert Park, a man from Arizona who is of Korean ancestry, walked across the frozen river which divides South Korea from the totalitarian, Godless North Korean police state. Apparently he is now in custody of their state police. How crazy is that?


Why did he do this?


Park reportedly carried a letter addressed to Kim and other leaders calling on them to repent.

“I proclaim Christ’s love and forgiveness towards you today. God promises mercy and clemency for those who repent,” Park said in the letter, which was made public Saturday.

Reaction from around the world is nearly unanimous: Park is "stupid"--he is "deranged"--he is "suffering from a martyr complex"

I've not seen any positive view of his actions, even from the "church world" Understandable, in that his actions certainly are not in keeping with the methodology of the modern "church"

Now, I do not know Park at all; never heard of him until he did this deed. I have no idea of his mental state; I have no idea of his theology. He might be a deranged person. He might be a heretic. He might believe in common-cup communion or trine immersion. It's possible that he's on the wrong side of the "supra vs infra" argument.

So, I'm really not talking about Robert Park, per se, but more of Robert Park as a "type" of Christian. This type is so rare as to be unrecognized by the very church which he serves. Allowing that there are a few exceptions, I stipulate that, he is completely out of character for a 21st century Christian.

He is a throwback to the Book of Acts. He is behaving as if he takes literally the commandments of Christ: things like Luke 9:23. He has read Matthew 24:9 and is undeterred. He acts as if Paul's stirring declaration that "to live is Christ, to die is gain" is literally true.

Why does he not just settle down in Arizona and act like a normal Christian? You don't see the rest of his congregation jumping on planes and flying to Korea to join him across the river, do you?....or Christians from any other congregation. Well, they're different.....they're not like him.

The difference is: he has a burden. Burdens are something normal Christians take great pains to avoid. Those things are not called "burdens" for nothing.....they are a real nuisance, a disrupter, yea a destroyer of our comfortable life. Congregations love to sing "Jesus Saves"....."we have heard the Macedonian call today...." Singing it is fine....just don't get carried away!.......like Paul did:

And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: a man of Macedonia was standing there, urging him and saying, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." And when Paul had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go on into Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them. (Acts 16:9-10)

See, when Paul heard the Macedonian call, "immediately we sought to go...." That's where the "crazy" part comes in. Paul and his team went...they didn't just make up a song about it......they went! They went because they had a vision, a burden; they went because the love of Christ constrained them. They went because the knowledge of perishing souls was more than an intellectual concept to them; it was a matter of heart.

So, Robert Park has a burden for the people of North Korea. He has gone. He might lose his life in the bargain. Just for a moment, let's imagine what could happen if the church had a burden. Imagine now that 100 Christians were burdened by God for North Korean souls......and they followed in Park's footsteps across that river.....and the authorities take them and do whatever they do to folks who come into that country with Bibles and Gospel tracts and the Word of God in their hearts.

And 100 who heard the call are swallowed up......but God is not finished. Following the 100, come 1000 or 10,000 with a burden for lost souls, led by the Spirit of God. Imagine an Army of God marching across that river singing "Jesus Saves"...sung by those who have really heard the call! Imagine a local congregation, maybe like yours, with a $3 million budget and a thousand members, responding to the call by saying: We'll go! Three chartered 747's filled with all the membership, flying to Seoul, busing to the river bank, marching across under the Banner of the Gospel......

Yeah, wild idea......vivid imagination. Never happen. Why? Is God not calling? Does He not care for North Korean souls? ...or those in another equally "dangerous" place? As Spurgeon said, He called. He called, but men ignore Him. We don't want to hear it. We do not care for their souls. We love to make the appropriate noises, to go through the motions, but when it comes to laying our life on the line, we are staying here where it's safe and comfy and warm.

"If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it. "
(Mark 8:34-35)

"CLEVER" EVANGELISM AND THE GLORY OF GOD

Not surprisingly, there is a lot of talk about "evangelism" in the church world. Probably everyone reading this knows the English word is derived from the Greek εὐαγγελίζω--a compound word meaning "to announce or declare good news"......and Gospel means "good news"........So primarily , evangelism is declaring the Gospel. I would postulate that any effort which does not declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not evangelism, not matter what else it might be.

The so-called evangelical world has seen some strange practices in the name of this "evangelism" In my early days as a believer, there was a very prominent Baptist preacher who taught and practiced what I call "easy-believism"--an extreme form of decisional regeneration, which still infects the Baptist world. This fellow boasted of encounters during his door-to-door "soul-winning" efforts in which he duped confused people into saying the "sinner's prayer" and thereby, according to his theology, led them to Christ. This preacher regaled us with stories such as meeting with a young couple who were desperate financially, unable to pay their apartment rent. He offered to pray with them, those two unbelievers, about their plight and "cleverly" had them recite a form of the sinner's prayer during their plea for help paying the rent. Following that, he pronounced them to be "born again"! Similar stories abound but all are the same with regard to trickery and emotional sleight-of-hand being used to manipulate people into reciting the "magic words" of the sinner's prayer, as if that had any effect on the eternal state of those misguided souls.

A second area of cleverness is in church signs. Of course, these are quite a topic of conversation. There's even a blog dedicated to them. These signs are literally a "declaration"--too bad so few of them declare the Gospel. For the most part, they declare nonsense; they declare insipid sentimentality; they declare vulgar trivializations of the Word; they declare unscriptural, humanistic philosophy. It's a rare church sign which declares Christ. Above is a photo of one I saw recently. When I posted it on Facebook, without comment, there were actually favorable reactions to it. People think it's clever! The fact that it diminishes the Glory of Christ, equating His work and being to something mundane and worldly does not even register on some readers.

I have it in my mind that we are commanded to bear a certain attitude when approaching lost people with the Gospel. We are ambassadors for Christ, are we not? Does not a calling like that require us to behave in the manner appropriate to a servant of the King? Yet, in street preaching and other situations where opposition is met, there is too often a confrontational attitude which does no credit to our Ruler. We can also be tempted by the ways of the world, by the appeal of clever marketing, subtle trickery in order to gain the foothold we feel is necessary for "success" I saw a gospel tract recently designed to be distributed to shoppers--in a store or in a mall. The "gospel" aspect of it looked good, but the opening sentences were along the lines of "Welcome to this shopping facility. The management appreciates your business......" I'm sorry but that's just too clever for me. Does that not imply "management's" endorsement of the tract and the person handing it out? Does it not imply authority from the store/mall ownership to be there? And, more than that, I have to ask: Why? Is it even necessary? Why cannot one simply hand out a tract bearing the Good News without the deception? How dare any believer take it upon himself to speak with the authority of a business owner in a situation like that. Oh, you may say "very few will take any notice of that..." True, probably.......very few will read the tract at all; but how about the ones who do and see through this trickery? More ammunition for the enemies of the Gospel....giving the enemies of God cause to blaspheme. We are called upon to be blameless in our behavior, especially since we represent Him before this lost world.

Clever, clever, clever........men are so clever. In my book-selling business, I make lots of trips to the post office. Every time, no matter how familiar I am to the clerks, how many hundred packages I have mailed previously, they always ask: Does your package contains anything liquid, fragile, perishable, or potentially hazardous? It's their job; they have to ask that. I'm sure it's much more boring to them than it is to me. I heard about a preacher who was shipping a box of Bibles and decided that was a good opportunity for "evangelism"......During the question, he interrupted the clerk with clever comments like: "liquid?--it's the Water of life"......"fragile? well, no, but they contain the Ten Commandments and we've broken all them"......"perishable? unless you repent you will likewise perish..." Then he gave the clerk a gospel tract. Is that clever, or what? I am at a loss as to how exactly that behavior glorifies God, declares the Gospel, or is in any way the type of evangelism we are commanded to do. I've been embarrassed by the public performances of some preachers in the past but I am grateful I was not there for this monumental display of cleverness.

One more example.......just the other day, I saw one of those ubiquitous fwd emails with the recommendation that all believers send a Christmas card to the ACLU. Of course, this was motivated by the anti-Bible, anti-Christian lawsuits and so forth which the ACLU gets involved in. They are notorious for being on the "wrong side" most of the time. Most revealing in this appeal for the clever action was the statement, yea, the hope--that the great influx of mail would have a devastating effect on their operations and cause a great deal of inconvenience, expense, and so forth. So clever!......but is this the heart of Christ? Is this evangelism? Is there any indication of love for the lost herein? Or is this merely, as it appears to me, a way of retaliation, a bit of clever warfare.......harmless, right?

Harmless and clever. Are these the criteria for our efforts in the name of Christ? Is there Gospel in any of this? Where's the Good News? What does this say about the heart of the perpetrators? And, these things are from "the church".....this is what is offered to a lost, dying, hopeless world. No wonder the world laughs at "the church"....sometimes it's just as clever as the rest of the world.

RE: THE MACARTHUR SALVATION NONSENSE

Here's some "inside" background to the attack on John MacArthur I've referred to in earlier posts.

John MacArthur is not saved!

NOW BATTING .000!

If you scroll down, you'll find a post entitled: Batting .333 which reads:

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.

Here's an update: I am now batting 0 for 3. The last of those 3 "exciting" ministries has showed itself to be less than one would hope. The idea of exposing the Word of Faith wolves is still commendable but the leadership there has been carried away by various winds of doctrine, trying to be all things to all men in the worldly way. Currently they are enamored of all the anti-Obama nonsense: "he's a Muslim" "he's the Anti-Christ" and they seem to find this much more urgent than striving for pure doctrine in their churches.

I expressed my thoughts to the leadership there and found that criticism is not wanted.....lol. Actually the leadership did not bother responding to my personal email but threw out a few public comments and then did the ultimate dismissal: he defriended me on Facebook! So, I'm in mourning over that.....

Seriously, though, I recommended this ministry because I appreciated what they were then doing. I now un-recommend it (for what that's worth) because they have lost their way. We're praying (I'm not the only one who has been discarded) that God will lead them back to the battlefield.

Part 2. UN-REFORMING: THE ROAD BACK TO ROME

In the previous post I postulated that the current "resurgence" of sound doctrine seems to have peaked and is now on a downward slope. My view of this is two-fold: Practice and Doctrine.

In the area of Practice: Local churches arose during this resurgence, preaching the doctrines of grace, aiming at a truly-regenerate membership, exercising Biblical church discipline, emphasizing expository preaching, etc. Now, at this point in the journey, I see the leaven beginning to work. All around these "sound" churches were the world's pseudo-churches with their Word of Faith, prosperity "gospel" teachings, big crowds, big budgets, high-flying celebrity preachers. Some of this has been assimilated into the doctrinal assemblies.

One begins to hear the distant echo of "prosperity" preaching amongst the nuggets of Truth. As budget shortfalls occur, as leaders try to maintain their salaries and their multi-million dollar edifices, the appeals for increased offerings include tales of "how God blessed me" for various feats of giving money. Of course, since my experiences are almost 100% Baptist, one is never far from Malachi 3:10 and the absolute dictum that all giving must come to the local church.

The Doctrine side, however, is even more telling, it seems to me. Basically, the Reformation was about Justification by faith alone, apart from works. Now, as we approach the 500th anniversary of Luther's declaration, we see this doctrine in dispute again. Today, however, the idea of Justification by faith alone is not being undermined by Rome and their Tetzels selling indulgences....but by men who are labeled by themselves and by others as "reformed".

First, a bit of an aside as to what I see as an underlying element in the problem today. If one is labeled "reformed" he is "in".....whatever else he might say or do is acceptable to the "reformed" world. That's why we have foul-mouthed pastors like Mark Driscoll being pampered and tolerated: oh, he's "reformed" That's why we have theologians pushing heretical doctrines like "conditional justification" being welcomed by prominent leaders: oh, they're reformed.

I'm not going to re-hash all the fine points of the doctrines involved here. I've ranted about them elsewhere and any Google search you do will provide loads of details if you are not familiar with the "New Perspective on Paul" born out of the writings of N. T. Wright and the idea of "Federal Vision" promoted by Doug Wilson among others. These are tied in with modern views on Second Temple Judaism and all involve "conditional justification" in one way or another.

What is eye-catching: the "welcome mat" being rolled out for these heresies by John Piper and those who are in his "camp" within "reformed" theology, within this resurgence of the past 30 years. Piper defends to some degree or another both these men and their philosophies and flatly will not say that they are preaching "another gospel" when in fact that is exactly what they are doing. These guys are great intellects. Calvinism has always had a weak spot in that there is such a great appeal to the intellect; calvinists are often accused (and often rightly so) of being intellectual snobs and possessed of an air of academic superiority over the lowly, ignorant arminians. The younger set in this resurgence is enamored of Piper and now enamored of the following generation: Driscoll, Chandler, Chan....They are also impressed by the intellectual prowess of Wright and perhaps of Wilson (who is not an academic). There is some fallow ground for these poisonous seeds......and here's the "father-figure" to all these young calvinists fawning all over these heretics.

R. Scott Clark has written very well on the technical, theological aspects of this, far beyond my abilities. I want to give you a brief, summarizing comment from one of his articles:

"Here's a gift and here's what you have to do to keep it" isn't good news for sinners who cannot do "their part," not even with the help of grace. If "grace and cooperation with grace" is such good news, why not skip the FV and simply become Roman Catholic? Honestly? That's been the consistent Roman doctrine since the early middle ages. It's been the official Roman doctrine since the session 6 of the Council of Trent.

"...simply become Roman Catholic".....exactly! That's where this is heading folks....not a surprise if you've ever read the Revelation. A week of so ago, I was reading on a particular point in The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement by Oxenham. Their idea of "infused" righteousness as opposed to "imputed" righteousness fits right into this "conditional justification" heresy. The idea is, basically, that rather than having the Righteousness of Christ put on us as sinners (imputed), we have righteousness put into us (infused) by Him and thereby become righteous in and of ourselves. And now, Wright and Wilson say that in the final judgment we shall learn if we did well enough with that "righteousness" and have earned the reward of eternal life.

And this kind of stuff is coming from "reformed" preachers and being promoted by the leadership of the "reformed" church today. I think I can see the Seven Hills on the horizon.

UN-REFORMING: THE ROAD BACK TO ROME

First, let me say that I am not only a premillennialist, my eschatology is pretty much standard fundamentalist Baptist stuff which means I see a real possibility of connection between the Church of Rome today and the future world government/church of the Revelation. That might be in the "less-than-dogmatic" column, however.

What's more clear is history. There was a Reformation. Certain dramatic changes transpired as Protestant churches were born out of the move to correct Rome's perversion of Biblical teachings.

Another thing clear, to me at least, is that the Reformation was not complete nor perfect. Many (most?) of those Protestant churches did more to correct doctrinal error than other aspects of Romanism, like liturgy, iconography, other trappings which were to some degree or another carried into the "new" churches.

One would have hoped, had he lived in the 16th century, to see the purification of doctrine continue through the years, getting purer and purer as time went on. I don't think this happened either. It peaked somewhere. Someone with a better grasp of church history might be able to pinpoint a date.....my guess is that the peak of "improvement" was long before 1840......maybe in the mid-1700's.

Since that peak, whenever it occurred, the doctrinal stance of the Protestant churches in general has been on a downhill slide. Consider a few factors: mid-19th century: Finney-ism begins, the German Biblical "higher criticism" begins; early 20th century, American "modernism" begins, led by the Fosdicks and Van Dykes among others. By the mid-20th century, we have the new permutation of Finney-ism promoted by the "fundamentalists" so-called, the decisional regeneration movement from Billy Graham to Jack Hyles.

A reaction to that superficial theology of the late 20th century gave birth to a resurgence of calvinist soteriology, especially in the Baptist world. The idea that God is truly sovereign regained a place of prominence in some circles. From 1990 or so, we have been taught and led by men like Al Mohler, John Piper, John MacArthur, and many others, and this has led to to a renewed appreciation of Martyn Lloyd-Jones, A. W. Pink, the Puritans, and other sources of solid Biblical teaching from the past.

I think another peak has been reached and passed, however, and will elaborate on that thought in Part Two.

A SERIOUS "MUST READ" FROM GREG GORDON OF SERMON INDEX

Greg has done a tremendous job with this. No, it's not perfect, but it's convicting, none the less.

http://95thesestotheevangelicalchurch.blogspot.com/

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.

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)

"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?

"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......

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.

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).