Watch the video below where Dave Black discusses his book, Seven Marks Of A New Testament Church. It is a little over half an hour but it is fascinating stuff.
If you are interested you can also read my review of Seven Marks... I found it a far more accurate portrayal than many other books and organizations that seek to identify THE marks of a New Testament fellowship.
After you watch the video what do you think?
Showing posts with label 9 Marks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9 Marks. Show all posts
Monday, September 21, 2015
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Book Review: Elders in the Life of the Church
If there is a topic that needs a lot more study and discussion in the church, it is elders. What are they for?
How do they function? How should they be chosen? How many should a local congregation have? Many churchgoers have no idea what elders are all about or that they appear so frequently in the New Testament and our lack of understanding is crippling to much of the church.
Phil Newton and Matt Schmucker attempt to answer these questions from a decidedly baptistic perspective in their joint effort, Elders in the Life of the Church: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership from Kregel Publications. That they are Baptists is critical to understand as elders are usually thought of as a "Presbyterian thing". Many Baptist, especially Southern Baptist, churches operate with a "Senior Pastor and a bunch of deacons" style of governance, so the advocacy for a plural elders style is quite unusual and often seen as a threat. They tackle the topic with a back and forth style, alternating chapters between Phil and Matt with Phil penning more "theoretical" chapters that dig into the Scriptures more heavily with Matt providing more "practical" chapters on how this looks at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C. where he is on staff and home to Mark Dever and 9 Marks Ministries. Phil Newton is someone I am quite familiar with, back in the day when I was doing a series "preaching" through the book of Acts I turned to his series on Acts before I completed a single sermon as he had far and away the best treatment of the book from a Reformed and Baptist perspective. I am pretty familiar with Matt as well, mostly from disagreeing with what he publishes online! More on that in a moment. The "back and forth" style rarely works well but I thought this book pulled it off. I did find myself starting to skim Matt's chapters to get back to Phil but even so the transitions were pretty smooth. Even a cursory reading would show that these two brothers in Christ are earnest and serious about this topic and did a great job in making their argument. However, even a great argument can be wrong on many levels.
This is a book I would summarize as "oh so close and yet so far away". So close because both Matt and Phil (mostly Phil as he has the more substantive chapters) understand the importance of elders and have done the hard work of both deeply researching this topic from Scripture as well as living out life in a plural elder setting. So far away because they simply seem incapable or perhaps unwilling to step away from the institutional church paradigm. They never address, much less challenge, the notion that some elders are "called to preach", i.e. deliver a weekly sermon or two, and that they should be paid while others should labor in the church free of charge like Paul. They assume that a paid "senior pastor" can be "first among equals" when that very idea is self-contradictory. I can't imagine anyone at Capitol Hill Baptist confusing who has more authority, some random guy on the elder board or famous pastor Mark Dever. So much of the book caused me to furiously jot notes in the margins to the point that I found myself looking more for what was wrong than what they were trying to say. Elders in the church should be the very antithesis of the institutional style of religion rather than key players in perpetuating the system.
The strongest chapter by far was the last full chapter on the topic of Leadership Development in Hard Places, looking at elders in the church in the "less Christian" parts of the world where the supposed "benefits" of our Western religious system (like professional clerical training via seminaries) are absent. The ideas presented in this chapter were largely on target. There is a real danger in trying to replicate Western style "church" in developing nations where it makes no sense. When I was in Haiti it was jarring to see a pastor wearing a suit and tie when in their culture that was so incredibly out of place. On the other hand they also recognize the serious danger of the frenetic church planting movement, where "converts" by the hundreds are made and left to fend for themselves, devolving inevitably into syncretism and heresy. Recognizing, training and supporting indigenous leaders is critical to healthy evangelism but "spent three months ministering alongside 5 men to help them understand critical doctrines" is not nearly as sexy as "487 baptized in one day!" reports back to the states, and those reports are what keep the money flowing.
If you are comfortable with the institutional church paradigm and curious about elders, especially in a plural setting, you will find this book very useful. I would rather see a plural elder led institutional church where godly men labor side by side in the ministry than I would a single pastor "one man show" institutional church. Plural elders is a step in the right direction. Having said that I believe the same study methods used to arrive at plural elders, taken to their natural conclusion, lead one to reject institutionalism as a man-made religious invention. Not many who read this book will agree and sadly not many who reject institutionalism in the church will read this book. In spite of the flaws it is still a well researched and thought-out book. As the church we need more discussion and study on this topic so my appreciation goes out to both Matt and Phil for their effort.
Perhaps Dave Black could pen a new book on this very topic as a follow-up to his Seven Marks of a New Testament Church? What say you Dr. Black?!
I received a copy of Elders in the Life of the Church free of charge and with no compensation from Kregal Academic in return for publishing an unbiased review.
Phil Newton and Matt Schmucker attempt to answer these questions from a decidedly baptistic perspective in their joint effort, Elders in the Life of the Church: Rediscovering the Biblical Model for Church Leadership from Kregel Publications. That they are Baptists is critical to understand as elders are usually thought of as a "Presbyterian thing". Many Baptist, especially Southern Baptist, churches operate with a "Senior Pastor and a bunch of deacons" style of governance, so the advocacy for a plural elders style is quite unusual and often seen as a threat. They tackle the topic with a back and forth style, alternating chapters between Phil and Matt with Phil penning more "theoretical" chapters that dig into the Scriptures more heavily with Matt providing more "practical" chapters on how this looks at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in D.C. where he is on staff and home to Mark Dever and 9 Marks Ministries. Phil Newton is someone I am quite familiar with, back in the day when I was doing a series "preaching" through the book of Acts I turned to his series on Acts before I completed a single sermon as he had far and away the best treatment of the book from a Reformed and Baptist perspective. I am pretty familiar with Matt as well, mostly from disagreeing with what he publishes online! More on that in a moment. The "back and forth" style rarely works well but I thought this book pulled it off. I did find myself starting to skim Matt's chapters to get back to Phil but even so the transitions were pretty smooth. Even a cursory reading would show that these two brothers in Christ are earnest and serious about this topic and did a great job in making their argument. However, even a great argument can be wrong on many levels.
This is a book I would summarize as "oh so close and yet so far away". So close because both Matt and Phil (mostly Phil as he has the more substantive chapters) understand the importance of elders and have done the hard work of both deeply researching this topic from Scripture as well as living out life in a plural elder setting. So far away because they simply seem incapable or perhaps unwilling to step away from the institutional church paradigm. They never address, much less challenge, the notion that some elders are "called to preach", i.e. deliver a weekly sermon or two, and that they should be paid while others should labor in the church free of charge like Paul. They assume that a paid "senior pastor" can be "first among equals" when that very idea is self-contradictory. I can't imagine anyone at Capitol Hill Baptist confusing who has more authority, some random guy on the elder board or famous pastor Mark Dever. So much of the book caused me to furiously jot notes in the margins to the point that I found myself looking more for what was wrong than what they were trying to say. Elders in the church should be the very antithesis of the institutional style of religion rather than key players in perpetuating the system.
The strongest chapter by far was the last full chapter on the topic of Leadership Development in Hard Places, looking at elders in the church in the "less Christian" parts of the world where the supposed "benefits" of our Western religious system (like professional clerical training via seminaries) are absent. The ideas presented in this chapter were largely on target. There is a real danger in trying to replicate Western style "church" in developing nations where it makes no sense. When I was in Haiti it was jarring to see a pastor wearing a suit and tie when in their culture that was so incredibly out of place. On the other hand they also recognize the serious danger of the frenetic church planting movement, where "converts" by the hundreds are made and left to fend for themselves, devolving inevitably into syncretism and heresy. Recognizing, training and supporting indigenous leaders is critical to healthy evangelism but "spent three months ministering alongside 5 men to help them understand critical doctrines" is not nearly as sexy as "487 baptized in one day!" reports back to the states, and those reports are what keep the money flowing.
If you are comfortable with the institutional church paradigm and curious about elders, especially in a plural setting, you will find this book very useful. I would rather see a plural elder led institutional church where godly men labor side by side in the ministry than I would a single pastor "one man show" institutional church. Plural elders is a step in the right direction. Having said that I believe the same study methods used to arrive at plural elders, taken to their natural conclusion, lead one to reject institutionalism as a man-made religious invention. Not many who read this book will agree and sadly not many who reject institutionalism in the church will read this book. In spite of the flaws it is still a well researched and thought-out book. As the church we need more discussion and study on this topic so my appreciation goes out to both Matt and Phil for their effort.
Perhaps Dave Black could pen a new book on this very topic as a follow-up to his Seven Marks of a New Testament Church? What say you Dr. Black?!
I received a copy of Elders in the Life of the Church free of charge and with no compensation from Kregal Academic in return for publishing an unbiased review.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Book Review: Seven Marks of a New Testament Church
1. Evangelistic preaching
2. Christian baptism
3. Apostolic teaching
4. Genuine relationships
5. Christ-centered gatherings
6. Fervent prayer
7. Sacrificial living
It is probably inevitable given my background that I compare Dr. Black's book with the well known 9 Marks of a Healthy Church put out by Mark Dever and the aptly named 9 Marks ministries. Mark and company are some of the most prolific writers out there on the topic of ecclesiology and come from a reformed, baptistic, plural elder viewpoint. While I disagree with a lot of what Dever writes, I appreciate the thought and the Scriptural study that have gone into their works. Nevertheless I found far more to commend in Dr. Black's compilation than Mark Dever's.
The thing I liked best about Seven Marks versus 9 Marks is that it is believer-centric rather than clergy-centric. 9 Marks is designed as a "top down" system, get the right elders leading the right way and preaching the right sermons and teaching the right theology and you have a "healthy church". Members will follow. Dr. Black starts at the ground floor with an "every member shared ministry" that far more closely follows the apostolic pattern. The church is built from individuals working as a community for the mission of God. Leaders are enablers who help others be prepared for the work of ministry:
The essence of all New Testament teaching about church leadership is that leaders are to be enablers. They are not to do the work of the ministry as much as they are to prepare others to do that work (see Eph. 4: 11-12).
Black, David Alan, Seven Marks of a New Testament Church: A Guide for Christians of All Ages (Kindle Locations 338-340). Energion Publications. Kindle Edition.
That is the sort of plain wisdom we need a lot more of in discussing the church in the waning days of Christendom. Top down leadership and top down centered ecclesiology is great for creating top heavy organizations but for the church we need to flip that order around as Dr. Black has done here.
One thing that sort of confused me. While Dr. Black talks a lot about love in every chapter, love doesn't get a chapter of its own. Jesus said that all men will know we are His disciples by our love for one another ( John 13:35 ). Love is the key, foundational mark of the church. Indeed without it the church cannot be the church. I am not sure why it was not given a chapter but if I were rewriting the book I would add at the top of the list!
In spite of my one quibble this is a book I can unreservedly recommend for anyone studying the church, whether one is seeking to reform an existing group and starting a new group from scratch. It is not long and it tends to raise a lot of questions, making it perfect as a study guide or introduction to ecclesiology. Get a copy, read it and then pass a copy or three on to your church friends. They might be surprised by what they read!
(You can also get Seven Marks from Amazon for the Kindle, that is what I did because I like to be able to electronically mark important passages)
Thursday, July 12, 2012
What's Love Got To Do With It?
Channeling Tina Turner this morning…
A few days ago I posted a list of characteristics of the church by Dave Black. As I said I like his list a lot. I also promised to give you a look at a list I like a whole lot less. The list I found troubling comes courtesy of the Resurgence, one of the arms of Mars Hill and ultimately Mark Driscoll and carries the bold title of 8 Biblical Marks Of A True Church. No surprise, it turns out that all of the marks are what Mars Hill is already doing.
At the outset I have to say that while what is going on at Mars Hill it doesn’t impact me personally, it does impact the church both locally with those in fellowship at the various Mars Hill campuses as well as globally through those that are influenced by Mark Driscoll around the world. I look westward with a growing sense of alarm, the sort of alarm that can only come from someone who has come out of a highly authoritarian, controlling and hierarchically cultic setting. When someone frequently brags about firing people and chortling about the trail of bodies he has left in his wake of those who didn't get with his program, warning bells and flashing lights should be going off. When a local church starts absorbing and assimilating other local churches, firing staff and driving away people who refuse to be assimilated, what is happening might be "successful" but it isn't the church.
Even the title "Biblical Marks of a True Church" reduces the church into a bunch of local, autonomous groups that are only loosely linked together with a linkage that is barely there in theory and completely absent in practice. Asking “what is a church” without first asking “what is the church” puts the cart before the horse. Unless we grasp what the church is globally and universally, in her entirety, we will never understand and correctly practice church community locally. Mars Hill in Seattle is not an independent local church, or at least it shouldn’t be. It should be a local expression of a larger community, one more concerned with the health of the church around the world than it is with preserving its own identity and snatching up other struggling “local churches” to be assimilated.
As you peruse this list, you will find a lot of the typical stuff: "preaching", authoritarian leadership, "sacraments" and "church membership", but something is obviously missing. The vital characteristic of the church that is absent from this list, and many others, is love. Such a simple thing and yet so crucial to the life of the church. Still we find list after list where love is not mentioned other than in passing. Even the vaunted 9 Marks, a list that spawned a ministry, doesn’t list love as one of the 9 mark of the church. Preaching? Oh yes, we must have that! So called sacraments? Can’t have a “real” church without them! Love? Well that is just sort of assumed and implied. I mean I obviously love my fellow Christians, at least the other members of my church, because I grace them with my presence on Sunday and I dress myself and my family up to impress them.
What does it mean that so many people are convinced that the church either is already loving one another in spite of the evidence to the contrary or that it isn't as imortant as adherence to all manner of manmade reigious traditions? When we don't even consider love or unity or self-sacrifice to be an essential of the church, doesn't it mean that our view of the church is horrible distorted? We cannot have a "biblical true church" if we are missing these crucial characteristics. I don't care how exegetically sound the preaching or how conservative the attire or how detailed the statement of faith, if you don't have love you are not manifesting the church. Some of these other things are important (and many are not) but they all come in a distant second to love.
Jesus said to His disciples and by extension to us:
If that is true and it most certainly is, then the opposite is also true. If we don't love one another people will not recognize us as His disciples. Perhaps that explains why the world doesn't persecute us in the West because the world doesn't even recognize who we claim to be. I have come to a point where I would rather fellowship with a "liberal" Christian that loves his brothers and sisters than a "conservative" Christian who sees his brothers and sisters as people to be made to conform to man-made rules.
The church was birthed in the supreme act of self-sacrificial love and loving God and one another is the top priority of the church. Anyone who fails to recognize that and give love its proper place of prominence frankly doesn't understand the first thing about the church and really has no business declaring what are or are not the "marks of a biblical church".
A few days ago I posted a list of characteristics of the church by Dave Black. As I said I like his list a lot. I also promised to give you a look at a list I like a whole lot less. The list I found troubling comes courtesy of the Resurgence, one of the arms of Mars Hill and ultimately Mark Driscoll and carries the bold title of 8 Biblical Marks Of A True Church. No surprise, it turns out that all of the marks are what Mars Hill is already doing.
At the outset I have to say that while what is going on at Mars Hill it doesn’t impact me personally, it does impact the church both locally with those in fellowship at the various Mars Hill campuses as well as globally through those that are influenced by Mark Driscoll around the world. I look westward with a growing sense of alarm, the sort of alarm that can only come from someone who has come out of a highly authoritarian, controlling and hierarchically cultic setting. When someone frequently brags about firing people and chortling about the trail of bodies he has left in his wake of those who didn't get with his program, warning bells and flashing lights should be going off. When a local church starts absorbing and assimilating other local churches, firing staff and driving away people who refuse to be assimilated, what is happening might be "successful" but it isn't the church.
Even the title "Biblical Marks of a True Church" reduces the church into a bunch of local, autonomous groups that are only loosely linked together with a linkage that is barely there in theory and completely absent in practice. Asking “what is a church” without first asking “what is the church” puts the cart before the horse. Unless we grasp what the church is globally and universally, in her entirety, we will never understand and correctly practice church community locally. Mars Hill in Seattle is not an independent local church, or at least it shouldn’t be. It should be a local expression of a larger community, one more concerned with the health of the church around the world than it is with preserving its own identity and snatching up other struggling “local churches” to be assimilated.
As you peruse this list, you will find a lot of the typical stuff: "preaching", authoritarian leadership, "sacraments" and "church membership", but something is obviously missing. The vital characteristic of the church that is absent from this list, and many others, is love. Such a simple thing and yet so crucial to the life of the church. Still we find list after list where love is not mentioned other than in passing. Even the vaunted 9 Marks, a list that spawned a ministry, doesn’t list love as one of the 9 mark of the church. Preaching? Oh yes, we must have that! So called sacraments? Can’t have a “real” church without them! Love? Well that is just sort of assumed and implied. I mean I obviously love my fellow Christians, at least the other members of my church, because I grace them with my presence on Sunday and I dress myself and my family up to impress them.
What does it mean that so many people are convinced that the church either is already loving one another in spite of the evidence to the contrary or that it isn't as imortant as adherence to all manner of manmade reigious traditions? When we don't even consider love or unity or self-sacrifice to be an essential of the church, doesn't it mean that our view of the church is horrible distorted? We cannot have a "biblical true church" if we are missing these crucial characteristics. I don't care how exegetically sound the preaching or how conservative the attire or how detailed the statement of faith, if you don't have love you are not manifesting the church. Some of these other things are important (and many are not) but they all come in a distant second to love.
Jesus said to His disciples and by extension to us:
By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35)
If that is true and it most certainly is, then the opposite is also true. If we don't love one another people will not recognize us as His disciples. Perhaps that explains why the world doesn't persecute us in the West because the world doesn't even recognize who we claim to be. I have come to a point where I would rather fellowship with a "liberal" Christian that loves his brothers and sisters than a "conservative" Christian who sees his brothers and sisters as people to be made to conform to man-made rules.
The church was birthed in the supreme act of self-sacrificial love and loving God and one another is the top priority of the church. Anyone who fails to recognize that and give love its proper place of prominence frankly doesn't understand the first thing about the church and really has no business declaring what are or are not the "marks of a biblical church".
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
More on home-cooked elders
Matt Schmucker, writing for 9 Marks, posted an article a few months ago aimed at pastors. The gist of the article was how a pastor can prepare the church for “the next guy” when the current pastors is “called” to a different church, Prepare the Church for the Next Guy.
I found an interesting assumption in this article. It assumes that the next pastor of a given church will be a stranger, recruited and hired in from the outside. Is that the way it worked in the New Testament? Not at all. Men were appointed from within the local body to minister within that body (Acts 14:23). I left this comment on the 9 Marks page and on Facebook…
Pie in the sky? Perhaps but it is also in keeping with the letter and spirit of what we have in the New Testament.
I found an interesting assumption in this article. It assumes that the next pastor of a given church will be a stranger, recruited and hired in from the outside. Is that the way it worked in the New Testament? Not at all. Men were appointed from within the local body to minister within that body (Acts 14:23). I left this comment on the 9 Marks page and on Facebook…
If pastors are doing the task they are called to (Eph 4:11-16) this won’t be a problem because men in the local church would already been doing the work of ministry and that church wouldn’t have to hire a stranger to come in and minister to people he doesn’t know. Nothing beats home-cooking,whether in the kitchen or in the church!I stand by that statement 100%. While there will always be bumps in the road with any church, I firmly believe that men who are discipled and equipped to minister in a given local church will best serve the Body of Christ in that local church. It makes no sense to send men away to minister among strangers and then hiring strangers to come in to minister locally. Equip and empower men, new Christians and more mature, so that they can minister to the local body. If we do that, we wouldn’t need to hire in professionals from outside of the local body.
Pie in the sky? Perhaps but it is also in keeping with the letter and spirit of what we have in the New Testament.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Who’s Afraid Of “Parachurches”?
Para-Church ministries have an uneasy seat at the table in the broader church. They are often viewed, at best, with some suspicion by more traditional local church organizations. There is just something about parachurch ministries that is vaguely threatening . 9 Marks devotes a whole e-journal to the topic to make sure that we never, ever confuse parachurch ministries with local churches. Even the title is somewhat ominous: Church and Parachurch: Friends or Foes?. Their e-journal is chock full of warnings that parachurches are not churches, that they don’t function like churches, they are not accountable like churches, they don’t exercise church discipline like churches, there are no ministers to safeguard the doctrine, etc. We must never, ever confuse churches and parachurches!
So me being me, I asked…
Does the Bible make a distinction like this?
Well not really. Primarily because there were no parachurches and not really any local churches that resemble our traditional model. There was the church. In times of rapid growth and severe persecution, arguments about which manifestation of the church was subservient to others probably didn’t come up. So I think that a lot of this is a product of Christians who have too much time on their hands to worry about things the Bible doesn’t mention.
So what exactly is a “parachurch” ministry? This is the definition from Wikipedia:
Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations. Most parachurch organizations, at least those which are normally called parachurch, are Protestant and Evangelical. Some of these organizations cater to a defined spectrum among evangelical beliefs, but most are self-consciously interdenominational and many are ecumenical.
What distinguishes the two, between a parachurch ministry and the local church ministry? The para-church tends to be bigger and less localized. Many parachurch ministries have a large budget, tons of office space and a bunch of staff. They tend to draw in Christians from a variety of doctrinal, geographic and ecclesiastical positions. It is a diverse group ranging from mercy organizations to Bible translators to food pantries to evangelistic organizations. Local churches are the groups you gather with on a weekly basis and are engaged in more traditional church functions: baptisms, weddings, funerals, potluck dinners,VBS, weekly sermons, Sunday school.
So my question is this: is a “parachurch” ministry a less legitimate or even subservient form of the church than a local church gathering? Maybe Paul can shed some light…
Look at this passage of Scripture:
Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me. (1 Corinthians 16: 1-4)
This is interesting. Paul is instructing a whole bunch of Christians in various churches in Galatia and now in Corinth to set aside some money. As Paul is travelling around, he is sending these offerings from the churches to Jerusalem to aid them in their time of need.
Also it is interesting to note that Paul appears to be supported by churches outside of where he was ministering, so in effect he was a missionary who worked with his own hands and at least on one occasion received some support from a different church while ministering among the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:8).
As Paul was not a permanent part of any local church, could he and his companions not fit the definition of a “parachurch” ministry? They ministered outside of but with the support and cooperation of local churches and crossed all sorts of geographical regions. They by and large raised their own funds. They were engaged in preaching the Gospel and in works of mercy for the needy (Galatians 2:10). I think that the Apostle Paul, so beloved and studied by the church, was engaged in an ancient version of what we would call a “parachurch” ministry! If what Paul was doing was Biblical and vital (and I think we would all agree that it was), why is there such concern over parachurch groups?
I think one of the reasons that there is so much hand-wringing over "parachurch" ministries is based in money. When someone donates to "Parachurch Ministry A" it often means they are contributing less to the local church offering plate. Now many so-called parachurch ministries are engaged in producing books, conferences, radio shows, etc. that are hardly more essential than church buildings and clergy but some, like those that engage in mission work or mercy ministries, are every bit as deserving of Christian offerings as any local church. That borders on blasphemy in some circles but the "your first giving should always be to your local church" view is based on a tradition to preserve and sustain the institution of local churches rather than on Scripture. As I have railed about again and again, giving is a major theme in the New Testament but it almost universally goes to meeting the material needs of individual Christians and not for what the vast majority of local churches spend their budget on.
The other big reason? Control. Message control is very common in local churches. If someone spends too much time associating with parachurch ministries, they might hear things that are contrary to what their local church teaches. Perhaps a Presbyterian will hear Baptists speaking about baptism or a dispensationalist might hear people talking about covenant theology. One of the essays by Carl Trueman seemed very concerned that different Christians might mingle together. I can think of nothing more chaotic than Presbyterians and Methodists mingling together without proper supervision! Throw a few Pentecostals, Lutherans and Baptists into the mix and there is a real danger of a rift in the time-space continuum! Why we might just find that the things we fight and feud and divide over are less important than the universal callings of all Christians, callings that just might be more effective and provide a better witness if we weren’t fighting with each other all the time!
There is nothing illegitimate about parachurch ministries. Oftentimes it seems to me that they are engaged in more of what the church is called to than local churches. Rather than issuing ominous warnings and giving parachurches the stink eye, local churches should be seeking ways to cooperate with other local churches to carry out the mission of The Church, even if that leads to a “parachurch” ministry. It might actually be a healthy thing for your local church!
So me being me, I asked…
Does the Bible make a distinction like this?
Well not really. Primarily because there were no parachurches and not really any local churches that resemble our traditional model. There was the church. In times of rapid growth and severe persecution, arguments about which manifestation of the church was subservient to others probably didn’t come up. So I think that a lot of this is a product of Christians who have too much time on their hands to worry about things the Bible doesn’t mention.
So what exactly is a “parachurch” ministry? This is the definition from Wikipedia:
Parachurch organizations are Christian faith-based organizations that work outside of and across denominations to engage in social welfare and evangelism, usually independent of church oversight. These bodies can be businesses, non-profit corporations, or private associations. Most parachurch organizations, at least those which are normally called parachurch, are Protestant and Evangelical. Some of these organizations cater to a defined spectrum among evangelical beliefs, but most are self-consciously interdenominational and many are ecumenical.
What distinguishes the two, between a parachurch ministry and the local church ministry? The para-church tends to be bigger and less localized. Many parachurch ministries have a large budget, tons of office space and a bunch of staff. They tend to draw in Christians from a variety of doctrinal, geographic and ecclesiastical positions. It is a diverse group ranging from mercy organizations to Bible translators to food pantries to evangelistic organizations. Local churches are the groups you gather with on a weekly basis and are engaged in more traditional church functions: baptisms, weddings, funerals, potluck dinners,VBS, weekly sermons, Sunday school.
So my question is this: is a “parachurch” ministry a less legitimate or even subservient form of the church than a local church gathering? Maybe Paul can shed some light…
Look at this passage of Scripture:
Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. And when I arrive, I will send those whom you accredit by letter to carry your gift to Jerusalem. If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me. (1 Corinthians 16: 1-4)
This is interesting. Paul is instructing a whole bunch of Christians in various churches in Galatia and now in Corinth to set aside some money. As Paul is travelling around, he is sending these offerings from the churches to Jerusalem to aid them in their time of need.
Also it is interesting to note that Paul appears to be supported by churches outside of where he was ministering, so in effect he was a missionary who worked with his own hands and at least on one occasion received some support from a different church while ministering among the Corinthians (2 Cor 11:8).
As Paul was not a permanent part of any local church, could he and his companions not fit the definition of a “parachurch” ministry? They ministered outside of but with the support and cooperation of local churches and crossed all sorts of geographical regions. They by and large raised their own funds. They were engaged in preaching the Gospel and in works of mercy for the needy (Galatians 2:10). I think that the Apostle Paul, so beloved and studied by the church, was engaged in an ancient version of what we would call a “parachurch” ministry! If what Paul was doing was Biblical and vital (and I think we would all agree that it was), why is there such concern over parachurch groups?
I think one of the reasons that there is so much hand-wringing over "parachurch" ministries is based in money. When someone donates to "Parachurch Ministry A" it often means they are contributing less to the local church offering plate. Now many so-called parachurch ministries are engaged in producing books, conferences, radio shows, etc. that are hardly more essential than church buildings and clergy but some, like those that engage in mission work or mercy ministries, are every bit as deserving of Christian offerings as any local church. That borders on blasphemy in some circles but the "your first giving should always be to your local church" view is based on a tradition to preserve and sustain the institution of local churches rather than on Scripture. As I have railed about again and again, giving is a major theme in the New Testament but it almost universally goes to meeting the material needs of individual Christians and not for what the vast majority of local churches spend their budget on.
The other big reason? Control. Message control is very common in local churches. If someone spends too much time associating with parachurch ministries, they might hear things that are contrary to what their local church teaches. Perhaps a Presbyterian will hear Baptists speaking about baptism or a dispensationalist might hear people talking about covenant theology. One of the essays by Carl Trueman seemed very concerned that different Christians might mingle together. I can think of nothing more chaotic than Presbyterians and Methodists mingling together without proper supervision! Throw a few Pentecostals, Lutherans and Baptists into the mix and there is a real danger of a rift in the time-space continuum! Why we might just find that the things we fight and feud and divide over are less important than the universal callings of all Christians, callings that just might be more effective and provide a better witness if we weren’t fighting with each other all the time!
There is nothing illegitimate about parachurch ministries. Oftentimes it seems to me that they are engaged in more of what the church is called to than local churches. Rather than issuing ominous warnings and giving parachurches the stink eye, local churches should be seeking ways to cooperate with other local churches to carry out the mission of The Church, even if that leads to a “parachurch” ministry. It might actually be a healthy thing for your local church!
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Keep visitors away from the Body!
Speaking of our culture of acceptable disunity…
I read a short post on the 9 Marks Church Matters blog and was frankly a little nauseated by the title itself: Protect the Flock by Excluding Visitors . Then I started reading and it got worse….
So in our church, non-members are welcome to attend and participate in the public services of the church. We are happy to have them in our Sunday morning gathering, our Sunday evening gathering, and our fellowship meals.
But we don't let people attend small groups or serve among the children or lead music until they are members. In order to join the church, a person must be examined by the elders and approved by the congregation. Once a person has been through that process, we feel reasonably comfortable that they are safe (that is to say, not a wolf).
In what world does that make an ounce of Scriptural sense? If you aren’t a “member”, you can’t even attend a small group? Not lead one, attend one! You can sit and listen to a sermon but you can’t be involved in something where you can speak? Of course there is the small problem of a lack of any sort of elder-interview leading to formal church membership in one local church to the exclusion of all other Christians to be found anywhere in the Bible. Not to mention that there were no “small groups” mentioned, probably because the church met in that format anyway (small groups in homes) rather than massive meetings where everyone sat silently while someone else preached and they had to form "small groups" just so people can actually get to speak to one another (as long as they are "members" of course)
Why are we surprised that we have so much disunity in the church when we have one of the leading authorities on the church promoting the fencing off even small groups from "non-members"? If your people are being equipped properly they should be able to handle a “heretic” or “wolf” who comes to a small group. Or, gasp!, perhaps that small group is an outlet to invite someone who is an unbeliever to come to a less intimidating setting than listening to someone preach an hour long sermon.
Let’s assume there are 1000 “members” of Capitol Hill Baptist Church and/or Guilford Baptist Church (the home church of the author, Michael McKinley). They are both affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. There are 16,200,000 members of the Southern Baptist Convention, a highly dubious number but that is what they report. Based on this policy, the 16.2 million members of Southern Baptist Churches that are members of churches other than CHBC or GBC are not welcome to come to a small group meeting. A Southern Baptist Church that bars other Southern Baptists from attending small group meetings?
Stuff like this makes me even more convinced that the institutional church is warped and divided beyond repair.
I read a short post on the 9 Marks Church Matters blog and was frankly a little nauseated by the title itself: Protect the Flock by Excluding Visitors . Then I started reading and it got worse….
So in our church, non-members are welcome to attend and participate in the public services of the church. We are happy to have them in our Sunday morning gathering, our Sunday evening gathering, and our fellowship meals.
But we don't let people attend small groups or serve among the children or lead music until they are members. In order to join the church, a person must be examined by the elders and approved by the congregation. Once a person has been through that process, we feel reasonably comfortable that they are safe (that is to say, not a wolf).
In what world does that make an ounce of Scriptural sense? If you aren’t a “member”, you can’t even attend a small group? Not lead one, attend one! You can sit and listen to a sermon but you can’t be involved in something where you can speak? Of course there is the small problem of a lack of any sort of elder-interview leading to formal church membership in one local church to the exclusion of all other Christians to be found anywhere in the Bible. Not to mention that there were no “small groups” mentioned, probably because the church met in that format anyway (small groups in homes) rather than massive meetings where everyone sat silently while someone else preached and they had to form "small groups" just so people can actually get to speak to one another (as long as they are "members" of course)
Why are we surprised that we have so much disunity in the church when we have one of the leading authorities on the church promoting the fencing off even small groups from "non-members"? If your people are being equipped properly they should be able to handle a “heretic” or “wolf” who comes to a small group. Or, gasp!, perhaps that small group is an outlet to invite someone who is an unbeliever to come to a less intimidating setting than listening to someone preach an hour long sermon.
Let’s assume there are 1000 “members” of Capitol Hill Baptist Church and/or Guilford Baptist Church (the home church of the author, Michael McKinley). They are both affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention. There are 16,200,000 members of the Southern Baptist Convention, a highly dubious number but that is what they report. Based on this policy, the 16.2 million members of Southern Baptist Churches that are members of churches other than CHBC or GBC are not welcome to come to a small group meeting. A Southern Baptist Church that bars other Southern Baptists from attending small group meetings?
Stuff like this makes me even more convinced that the institutional church is warped and divided beyond repair.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The latest salvo on the Calvinist resurgence
The Christian Science Monitor is the latest publication to examine the resurgence of Calvinism in the church. The article, Christian faith: Calvinism is back, takes its readers to Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., home of one of the T4G founders, Mark Dever, and parent church of 9 Marks Ministries. There is little that is new in the report, it includes many of the same talking points we see over and over including the obligatory quote from Colin Hansen.
In spite of the clamor from the small group of self-appointed watchmen in places like Westminster Seminary in California, the energy in Calvinism is in places like Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota and in conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition. Those are places where the great doctrines of grace are given their proper preeminence and the myriad extra-Biblical baggage that comes with the Reformed tradition take a backseat. That doesn’t sit well with some corners of the church that see that as a betrayal of Calvinism. In doing so they demonstrate a troubling misunderstanding of what Calvinism is all about or at least what it should be about. Calvinism at its heart should be about recognizing and giving all glory to God instead of exalting Reformed church traditions over all other traditions.
I think the article exposes the good and the bad in the resurgent Calvinist movement. On the one hand, I like this:
In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one "discipling." They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.
"Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends," says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. "It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness."
Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. "I came for the theology but stayed for the community," he says. "As Americans, we're so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this 'rugged individualism.' We're not saved to be lone rangers."
It is very interesting that they see the time outside of the Sunday morning service as "the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life". On the other hand …
Membership at CHBC isn't for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the "Lord's Supper" once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another.
An oath before sharing the Supper? Where is THAT in Scripture? The teaching at CHBC is described as “preaching for PhDs” and I can attest that the sermons are very meaty. I fear that many men fall into the trap of trying to emulate what they hear from Dever, Al Mohler and others and in doing so are teaching way over the heads of most people (and frankly way over their own heads). Simple teaching is often the best teaching.
So there is good and not so good in the article. I think that anytime we see people getting more serious about their faith, about Scripture and ultimately about God, that is a good thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed emphasis on Calvinism is a boon to the church. Of course it has its downside. There is a very real sense that a lot of what we find in Calvinism, old and new, is quite academic and cerebral. In place of action we see lots of studying. There is a lot of knowledge about God but not as much action on behalf of God, if that makes sense. My big concern is that Calvinism becomes the end in and of itself. As long as you are Reformed and getting more Reformed, you are good. I have fallen prey to that thinking myself but I have since come to a somewhat different mindset:
Reformed theology/Calvinism is not the pinnacle of Christian maturity. It is the beginning.
A recognition of the sovereignty of God over all creation and particularly over salvation is the beginning of our understanding of God. It is the foundation but a building is more than a foundation. Soteriology is not the final piece of the puzzle, it is the first. Calvinism, new or old, should spur us to study the Scriptures more deeply and in doing so I have found that many of the traditions that I have held don’t match up with the Bible even though they sound good. It drives me nuts when people ask “Is it Reformed to do such and such” instead of “Is it Biblical”? The answer may be the same either way but in many areas, especially ecclesiology, what is traditionally Reformed is not terribly Scriptural. My hope is that as people respond to the ancient doctrines of grace, they will search more deeply in the Scriptures. Not just for proof-text regarding predestination and election but also about the fellowship of the saints in the community of the elect, the Lord’s Supper as a meal among the redeemed instead of a religious ritual, a real and functional priesthood of all believers instead of a hierarchical ministry. I pray that the “New Calvinists” will keep searching backwards to guide our path forward, not merely to the 16th century but all the way to the 1st. That is what real reformation looks like!
In spite of the clamor from the small group of self-appointed watchmen in places like Westminster Seminary in California, the energy in Calvinism is in places like Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota and in conferences like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition. Those are places where the great doctrines of grace are given their proper preeminence and the myriad extra-Biblical baggage that comes with the Reformed tradition take a backseat. That doesn’t sit well with some corners of the church that see that as a betrayal of Calvinism. In doing so they demonstrate a troubling misunderstanding of what Calvinism is all about or at least what it should be about. Calvinism at its heart should be about recognizing and giving all glory to God instead of exalting Reformed church traditions over all other traditions.
I think the article exposes the good and the bad in the resurgent Calvinist movement. On the one hand, I like this:
In addition to Sunday worship and Wednesday night Bible study, they spend hours each week in small-group study or one-on-one "discipling." They say those sessions – a time for confessions, encouragement, and prayer – are the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life.
"Christian fellowship is so much more than hanging out with friends," says Claudia Anderson, a magazine editor. "It involves spiritual intimacy, support, learning, counseling, and stunning acts of kindness."
Christopher Brown, a lawyer, concurs. "I came for the theology but stayed for the community," he says. "As Americans, we're so individualistic. But the New Testament rebukes this 'rugged individualism.' We're not saved to be lone rangers."
It is very interesting that they see the time outside of the Sunday morning service as "the most challenging and rewarding feature of church life". On the other hand …
Membership at CHBC isn't for the faint of holy. Classes on theology and Christian history are required before joining. At the "Lord's Supper" once a month, members stand and recite an oath that ties them to one another.
An oath before sharing the Supper? Where is THAT in Scripture? The teaching at CHBC is described as “preaching for PhDs” and I can attest that the sermons are very meaty. I fear that many men fall into the trap of trying to emulate what they hear from Dever, Al Mohler and others and in doing so are teaching way over the heads of most people (and frankly way over their own heads). Simple teaching is often the best teaching.
So there is good and not so good in the article. I think that anytime we see people getting more serious about their faith, about Scripture and ultimately about God, that is a good thing. There is no doubt in my mind that the renewed emphasis on Calvinism is a boon to the church. Of course it has its downside. There is a very real sense that a lot of what we find in Calvinism, old and new, is quite academic and cerebral. In place of action we see lots of studying. There is a lot of knowledge about God but not as much action on behalf of God, if that makes sense. My big concern is that Calvinism becomes the end in and of itself. As long as you are Reformed and getting more Reformed, you are good. I have fallen prey to that thinking myself but I have since come to a somewhat different mindset:
Reformed theology/Calvinism is not the pinnacle of Christian maturity. It is the beginning.
A recognition of the sovereignty of God over all creation and particularly over salvation is the beginning of our understanding of God. It is the foundation but a building is more than a foundation. Soteriology is not the final piece of the puzzle, it is the first. Calvinism, new or old, should spur us to study the Scriptures more deeply and in doing so I have found that many of the traditions that I have held don’t match up with the Bible even though they sound good. It drives me nuts when people ask “Is it Reformed to do such and such” instead of “Is it Biblical”? The answer may be the same either way but in many areas, especially ecclesiology, what is traditionally Reformed is not terribly Scriptural. My hope is that as people respond to the ancient doctrines of grace, they will search more deeply in the Scriptures. Not just for proof-text regarding predestination and election but also about the fellowship of the saints in the community of the elect, the Lord’s Supper as a meal among the redeemed instead of a religious ritual, a real and functional priesthood of all believers instead of a hierarchical ministry. I pray that the “New Calvinists” will keep searching backwards to guide our path forward, not merely to the 16th century but all the way to the 1st. That is what real reformation looks like!
Monday, May 25, 2009
Membership or fellowship: Which is the greater need today?
As I mentioned in a prior post, a small group of men are considering starting a "church" in this area (I will use church in the way it is normally defined as a local assembly of believers). I also mentioned that I am looking at several criteria people or ministries have posted that deal with which qualities reflect a healthy church or more importantly a Biblical church. I think one can have a growing, outwardly "healthy" church that is un-Biblical and there are plenty of examples that bear that out. Our standard for the local gathering must be the Scriptures before we even think about what tradition says or what the world says. One place we are going to look at and maybe base our prayer and discussions around are the 9 Marks of a healthy church, posted by Mark Dever's ministry 9 Marks Ministry. That is kind of a no-brainer, the 9 Marks model is widely respected especially among the Reformed and many conservative Christians. I find the 9 Marks to be an excellent guide and the material put out by the ministry to be solid and Biblical, a great defender of Reformed doctrines and Baptist practice. But...
In my review of the 9 Marks, something kind of jumped out at me. There was a mark for church discipline, there was a mark for membership but not a mark for prayer or fellowship. How can we evaluate a "healthy church" much less a "Biblical church" without looking at the fellowship or prayer life of that church? The earliest days of the church were marked by devotion to four things: fellowship, the breaking of bread, the Apostles' teaching and prayer (Acts 2:42). Three of the four things that the church devoted herself to are not on the 9 Marks list.
Then I found it, at the bottom in an addendum:
In identifying and promoting these nine marks, we are not intending to lay down an exhaustive or authoritative list. There are other significant marks of healthy churches, like prayer and fellowship. We want to pursue those ourselves as well, and we want you to pursue them with us. But these nine are the ones we think are most neglected in most local churches today, with the most damaging ramifications. Join us in cultivating churches that reflect the character of God.
I am pretty concerned that fellowship and prayer are relegated to footnotes. I am quite certain that Mark Dever and company have a high view of prayer and of fellowship. Why then are they merely mentioned in passing at the bottom of the list? I am far more concerned about fellowship than I am about membership. We see fellowship all throughout the New Testament, but we never see membership as we understand it today.
I fear that the reason fellowship and prayer get short shrift in the 9 Marks is that the assumption is that almost every church already HAS fellowship and prayer in the form of a church gathering in a sanctuary and corporate prayer led by the pastor. We have imprinted our traditions on these words and given them meaning that are unwarranted from the text. Fellowship means a couple of minutes of shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries. Prayer means listening to someone else who is paid to preach and pray on your behalf. Corporately praying and gathering for teaching is important but it cannot replace Biblical fellowship and intimate times of prayer.
Can we assume that church gatherings have fellowship and prayer? Does meeting in the same room and listening to someone else pray on your behalf count as Biblical fellowship and prayer? A once a month sparsely attended potluck dinner is a poor substitute to devoting ourselves to fellowship and the breaking of bread. More to the point, can we have a "healthy" church where fellowship and prayer is given only passing thought? My point is not a criticism of 9 Marks but just to point out how easy it is to make assumptions that are unwarranted by reality and focus on areas that are at best peripheral issues and at worst are merely human traditions.
We have got to get this right in the church. All the Reformation in the world will not change the church if we fail to get past the traditions and labels we have erected. May I suggest we focus on fixing the fundamentals before we start tinkering with traditions?
In my review of the 9 Marks, something kind of jumped out at me. There was a mark for church discipline, there was a mark for membership but not a mark for prayer or fellowship. How can we evaluate a "healthy church" much less a "Biblical church" without looking at the fellowship or prayer life of that church? The earliest days of the church were marked by devotion to four things: fellowship, the breaking of bread, the Apostles' teaching and prayer (Acts 2:42). Three of the four things that the church devoted herself to are not on the 9 Marks list.
Then I found it, at the bottom in an addendum:
In identifying and promoting these nine marks, we are not intending to lay down an exhaustive or authoritative list. There are other significant marks of healthy churches, like prayer and fellowship. We want to pursue those ourselves as well, and we want you to pursue them with us. But these nine are the ones we think are most neglected in most local churches today, with the most damaging ramifications. Join us in cultivating churches that reflect the character of God.
I am pretty concerned that fellowship and prayer are relegated to footnotes. I am quite certain that Mark Dever and company have a high view of prayer and of fellowship. Why then are they merely mentioned in passing at the bottom of the list? I am far more concerned about fellowship than I am about membership. We see fellowship all throughout the New Testament, but we never see membership as we understand it today.
I fear that the reason fellowship and prayer get short shrift in the 9 Marks is that the assumption is that almost every church already HAS fellowship and prayer in the form of a church gathering in a sanctuary and corporate prayer led by the pastor. We have imprinted our traditions on these words and given them meaning that are unwarranted from the text. Fellowship means a couple of minutes of shaking hands and exchanging pleasantries. Prayer means listening to someone else who is paid to preach and pray on your behalf. Corporately praying and gathering for teaching is important but it cannot replace Biblical fellowship and intimate times of prayer.
Can we assume that church gatherings have fellowship and prayer? Does meeting in the same room and listening to someone else pray on your behalf count as Biblical fellowship and prayer? A once a month sparsely attended potluck dinner is a poor substitute to devoting ourselves to fellowship and the breaking of bread. More to the point, can we have a "healthy" church where fellowship and prayer is given only passing thought? My point is not a criticism of 9 Marks but just to point out how easy it is to make assumptions that are unwarranted by reality and focus on areas that are at best peripheral issues and at worst are merely human traditions.
We have got to get this right in the church. All the Reformation in the world will not change the church if we fail to get past the traditions and labels we have erected. May I suggest we focus on fixing the fundamentals before we start tinkering with traditions?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Ruh roh!
There are a couple of very interesting articles on Church Matters, the 9 Marks Blog (Mark Dever’s ministry) that caught my eye. Normally the blog posts are pretty innocuous but when the titles of the posts read: “"The Sin of Infant Baptism", written by a sinning Baptist”and “The unintentional yet damaging institutional sin of infant baptism.”, you know that is going to cause a stink. When I go off about baptism, it can be dismissed as the rantings of a loony. When Mark Dever, of Together for the Gospel and 9 Marks Ministry does, ruh roh!
From the first post by Mark Dever…
Nevertheless, as I understand the words of Christ in Matt. 28:18-20 Christians are commanded to baptize and to be baptized, and the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience of what I take to be a quite straightforward command. I understand explanations that have been given about the practice of infant baptism (Orthodox/Roman, Lutheran and Reformed) but am sincerely persuaded that none of them line up with God's own Word. This does not cause me to doubt the sincerity of my reformed paedobaptist brethren, nor even their judgment in general. It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so).
I have made it no secret that I consider paedobaotism to be a serious error and I agree with Mark that Scripture does not command or imply the baptism of infants. But is it a sin, even an unintentional one? Those who baptize infants, by and large, are sincerely doing what they believe the Bible teaches. But being sincere and believing in what you are doing is never the measure for truth, otherwise an awful lot of errant teaching would be considered orthodox. Infant baptism is applying a command to something the Bible does not command, and so does that qualify as a sin? I think it does (ducking my head).
The second blog post by Mike Gilbart-Smith links infant baptism with a lack of church discipline, using the example of the Church of England.
The problems are multiple:
1) baptism is seen as having nothing to do with church membership. And when there is no church membership, church discipline becomes impossible.
2) infant baptism itself tends to separate baptism from church membership and discipline. One doesn't want to publicly disicpline a 2 year old for poking his sister in the eye and showing no signs of repentance. All paedobaptists I know rightly recognise that such matters are better dealt with within the family.
The problem there of course is that a) there is no command for formal church membership in the Bible and b) credobaptist churches have many of the same problems when it comes to discipline that paedobaptist churches endure. I am not sure that poking your sister in the eye as a baby would be grounds for church discipline in any church setting anyway. You kind of have to read both posts in their entirety to get a flavor for the full argument.
I am certain that this is going to reignite the firestorm over baptism on the blogosphere. The comments on the posts themselves are already getting snippy. Baptism is kind of the elephant in the Reformed room, and whenever it comes up people get wound up. I may have to wear a disguise next weekend at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology in Grand Rapids so as not to be attacked by angry mobs of Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed types.
So what say you: whichever side of the baptism debate you come down on, is the giving of the sign of baptism to an infant or the denying of that sign to an infant on the level of a sinful act?
From the first post by Mark Dever…
Nevertheless, as I understand the words of Christ in Matt. 28:18-20 Christians are commanded to baptize and to be baptized, and the practice of infant baptism inhibits the obedience of what I take to be a quite straightforward command. I understand explanations that have been given about the practice of infant baptism (Orthodox/Roman, Lutheran and Reformed) but am sincerely persuaded that none of them line up with God's own Word. This does not cause me to doubt the sincerity of my reformed paedobaptist brethren, nor even their judgment in general. It is simply that on this point they've got it wrong, and their error, involving as it does a requiring of something Scripture does not require (infant baptism), and the consequence of a denying of an action Scripture does require (believers baptism) is sinful (though unintentionally so).
I have made it no secret that I consider paedobaotism to be a serious error and I agree with Mark that Scripture does not command or imply the baptism of infants. But is it a sin, even an unintentional one? Those who baptize infants, by and large, are sincerely doing what they believe the Bible teaches. But being sincere and believing in what you are doing is never the measure for truth, otherwise an awful lot of errant teaching would be considered orthodox. Infant baptism is applying a command to something the Bible does not command, and so does that qualify as a sin? I think it does (ducking my head).
The second blog post by Mike Gilbart-Smith links infant baptism with a lack of church discipline, using the example of the Church of England.
The problems are multiple:
1) baptism is seen as having nothing to do with church membership. And when there is no church membership, church discipline becomes impossible.
2) infant baptism itself tends to separate baptism from church membership and discipline. One doesn't want to publicly disicpline a 2 year old for poking his sister in the eye and showing no signs of repentance. All paedobaptists I know rightly recognise that such matters are better dealt with within the family.
The problem there of course is that a) there is no command for formal church membership in the Bible and b) credobaptist churches have many of the same problems when it comes to discipline that paedobaptist churches endure. I am not sure that poking your sister in the eye as a baby would be grounds for church discipline in any church setting anyway. You kind of have to read both posts in their entirety to get a flavor for the full argument.
I am certain that this is going to reignite the firestorm over baptism on the blogosphere. The comments on the posts themselves are already getting snippy. Baptism is kind of the elephant in the Reformed room, and whenever it comes up people get wound up. I may have to wear a disguise next weekend at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology in Grand Rapids so as not to be attacked by angry mobs of Presbyterians and Dutch Reformed types.
So what say you: whichever side of the baptism debate you come down on, is the giving of the sign of baptism to an infant or the denying of that sign to an infant on the level of a sinful act?
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Unity or Purity?A great, thought provoking article by Mark Dever leading up to the Together for the Gospel conference...
The question for you and me is, when we teach others the truth, do we do it with condescending pride and arrogance—we know something they don’t? Or do we teach with the humility of one beggar sharing his bread with another?
Compromise is bad. Cooperation is good. But how do you tell the difference? What are the primary doctrinal positions for which we need to contend, and what are the secondary doctrinal positions about which we can disagree with charity and love?
Excellent questions, and one there is no easy answer for. Which is more important, purity or unity? I will admit I am more of a purity guy. If it is important enough for me to have a position on it, it is important enough to fight about. But there is a need for some sense of unity in the body of Christ. So which is it, unity or purity?
Excellent questions, and one there is no easy answer for. Which is more important, purity or unity? I will admit I am more of a purity guy. If it is important enough for me to have a position on it, it is important enough to fight about. But there is a need for some sense of unity in the body of Christ. So which is it, unity or purity?
On the one hand...
Unity merely for the sake of unity leads to acceptance of heresy
If our only concern is to get along and be one body with no differences, we will invariably allow heretics to creep in unawares. If we compromise on one issue, why not the next? And the next? And eventually we find ourselves not debating election or eschatology, we find ourselves desperately trying to hold back the tide of homosexual clergy and witches as pastors.
Being unified does not require us to apologize for those things that we hold to be true. If you believe in the Biblical doctrine of election, don’t feel obligated to apologize for it for the sake of unity. Don’t feel obligated to point out that other Scriptures may appear to contradict your deeply held beliefs. If you don’t really believe it, don’t bring it up. And if you do believe it because the Bible speaks in uniformity about God’s predestining and His sovereign grace, don’t dance around, declare it as one of God’s precious and wonderful truths. If seeking unity requires you to gloss over strongly held beliefs, it may be that the unity is not the kind you should be seeking.
What is the basis for unity? Is it going along to get along? Is being nice to one another the highest Christian virtue? Or is the basis of our unity the truths which we declare and hold in common? What unifies us should be what saves us, and just as a compromised Gospel is a Gospel which cannot save, unity in anything other that the fullness of the Gospel, unashamedly declared regardless of cost is not true Christian unity at all. What divides us from the world is what unites us with each other, and more importantly with Christ. That is the only unity that matters.
What is the basis for unity? Is it going along to get along? Is being nice to one another the highest Christian virtue? Or is the basis of our unity the truths which we declare and hold in common? What unifies us should be what saves us, and just as a compromised Gospel is a Gospel which cannot save, unity in anything other that the fullness of the Gospel, unashamedly declared regardless of cost is not true Christian unity at all. What divides us from the world is what unites us with each other, and more importantly with Christ. That is the only unity that matters.
On the other hand....
Purity at all costs leads to people sitting by themselves in church.
The only person who I agree with 100% of the time is the handsome fella looking back at me from the mirror.
And luckily I am confident that he is right on, all the time. The problem is (and this is really the main problem in the world today) is that not everyone else believes exactly the same way he does. Holding firmly to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints requires holding fast, contending earnestly and being willing to separate from those who deny Gospel truths. It is often unpopular, but heaven is not a popularity contest. The purer the Gospel, the more sinners will find it offensive, and if the cross is not offensive to sinners, it isn't being declared properly.
And luckily I am confident that he is right on, all the time. The problem is (and this is really the main problem in the world today) is that not everyone else believes exactly the same way he does. Holding firmly to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints requires holding fast, contending earnestly and being willing to separate from those who deny Gospel truths. It is often unpopular, but heaven is not a popularity contest. The purer the Gospel, the more sinners will find it offensive, and if the cross is not offensive to sinners, it isn't being declared properly.Where do we draw the line? Where should we draw the line? How do we determine what is a non-negotiable versus what we can agree to disagree on? I would throw out that anything that falls outside of a few categories falls into the camp of non-essentials. They may divide how and where and with whom we worship, but it is not an issue of breaking Christian fellowship. Issue like justification by faith, the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of the Bible are the essentials. Issue like baptism, church government and eschatology fall into the areas of honest disagreement in the Christian family. Albert Mohler's article on Theological Triage is still the gold standard on what should divide us and what should not. We must be pure where the Gospel demands we be pure, but we also must not make demands on others that the Gospel does not require.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)