A BIT OF TESTIMONY + A NEW RANT

Caught myself thinking again the other day.....actually I was listening to a recording of Bob Kauflin leading "In Christ Alone" (Keith Getty, Stuart Townend) at T4G.
In Christ alone my hope is found....

So, how true is that for you?......for me? My "thinking spell" led me down the paths of all these debates and discourses on Facebook, blogs, forums, etc. I have friends and have myself been involved in the calvinist-arminian debate; I have friends who turn all colors over the young earth-old earth arguments; I've been bent out of shape by paedo-baptist proponents. Now I have a friend who is majoring on "family integrated" assemblies, eschewing age-graded classes, etc.

Wandering further back into time, I revisited my "intellectual" roots. I was an absolute, total, vehement skeptic, unbeliever, "religion is the opiate of the masses" type of guy who by God's grace found himself married to a Christian woman (thank you, Lord!). Early in our marriage, I remember being asked by an acquaintance, a wicked, lying, crooked woman lawyer, "are you in that religious hooey?" meaning "like your silly wife?" I told her, Nah, she does her thing, I do mine.

A few years later, I decided to settle her hash about all that Bible stuff. "Read the Bible, read the Bible, read the Bible......" I kept getting that from her.......So, I said: I will read the Bible and I will show you, for your own good, what a load of baloney it is! I got me a nice "intellectual's Bible"--the Jerusalem Bible--a nice Roman Catholic production with twice as much text in scholarly footnotes as in Bible. I waded through most of the Pentateuch and was getting nowhere....made no sense whatsoever.....and she said: Go to the New Testament, read the Gospels. Yeah, right....

I never got all the way through the Gospels....the conviction of sin was so great, I was literally calling out: What must I do to be saved?!! Just another example of the power of the Word of God....absolutely remarkable, outside reason, outside intellectual understanding, simply supernatural. I pitted my intellect against God and it was no contest.

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
(1 Corinthians 1:20-21)

I need to wake up every morning being aware of this: In Christ alone my hope is found

My "great understanding" of scripture is not a source of hope; my hope is not in the truth of calvinistic soteriology. I think there is a real danger of straying into this intellectual realm, the realms of heated discourse or civil conversation are equally risky. We must not lose sight of Christ. This intellectualism is an aspect of the flesh, a manifestation of pride. Oh, I am so smart......I've got this nearly figured out! All those on the "other side" are so dense; how many more hours must I belabor them before they see the light?

I encourage you to think about these issues in the context of our presence in this world populated with lost and dying men. What's important? How much time do we have for debating, for example, "young earth vs old earth"? Do we want to be known as an outspoken leader in the field of "family integrated worship"? I am very skeptical of the field which is called "apologetics" because it seems over-run by debaters whose primary goal is outscoring an opponent, some sort of intellectual victory.....made him look like a monkey, I did! (Yes, there are a few men in this field who are doing a good job of making the Gospel the center-piece, and I am not referring to them, obviously)

Let's think about a "good debate"--suppose I call out some arminian and he and I debate "limited atonement" I'm an experienced debater (high school and college, albeit half a century ago)....I make him look like that monkey mentioned earlier; I score all the points. Does that make him a calvinist? More likely, it makes him bitter, having been humiliated, and more cautious about whom he debates in future. Me? It just puffs me up a bit more.......Then, I take on an unbeliever, a Muslim, or a cult member and really show them what's what. At the conclusion of the intellectual drubbing I deliver, will they convert? I think not; more likely, they will not see the same result I see, rather thinking they carried the day and affirmed all their own errors....so, both parties leave claiming victory and the lost are still lost; only my pride is enhanced.

I urge you to focus on the Gospel. Lost people do not need to be lectured or hectored about young earth vs old earth.....they are going to Hell no matter how old the earth is. Their only hope is in Jesus Christ........that's Christ the Person, not Christ the intellectual concept which you have garnered from your books........Christ the Person, the one of the song: In Christ alone my hope is found
Preachers, your congregations don't need you to be driven by "family integrated" church structure thinking; they sure don't need a spiritual leader who thinks he's CEO of a million-dollar business enterprise. They need the Gospel! What percentage of your congregation is lost? And you want to spend all your time selling some organizational concept? I'm talking about your FOCUS....incidentals have to be dealt with, I know.....but I'm talking to the way-too-many who are one-trick ponies, monomaniacs who get on some elaborate hobby horse generated by their fertile imagination and ride that poor horse to death, while their congregations starve spiritually for want of the Gospel.

Bottom line is: I don't care if you're young earth, old earth, or middle earth. I don't care if you have age-segregated classes or not; I don't care if you're supra or infra; I don't care if you are a total abstainer from alcohol or a wine sipper; I don't even care if you sprinkle babies! All that is between you and God. I'll tell you this for sure: Unless your hope is in Christ and Him alone, you're lost. Your intellect, your wisdom, your skills, your personality, your charisma, your experience, your education, your superior abilities in so many fields, you will carry them with you (or not) into eternity, lost.

In Christ alone my hope is found

ADDENDUM: A few hours after I posted this on my Facebook page, I added a comment there about preterists. That started a big debate which at the 4-hour mark already had nearly 40 comments.....a lot of them mine, of course. That debate is a great illustration of just the kind of intellectual rabbit trails one can be sidetracked by. Only a few folks probably read this, which I intended to be a call to the Gospel....but a good fight on some doctrinal hair-splitting draws a big crowd.

I also found this photo (which was not credited, so I cannot give credit here as I'd like to).....this is a visual illustration of just exactly what I've been trying to state verbally.

"CLEVER" EVANGELISM & REGURGITATED "THEOLOGY"

The connection........

I've posted a number of photos of church signs with those incredibly vacuous, insipid, Gospel-less slogans -- ostensibly a way for that church to "reach" passers-by. Reach them with what is not quite clear....

A friend commented recently "wonder what goes on inside a church which puts that on the outside?" I told her the same type stuff was being proclaimed from the pulpit as from the sign. How could we think otherwise?.......surely no doctrinally sound pastor would allow such drivel as their public witness.

So, this is the "connection" I refer to. There is a dismaying amount of drivel falling from the lips of preachers, even some from whom we might expect better. Just recently, I've been exposed to a flood of sloganeering by supposedly sound preachers. These guys are masters of the quip and the quote. They can wow you with blurbs from all the Big Names.....MacArthur, Tozer, Spurgeon, Piper, et al.

This is a variant of the "spring board sermon" where the preacher starts with his idea, his theme, his point.......then he searches the Bible to find a verse (note: a verse) which he feels supports this idea. Building his structure upon one verse, he springs into action, lambasting the hearers with his own pet ideas whilst claiming Biblical support from the out of context verse.

Now we can get instead of a verse, a one-liner from Spurgeon or one of the other icons. From then on, the preacher goes where his own imagination takes him, having justified his thoughts by appealing to one of the Masters.

Another variant is the "borrowed sermon" These guys read Piper, MacArthur, Spurgeon (less so) and next thing you know, they have a sermon! Nice little 3-pointer, sometimes complete will illustrations. This, of course, has been going on for centuries. Some of the most popular books I sell are collections of sermons by Clovis Chappell, Clarence Macartney, and F W. Boreham. Those sermons have been preached and re-preached for nearly 100 years.

The question is: Why do they do this?
The answer is: They don't have nothin' else.

Some birds (pigeons and doves, maybe some others) feed their babies by going out, finding a nice meal and eating it.....back in the nest, they regurgitate that meal in a form palatable to the babies. This is called "pigeon milk"

Lots of congregations of hungry Christians are being fed on regurgitated theology. Those preachers read a clever bit on Piper's website or a MacArthur book, or had a good time on Phil Johnson's Spurgeon site.....and they carry this bit into the pulpit with them Sunday morning and spit it out for the starving sheep.

Baby pigeons thrive on that stuff. Baby Christians will starve.

Much as I like all the Greats I have mentioned here, their writings are inadequate food. Where have we read that:

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which comes from the mouth of Spurgeon (Piper, etc)? No, that's not it. These guys who are imitating some other preacher, "borrowing" his sermons, quoting him endlessly, in fact, worshiping some man.....are on dangerous ground. They are in danger and their congregations are starving.

I have lots of books; I have lots of commentaries (though I will say I don't use them much these days except for a word study perhaps)...but what I need is a Word from God, not from Spurgeon. Some preachers think a dream come true would be them locked away in a luxury hotel room, with tons of food, hundreds of books to read and "study" and at the end of that stay, they'd be a more powerful preacher. I'm going to tell you that the ideal would be locked up in a bare room with some water and saltines, a pencil and paper, and the Word of God.....after a couple weeks, a changed man would emerge.

All this man-made stuff lacks nutrition. Preachers need a Word from God. They will not get it from reading second-hand stuff, even if it's written by Godly men. Cut out the middle man! Go to the Source! Lock up all those commentaries and sermons books and get into the Word! Your congregation is hungry, some of them are starving,

Feed my sheep!

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.)

THE PHARISEE IN ME (AND YOU?)

The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. (Luke 18:11)

Any Pharisee blood in you, brother? sister?

I've got some. God calls it to my attention regularly. I am constantly in repentance for that, among my other sins. This life in Christ is very much about learning to be a repentant sinner.
Pharisee-ism is one of the great weaknesses of the professing church today. In the mind of many, the church is a place for the Perfect Ones. Those of us who have "arrived." The less-than-perfect are not welcome among us, lest they soil the pew cushions or track mud into the sanctuary.

May I remind those who think like that, Jesus said:

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(Luke 5:31-32)


His Church is made up of sinners......saved sinners to be sure. Church rolls are crowded today by the names of folks who've never been born again. (That's another sermon....) I want to address this to those who are indeed His, those born again from above, washed in the Blood, made new creations in Jesus Christ by the miracle of the New Birth.
Do you now rest in the assurance of your salvation and look down upon those who struggle with sin, those whose sins are more public than yours, those whose sins carry more social consequences than yours? Have you forgotten where you were when Jesus found you?

My ministry is conducted behind razor wire and electrified fences. To get to my meeting place, I am searched, x-rayed, and run through a metal detector. The men I deal with are state prison inmates who have been convicted of every imaginable crime against the State of Tennessee and its citizens: drug crimes, sex crimes, murder.....
Some of these men have been saved out of their life of sin by the grace of an amazing God. Their testimonies break my heart. I'd love to take them home with me, to take them to church with me, to show off these "trophies of Grace" which God has on display for all eternity.

I am a member of a Biblically sound local church--great preaching, wonderful missions outreach, sweet fellowship--but the sweetest fellowship of all for me is during the time I am with my brothers in those tiny little chapels, just a handful of us, sometimes only 3 or 4, sometimes 20 or so (we're not in the numbers game, for sure).
There's something wonderful about being with folks who KNOW they are sinners. These guys are not going around thinking: "Well, I'm not so bad....I'm a pretty good citizen, I pay my bills, etc" like the regular "free-world" church member. These guys KNOW. So, if they're saved, they know they've been saved out of something: SIN.

Too many times, you start talking to "church folks" and soon realize that sinners are "those people"......not them!....it's someone else. "We're not like them!" I have wonderful brothers finish their sentences or get paroled, go back out into the world and can't find a church which will welcome them. "We don't want their kind...."

"God, I thank you that I am not like these men: convicted dope dealers, robbers, drunks, wife-beaters, rapists, killers......."

You fool!

You are just exactly like them. The only reason you are not doing time with them? God's grace! That restraining Grace with which God hedged you up and kept you from going any further down the road to destruction than you did go....(Hosea 2: 6,7)
God has described you perfectly in Romans 3: 10-18....you, me, and every man who has ever drawn a breath. If you are now God's child, it's because of what He did......not because of anything you did! Do not sit back in your pew and spew like a pharisee that you are "not like those people"....whatever your pet target might be: poor, ignorant, another social class, another race, another neighborhood, another ethnic background. Convicted criminals? They broke man's law. They paid the penalty for it.

You broke God's Law. There's nothing you can do to atone for that! Only God can redeem you from the certain, eternal death which that Law-breaking calls for.

He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, (Titus 3:5-6)

Let's repent of this pharisee-ism. We are, in and of ourselves, no better than the worst we can imagine. If you are a Christian, the good in you is there by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit of God. We need to repent of this sinful pride which causes us to look down on any other men You think you are Somebody? You think you have Something? Hear the Word of the Lord:

For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?
(1 Corinthians 4:7)

PREACHING IN IGNORANCE OF BASIC DOCTRINE... WHAT AN ABOMINATION!

What a state the "church" is in today.....led by so many "preachers" who are abysmally ignorant of the basic doctrines taught in the Word.

For the past couple weeks, I've been interacting with a group of pelagian-style heretics on Facebook. Over the weekend, one of them responded to a Spurgeon quote on another fellow's page, throwing out the usual straw-man stuff about all calvinists consigning to Hell those who die in infancy. As his presentation developed he made the expected denial of the doctrine of Original Sin then advanced to denying the Impeccability of Christ.

I made a couple responses to his "born innocent" comments then wrote him off, following the admonition in Titus 3:10. Others continued to respond as he went into his "Jesus could have sinned" statement but no one ever confronted him on either heresy (or either component of the same heresy, as you wish). This was on the Facebook page of a preacher who never raised his voice against the man's heresy at all. None of the others involved in the conversation ever even mentioned the issue of Christ's impeccability.

This made me wonder: Do they even know that this is an issue? Do they not recognize heresy when they hear it? Apparently not, because this thread dissolved into a "well, we must agree to disagree..." cop-out. Now, I will "agree to disagree" over instrumental music in church or over the use of a common cup for the Lord's Supper, but the idea of letting slide a major heresy is pretty lame! Will you also "agree to disagree" over the Deity of Christ? ...or the Virgin Birth?

So, I wrote to the preacher on whose page this took place asking him specifically if he was aware of the heresies involved or was he ignorant of them. His response was a non-response "Sorry if I offended you...." This seems to be a modern-day catch all which must mean: I am really offended that you asked that so I am going to apologize and put an end to the discussion. Even allowing the possibility of my tone, being one of combined outrage and incredulity, might stretch to him seeing me as an offended party, the question still hangs there unanswered: Do you or do you not understand the doctrines involved here and their importance?

So, this guy is out there preaching but unable to answer questions from those who will ask about original sin or the idea of whether Jesus could have sinned but set a great example for us, etc. I suspect the nation's pulpits are filled with similar examples of ignorance, and not just ignorance but a willing ignorance, one which shows no interest in learning, in study, in pursuing the details of the Truth revealed in God's Word.

Are we not commanded to "study to show ourselves approved of God......WORKmen who need not be ashamed....because we can RIGHTLY divide the Word"...??? I have deliberately avoided detailed discussion here of the details on these doctrines....because I wonder about you--do you understand them? Do you have a clue what I am talking about? Do you realize the importance?

If not, here are a couple links which will introduce you to the issues:

http://home.att.net/~sovereigngrace/impeccability.html

http://www.fbinstitute.com/McCormick/IMPECCABILITY.htm

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/jonathanedwards/original_sin.shtml

This McCormick essay contains an interesting footnote: "One scholar (Bartmann) has pointed out that the ancient heretics, however divergent they were in Christology, did not attack or question the Impeccability of Christ."

Even those ancient heretics did not question what these modern day heretics assail in their efforts ultimately to discredit Christ's Deity.

FRAGILE VESSELS

During a quick trip into town, I just met a fellow who has been pretty much "out of sight" for a few months. He's a wonderful brother and I love him greatly. Whenever we or anyone else would run into him on his job or around town, he always presented Christ. He ministered to the poor and despised; he witnessed boldly to the rich and powerful. He has a heart for the lost.

Then he fell. A hobby-business involving guns got him into a mess with the feds and he is facing criminal charges in federal court. He lost his job and, much worse, he has lost his testimony. He's no master criminal. It's a technical thing which might go away next year, but the damage is done. Whether he was just stupid or acted out of greed, I don't know, but he will never been viewed again as he once was by the community here.

In Second Corinthians 4, Paul makes a wonderful description of the Gospel then says:

But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us.

The glorious Gospel is a brilliant Light, but God puts it in plain clay vessels to demonstrate that all the brilliance and glory is His, not ours.

Those clay pots are fragile, too. Earlier, in the First Corinthian letter, Paul had written:

But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

Ah, the heart-breaking thought--preaching to others, then being "disqualified" oneself! Paul knew it could happen to him, and he made every effort to avoid that disaster. (Please note: we are not talking about losing salvation here, but being disqualified for service)

Paul used the word ἀδόκιμος (adokimos) which can be translated "rejected" "unapproved" or "castaway" as in the KJV. In everyday language, determined by the Greek papyrii of that time, it was often used to describe household vessels--cooking pots and so forth--which had been damaged. In the economy of the time, they often were not discarded but set aside, "put on the shelf" until they could be repaired and returned to service.

This seems such a powerful picture of my fallen brother and others in that same situation. They, as we, are the fragile clay pots God has chosen to contain his Gospel. We fall into the sins of this world and are damaged, rendered unfit for use, and God puts us on the shelf--ἀδόκιμος.

The implication is there that repair will be done and the vessel returned to service. God the Holy Spirit is in the business of mending these damaged clay jars and restoring them to active service in the household of God. What a gracious God we serve!

My prayer is that my friend's state be a warning to all of us in the ministry. Maybe he compartmentalized his life. Maybe he had a "Christian activity" and a "business activity" dichotomy. The failure on the "business" side has damaged the Christian side. In fact, there are no compartments for us to hide in. We need to be watchful that we do not fall into sin. It is deadly.

Therefore let anyone who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall.
(1Cor 10:12)

Re: MARK DRISCOLL

I am not a big Mark Driscoll fan but have to give him credit for a great explication of the Gospel in this excerpt from his book DEATH BY LOVE:

See this at Andy Naselli's blog here

TIME FOR ANOTHER REFORMATION?

An anonymous commenter responding to an old post here has got me thinking some radical stuff! It was a comment on the nearly-year-old post on congregational singing versus solo performances and he/she said, among other things, "At times I'm asked to sing solos in church, and I don't mind singing because it's something I'm passionate about, but what disturbs me so much is the feeling of being judged by the congregation because of my 'performance'."

That led me to some thoughts about the nature of the church in general. No doubt I am going to ramble on in this post; I hope you'll bear with me. We have today this dominant attitude of going to church to be an audience. The congregation is audience for the preacher; we are audience for the "performers" who sing (choir, instrumentalists, soloists). This is wrong, for starters. This wrong is either born out of or promoted and sustained by, among other things, that platform or stage upon which our "performers" do their act. Have we not copied that physical arrangement from the entertainment world?

Even the pulpit....Oh, you may say: That puts the Word of God at the center of our attention! I say it puts the Preacher at the center of our attention....and we sit there in the audience waiting to see how well he performs on any given Sunday.

We're approaching the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation. That reformation was born out of a spiritual awakening to the truth of salvation by grace alone apart from works. It separated the church from the man-centered corrupt theology of Rome. Unfortunately, the reformers despite their sound soteriology brought a lot of baggage with them. Many of the trappings of Romanism were carried over and still influence the idea of what "church" and "worship" should be like.

Lately, I have been wondering if we are not making a mistake in modeling the worship assemblies of the church so closely after the practices of Tabernacle/Temple worship of the Old Testament. I think this is what Rome did in the beginning (and continues to so do) and this concept has been maintained by the reformers, thus dominates in Protestant churches today.

The Tabernacle/Temple was the place where God came to meet with men. All the nation of Israel was commanded to worship there. Those assemblies were ceremonial in that they looked back in history to God's work among them and looked forward in type to the coming Messiah. They were not meetings of God's church in the same sense as in the New Testament. (This may be related to the conflation of Israel/Church which occurs to varying degrees in reformed theology. I'm not going there today!)

Anyway, it goes without saying that the OT services were filled with pomp and circumstance, very elaborate and liturgical. But...when we look at all that is given us regarding the New Testament church, there is none of this. No great choirs, no trumpets, no parades of priests, no palm-waving.....The church met together house-to-house; their focus was on prayer and fellowship, and the Word of God. God gave teachers and elders to those congregations to guide them and lead them, but there is no indication that those individuals "ruled" over congregations in the manner we see today....quite the contrary: humility and servant-hood are the main characteristics of the elders God ordains.

"I went into church and sat on the velvet pew. I watched as the sun came shining through the stained glass windows. The minister dressed in a velvet robe opened the golden gilded Bible, marked it with a silk bookmark and said, "If any man will be my disciple, said Jesus, let him deny himself, take up his cross, sell what he has, give it to the poor, and follow me." -Soren Kierkagaard

I'm not a big Kierkagaard fan, but that's pretty near the mark, isn't it? We have gone from the church of Acts 2 to the modern-day iteration which meets in a 25 million dollar building, has a 5 million dollar annual budget (70% of which goes for salaries/benefits of "employees") and feels content that their obedience to the Great Commission is fulfilled by their 10% annual donation to the Cooperative Program. They have no local outreach. Jails, nursing homes, homeless shelters, food kitchens, all that stuff is left to the "liberal, social-gospel" churches.

The "audience" of 2500 comes once or twice a week to be entertained by the talented orator (preacher) and the great singers, then goes home to their niche in the world, happy to have done their bit for the Kingdom of God.

I wonder what it would be like to attend a real N.T. church? Imagine no stage, no performers, but a group of believers hungry for the Word, gathering together regularly to pray with and for one another, to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs (even if off-key) without all the smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, and velvet-covered pews? To have God-ordained elders stand in the congregation and say: Thus saith the Lord...and teach the Word as God gifted them to so do. To see and be among brothers and sisters whose hearts are truly broken over their sin and broken over the state of a lost world in which they live, those who have been made new creations in Christ and genuinely care nothing for the trappings of this life, easily giving whatever they might have that another has need of......To be a part of taking the Gospel to the streets, to the undesireables, to the social outcasts, the poor, the dirty, the wicked denizens of our cities, just exactly whom we would be like but for the Grace of God.

something to think about.......

MY FAVORITE RAP VIDEO

LOSING THE GOSPEL

I am reading and being greatly influenced by Michael Horton's new book CHRISTLESS CHRISTIANITY and am stunned to find aspects of the "prosperity gospel" theology creeping into what were previously considered "sound" churches via the preaching/teaching of men previously considered "rock solid" This is genuinely frightening.

I'm going to quote at length from the book here, particularly from a sub-chapter titled "From Riches to Rags: Losing the Gospel by Taking It for Granted" It seems more sensible to me just to quote his text rather than try to restate it in my own less succinct way.

"We got in by grace but now we need to stay in...by following various steps, lists, and practices. There was this brief and shining moment of grace, but now the rest of the Christian life is about our experience, feelings, committment, and obedience.

Across the entire spectrum from conservative to liberal, we are being told that we need to focus on our deeds, not creeds. Of course, Christ's person and work are important; but we already believe that, right? That's doctrine, we are told; not helping people where they live. Now, we have to save America and the world through our holy actions....

The worst thing that can happen to the Church is to confuse law and gospel. When we soften the Law, we never give up on our own attempts to offer our rags of "righteousness" to God. When we turn the Gospel into demands, it is no longer the saving Word of redemption in Jesus Christ alone....

No longer threatened with hell or comforted with heaven, the new legalism is the upbeat and cheerful hum playing in the background. It's still a form of works-righteousness, with its carrots and sticks. Follow my advice and you'll really "connect" with God's best for your life. If you are not happy, perhaps you have fallen out of God's favor and blessing. Only those who are "completely surrendered" can be confident that they are in God's Plan A. Now here are the steps to living the victorious Christian life. Are you following the steps? Do you have enough faith? Are you praying enough, reading the Bible enough, witnessing enough, serving in the church enough, loving enough? This diet of imperatives becomes just as burdensome and human-centered as the older legalism; it's just Legalism-Lite....

We need the Law and the Gospel, but each does different things. When we confuse law and gospel, we avoid both the trauma of God's holiness and the liberating power of His grace. We begin to speak about living the gospel, doing the gospel, even being the gospel, as if the Good News were a message about us and our works instead of about Jesus Christ and His works.

And since our faith in every moment is threatened by our natural tendency to be distracted from its object--Christ--we need the gospel to be placarded before us not just at the beginning but throughout the Christian life. The gospel is for Christians too. We need to be evangelized every week. It is not by following Christ's example but by actually being inserted into Christ, clothed with Christ, united to Christ--as the Spirit creates faith through the gospel--that we are not only justified but sanctified as well....

So there are really only two religions in the world: a religion of human striving to ascend to God through pious works, feelings, attitudes, and experiences, and the Good News of God's merciful descent to us in His Son."

(CHRISTLESS CHRISTIANITY by Michael Horton, c. 2008 by Michael Horton, published by Baker Books)

How often do we hear this formula?-- OK, now you're saved through the Gospel. It's time to start living like a Christian. You need to "move on" by means of proper behaviors and actions.

Matthew 6:33 is presented as a "moving on" message. "Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness" then, after you have so sought, work hard, be honest, and God will give you all those blessings!

What a travesty of the Gospel!.....what "another gospel, which is not the gospel."

"Seek first the Kingdom of God...." does not mean a one-time conversion experience after which we are blessed by God for our pious actions. We are to seek first the Kingdom with our every breath, every day, in every way. The Gospel is not a pill we swallow, then go on with our lives, getting the occasional "boost-up" from God's hand. The Gospel is Christ, the Way, the Destination, the Journey, now and for evermore.

THE REST OF THE STORY....

To understand this fully you'll probably have to read the post entitled "Our Sovereign God", dated July 22, 2008.

"The Rest of the Story" came to light about 10 days ago and I'm just now recovered to the point where I can write about it. Sunday before last our Chaplain's Clerk (an inmate) told me that one of the other inmates had written to Donald at the halfway house but the letter had been returned as "undeliverable" Enclosed with the original letter was a note from another of the former inmates who lived in that house--one of the mature Christians I referred to in the original post.

He reported in this note that Donald was in jail. He had been stealing from the other residents in the house and when confronted about his actions, he attacked the house manager (another of the "mature Christians" who I hoped would be a good influence on Donald). Though he managed to give the man a couple black eyes, he was quickly subdued by other men and given quite a beating. So, he off to jail again, probably going to have his parole violated and be returned to prison (after he does some jail time for assault).

It seems that very quickly after he arrived in this house, he began to steal from his neighbors and to con every preacher and church group he could think of. As I said earlier, he called me wanting money. Only thing keeping me from being a "victim" here is the fact that I'm broke. At least 5 other volunteer chaplains at the prison reported being hit up for money by him and I know some of them sent him money. Of course, I recommended him to a Nashville pastor whose church put up the $200-250 to get him into this halfway house!

What the true proverb says has happened to them: "The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire."
(2Peter 2:22)

So, what are we to do? A great number of us were so impressed by Donald: his personality, his apparent interest in the things of God. He sang in our services, he testified to the great work of grace done in his life. I'm sorry to report that I am relieved to find that others "fell for it" too--that I am not alone in being fooled.

Is Donald saved or not? Formerly, I would have answered that question by saying: He gives good evidence of genuine conversion. Today, I cannot say that; but I cannot say more. The more pressing question is: Now that he has done this, how will I treat him? If he were in a jail near me here, would I go to see him? Will I pray for him? Will I care for him as much as I did before he showed himself to be a lying, deceiving sinner? Just how much better than he, am I?

PHYSICAL HEALING IN THE ATONEMENT?

James K. A. Smith teaches philosophy at Calvin College and is the author of a book, Thinking in Tongues: Elements of a Pentecostal Worldview which will be published next year. In a recent article in Christianity Today, he wrote of his theological position, that of a calvinist pentecostal. It's an interesting article; I think he's probably a nice fellow, and I have no reason to doubt his salvation. Most of what he wrote simply did not resonate with me, but that's cool--much of it is experiential stuff anyway. He did make some theological statements, too--one of which is so blatantly wrong, I am compelled to write about it.

"First, Pentecostals believe in healing--and they don't mean only "spiritual" healing. They think physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished. God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body. The Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment."

That is just so outrageous in so many ways, I hardly know how to begin.

1.) Non-pentecostals believe in healing also. Anyone who has ever gotten over an illness or recovered from an injury has been healed.....healed by God. God is the only source of healing. God also uses means. Not all His healing is delivered by direct intervention in some openly "miraculous" way (though all healing is indeed miraculous). God has provided, in His grace, doctors, medicines, and all that accompanies them.

2.) Mr Smith implicitly equates physical healing with spiritual healing so let's carry on the thought about means. Just as physical healing is accomplished by Him through means, He uses means to spread the Gospel of salvation: men, preaching the Word to every creature. God could have, in His sovereignty, intervened directly with the Good News. All men could have gotten the Word by some direct communication, just as God could heal any and all sickness by direct action. That is not the manner in which He has chosen to work out His plan.

3.) "Physical healing is part of what the Cross accomplished" Yes..........and No.........that is, No, not now. We all know ISA 53:4: with His stripes we are healed. This is the key verse for the "Healing in the Atonement" advocates. I am yet to be convinced that it refers to physical healing at all, though obviously all believers will experience an eternal "healing" when we are glorified. So, for this discussion, I will allow that it refers to physical healing as well as the very obvious spiritual healing.

First of all, then, healing for whom? Mr Smith is a calvinist and thus should know that the work on the Cross is efficacious only for the elect. So, there is no physical healing for the non-elect? But lost people get healed all the time, as an aspect of God's common grace.

And, the main question: healing when? If healing is "in the Atonement" then we believers should never be sick! Oh, wait.....some pentecostals make that healing dependent upon how much "faith" one has. Now, Mr Smith did not fall into that pit, but by staying out of it, he still must answer: If, like salvation of our souls, physical healing is a "benefit" of Christ's work on the Cross, then that healing should be ours, unqualifiedly, as the elect of God, as His children chosen before the foundation of the world.

If healing is in the Atonement, how can we explain Paul's ongoing infirmities? How do we explain: Erastus abode at Corinth: but Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick.
(2Ti 4:20)

Why did the Apostles die? They had the power to heal the sick and to raise the dead! (Matt 10)

4.) As I said, I am convinced that the healing referred to in Isaiah is specifically "spiritual" healing from the sickness of sin. Let's consider two passages of Scripture:

Peter quoted Isa 53 in one of his epistles--writing to believers, he said: by whose stripes ye were healed. (1 Pet 2:24)

Note the past tense. In verse 21, he wrote "Christ also suffered for us....."........PAST TENSE......Done. Finished.

Christ suffered for us.
By His stripes we WERE healed.

Obviously, this does not refer to my arthritis from which I have not been healed. It is decidedly a reference to the sin-sickness of those to whom Peter wrote, and it is a reference to the sin-sickness of all those who have been born again by the Spirit of God, had their sins forgiven, been made new creations in Jesus Christ. We WERE healed.

5.) A final word on ultimate healing. There's no doubt about eventual glorification for believers. Romans 8:30
That this final phase of our salvation, following justification and sanctification, is a product of Christ's work on the Cross is undeniable. And, it's plain from Scripture that it is not something which happens in this sin-corrupted body. We must be changed. We are temporarily bound to a death-doomed, sin-weakened body. It's end is certain: death and the grave. But.......death was defeated on the Cross, right? Yes!

"Christ has broken the power of Satan, who held the power of death (Heb 2:14), at the Cross. But Satan will not be permanently divested of his weapon of death until the end of the Millennium. " John MacArthur

The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
(1Cor 15:26)

6.) "God doesn't want to just save your soul; God also cares about your body" At first glance, it seems risky to contradict that statement. You want to say that God does not care about your body? But what Mr Smith is doing here, by accident or design I'm not sure, is equating spiritual salvation and physical healing--making them equals. I want to state unequivocal disagreement with that notion. God did not send his only begotten Son to die on that cross with a view to redeeming our corrupt bodies. Those bodies are temporal things of His creation. All His creation is perverted and corrupted by sin. He sent His Son to redeem us from sin and the ultimate redemption of all His creation comes with that, but these bodies are going to be changed, changed into glorious bodies like unto His. The work of Christ in redemption was not a job of patching up damaged goods. When a man is born again by the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, he is a New Creation, not a repaired sinner. When God heals our temporal body, it is just that: a temporary repair done to something which is doomed to the grave, now or later, it's going there. The two works are by no means equal. God's concern cannot be considered equal between the salvation of the souls of His elect and the temporary delaying of an inevitable physical death.

7.) "Pentecostal emphasis on the healing of the body is an affirmation of the goodness of embodiment." OK, my first thought here is: What on earth is "affirmation of the goodness of embodiment"? "Affirmation" and "embodiment" must be a couple of the latest buzz-words in neo-evangelicalism. I do hear the "affirmation" word now and then in my circles (and think maybe I've fallen into using it myself once or twice). To me, it means: I did X and the next day Y happened giving me affirmation that God was in it. True affirmation from God comes via the witness of the Spirit and the Word of God, not from fleshly rationalizations or coincidences.

Anyway, what is this he has affirmation of?--"the goodness of embodiment"..........I re-read the article hoping to find that he had defined that jewel of an expression and, sure enough, here it is:

"An important piece of that affirmation is the goodness of embodiment--the goodness of the stuff we bump into, the bodies we inhabit."

Got it now? Me, neither......But it's born out of his view that Reformed theology has a strong appreciation for the "goodness" of God's creation, the material universe. And, since our bodies are part of that Creation, we should see and enjoy the "goodness" of them.

First of all, I've never seen much emphasis in Reformed writing or preaching about the "goodness" of the material universe in the way Mr Smith sees it. Subject to correction, I do not think he is echoing the Psalmist who wrote:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
(Psa 19:1)

Mr Smith seems to be overlooking the fact that all God's once "good" Creation is now under a curse. The once eternal bodies of Adam and Eve are now cursed by the effects of sin and ultimately, death. What was once "good" "very good" and indeed perfect, has become corrupt, defiled, twisted, and defeated by sin.

That Fall is what necessitated the work of our Redeemer. Not only does man need to be redeemed from the curse of sin and death, but all God's Creation:

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
(Rom 8:21-22)


CONCLUSION:

The danger of this emphasis on physical healing and the "goodness" of the material universe lies in overlooking the great cost of sin and its effect on man and the rest of God's creation. If this material universe is "good" well, maybe man isn't so bad, either. We just need to appreciate ourselves more, seek out that notorious "spark of goodness" which lies buried in every heart (!) It's a short step from this kind of thinking to a watered-down gospel which is not the Gospel.

Overwhelmed By Grace

We partook of the Lord's Supper yesterday morning and I was (and am) particularly affected by the sermon and the service. Earlier in the service two adults were baptized and, as is our practice, they gave a brief testimony of God's redeeming work in their lives as they stood in the waters. Both were greatly moving depictions of His love and grace, transforming lives from misery and hopelessness to peace and hope in Christ. Our pastor's message from I Cor 11, the standard texts for the observance was far from "usual" in that he was greatly empowered by the Holy Spirit to communicate to us (to me, at least) a vivid remembrance of my Savior's body and blood and a fervent longing for His return. He had spoken of our Lord's body being "crushed" as Isa 53:10 is rendered in the ESV (Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; ) The use of "bruised" in the KJV seems weak to us today; being bruised is no big thing. But Jesus was crushed for me! As he spoke about the bread he said, as I have heard others say but not with such convicting power, it would be so much more meaningful if we had a chunk of bread rather than those little Baptist crumbs we use--a chunk of bread from which we would tear pieces--symbolically tearing His body as it was torn for us. Because it was us, it was me, who tore His body......it was for my sin that the Father crushed Him.

So, as the elements were passed to the congregation, I took my little wafer and, as I have always done because I have this dread of ever dropping it, I held it tightly between my index finger and my thumb. This particular wafer had a big air pocket and not much substance. As I squeezed it, making sure I didn't drop it, I crushed it in my fingers. I am incapable of writing well enough to convey how this affected me. Tears well up even now, 36 hours later, as I try to write this. I crushed it. I crushed Him. He was wounded for my transgressions; He was crushed for my iniquities. It was me! It was not some amorphous group of "them" There is no anonymity available in the Truth of His death. It was me. Horatius Bonar wrote:

'Twas I that shed that sacred Blood,
I nailed him to the Tree,
I crucified the Christ of God,
I joined the mockery.

But that's not the end........

He died that death willingly, for the joy that was set before Him.
He died that death willingly, to reconcile me to God.
He died that death willingly, out of Love:
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Bonar concludes:

Yet not the less that Blood avails
to cleanse me from sin,
and not the less that Cross prevails
to give me peace within

Yes, I crushed Him. But the Blood avails; the Cross prevails!

Hallelujah, what a Savior!