Thursday, February 05, 2009
Puke-A-Palooza '09
It was a fun night last night, two older and two younger kids were up throwing up. The good news is that we still have two more kids and invariably the adults yet to get sick and I am already not feeling so great. I blame Bethany, I must have caught the flu she and her family has by reading her blog. Thanks Bethany!
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Chillin in da thumb
Spending my entire day today in the "thumb" of Michigan on business and wow is it cold. You know you are in trouble when the nicest restaurant in town is the Subway in the gas station...
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
A call for a new Reformation in the church: Just who are we worshipping anyway?
Displays of riches have long been a feature of Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox church. The local parish priest and the nun may dress and live humbly, but the “Pope” and the “Patriarch” have no such restrictions.
Case in point was a recent article on the new patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church. The article reads: Russian Orthodox Church enthrones new patriarch. Lets skip for a second the idea of man who is supposed to be a minister of the Gospel being "enthroned". The opulence of this mans attire is obscene.
Other pictures of the church leaders at the coronation or whatever it was, along with sweetheart Vladimir Putin (who always is frowning and looks like he is collecting money for the Russian mob) show similar fancy clothing, gold and jewels, elaborate hats and robes and chains around their necks. When you read the Gospels and then look at pictures of stuff like this, and men bowing down to kiss the gold ring of a “pope” who is similarly decked out in fancy garments and surrounded by functionaries who are also wearing a fortune in apparel and accoutrements, you should notice with minimal discernment a disconnect with the simple and humble faith of Christianity. That is unfortunately nothing new. But…
At the risk of being put out of the Reformed camp more than I already am…
Unfortunately, this phenomena of ostentatious behavior is not restricted to Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches or even skeezy televangelists or prosperity preachers. I checked in on the Ligonier Ministries blog and the first post I saw was a defense of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall being constructed at St. Andrews Chapel, the church where Dr. R.C. Sproul, Sr. serves. Check out this pamphlet for St. Andrews Chapel's new "sanctuary". The place is going to be enormous, holding 1400 at a time in the sanctuary and “a covered open air pavilion that will seat 300 and a Fellowship Hall that will seat an additional 360.”
I know that Dr. Sproul is untouchable in many circles, and I respect much of his teaching immensely. But seriously, is this how we ought to be worshipping the Risen Lord? Is Dr. Sproul's teaching that vital that we must enshrine his pulpit in a building like this?
The title of the blog post is “The Unchanging Gospel”. I am pretty sure that the Gospel doesn’t require a massive, brand new building to be preached in.
Now this is all their money, freely given, and they can do whatever the want with it and I don’t want to sound like Judas, complaining about the value of a jar of fragrant oil that was used to anoint Christ but could have been sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor (John 12:5). But really, what is this place going to cost? A couple of million? More? In the midst of horrible economic times, no matter what the motivation, an extravagant building like this is frankly obscene. Heck, even in great economic times buildings like this are extravagant and unnecessary.
When you recognize the linkage between the lavish palaces and edifices of Rome and the massive new structure you are building from scratch, that should set off warning gongs for you. That is not a time for spin control; it is time for prayer and reflection. To use churchy lingo, is this being a good steward? If people are drawn to St. Andrew’s Chapel because of the type of teaching and worship they find there, then plant a dozen more smaller similar churches in the area. I am sure they could find no lack of young pastors to lead those churches under the direction, guidance and tutelage of a luminary like R.C. Sproul. What Reformed guy wouldn’t want to sit at the feet of Dr. Sproul and learn? But if people are drawn because it is “R.C. Sproul’s church” then they are coming for the wrong motivation and Dr. Sproul is not a young man. What happens to this church when Dr. Sproul, who looked pretty frail at Together for the Gospel a year ago, is unable for whatever reason to be actively involved in the ministry at St. Andrews?
When a church is growing, there are two ways to go. One is to build ever larger buildings and the other is to replicate and spread. Think of the influence a dozen small St. Andrews clones could have in the area instead of one huge building with 1000 people trying to leave after the Sunday morning service all at once. Our impulse should not be like the world, bigger and better. After all, what is the object of our worship?
Case in point was a recent article on the new patriarch of the Russian Orthodox church. The article reads: Russian Orthodox Church enthrones new patriarch. Lets skip for a second the idea of man who is supposed to be a minister of the Gospel being "enthroned". The opulence of this mans attire is obscene.
Other pictures of the church leaders at the coronation or whatever it was, along with sweetheart Vladimir Putin (who always is frowning and looks like he is collecting money for the Russian mob) show similar fancy clothing, gold and jewels, elaborate hats and robes and chains around their necks. When you read the Gospels and then look at pictures of stuff like this, and men bowing down to kiss the gold ring of a “pope” who is similarly decked out in fancy garments and surrounded by functionaries who are also wearing a fortune in apparel and accoutrements, you should notice with minimal discernment a disconnect with the simple and humble faith of Christianity. That is unfortunately nothing new. But…At the risk of being put out of the Reformed camp more than I already am…
Unfortunately, this phenomena of ostentatious behavior is not restricted to Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches or even skeezy televangelists or prosperity preachers. I checked in on the Ligonier Ministries blog and the first post I saw was a defense of the new sanctuary and fellowship hall being constructed at St. Andrews Chapel, the church where Dr. R.C. Sproul, Sr. serves. Check out this pamphlet for St. Andrews Chapel's new "sanctuary". The place is going to be enormous, holding 1400 at a time in the sanctuary and “a covered open air pavilion that will seat 300 and a Fellowship Hall that will seat an additional 360.”
I know that Dr. Sproul is untouchable in many circles, and I respect much of his teaching immensely. But seriously, is this how we ought to be worshipping the Risen Lord? Is Dr. Sproul's teaching that vital that we must enshrine his pulpit in a building like this?
The title of the blog post is “The Unchanging Gospel”. I am pretty sure that the Gospel doesn’t require a massive, brand new building to be preached in.
Now this is all their money, freely given, and they can do whatever the want with it and I don’t want to sound like Judas, complaining about the value of a jar of fragrant oil that was used to anoint Christ but could have been sold for 300 denarii and given to the poor (John 12:5). But really, what is this place going to cost? A couple of million? More? In the midst of horrible economic times, no matter what the motivation, an extravagant building like this is frankly obscene. Heck, even in great economic times buildings like this are extravagant and unnecessary.
When you recognize the linkage between the lavish palaces and edifices of Rome and the massive new structure you are building from scratch, that should set off warning gongs for you. That is not a time for spin control; it is time for prayer and reflection. To use churchy lingo, is this being a good steward? If people are drawn to St. Andrew’s Chapel because of the type of teaching and worship they find there, then plant a dozen more smaller similar churches in the area. I am sure they could find no lack of young pastors to lead those churches under the direction, guidance and tutelage of a luminary like R.C. Sproul. What Reformed guy wouldn’t want to sit at the feet of Dr. Sproul and learn? But if people are drawn because it is “R.C. Sproul’s church” then they are coming for the wrong motivation and Dr. Sproul is not a young man. What happens to this church when Dr. Sproul, who looked pretty frail at Together for the Gospel a year ago, is unable for whatever reason to be actively involved in the ministry at St. Andrews?
When a church is growing, there are two ways to go. One is to build ever larger buildings and the other is to replicate and spread. Think of the influence a dozen small St. Andrews clones could have in the area instead of one huge building with 1000 people trying to leave after the Sunday morning service all at once. Our impulse should not be like the world, bigger and better. After all, what is the object of our worship?
A new discussion on headcovering
Brian Thornton at Voice of the Sheep asks the question:
Who Determines What is Cultural and What is Doctrine
That really is the question isn't it? When it comes to doctrines like head covers for women, it is not OK to just wave it off as cultural. Every doctrinal stance we take, from baptism to ecclesiology to headcovering to music, all of them have ramifications that go beyond that verse or doctrine and impact how we live. Brian always has lively discussions, so this is one to watch!
Who Determines What is Cultural and What is Doctrine
That really is the question isn't it? When it comes to doctrines like head covers for women, it is not OK to just wave it off as cultural. Every doctrinal stance we take, from baptism to ecclesiology to headcovering to music, all of them have ramifications that go beyond that verse or doctrine and impact how we live. Brian always has lively discussions, so this is one to watch!
The Big 4-0!
Not for me, I am a youthful 37. But my wife turns 40 today. I like to remind her that since she was born in 1969 and I was born in 1971, she was born in a whole different decade than me. I am a sweetheart like that. But on the bright side, her life really didn’t start until she met me, so in "Arthur years" she is only about 20.
Happy birthday Eva!
Happy birthday Eva!
America 2009
When corporate executives blow millions on parties, on redecorating offices, frivolous spending, private jets, etc. they are reviled in virtually every quarter and in some respects rightfully so. Everyone has an idea of how they should be punished for whatever the offense du jour is: caps on pay and bonuses, criminal prosecution, replacing the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay with Wall Street executives, being tarred and feathered or being drawn and quartered. Every newly born populist is lining up with a noose to tell them what a poor job they have done and why they deserve a dastardly fate. People who couldn’t tell which end of a spreadsheet was up have become experts on running corporations.
But on the other hand, when liberal politicians blow taxpayer money, cheat on their taxes, redecorate the White House, throw $150 million inaugurations/coronations/anointings, take junkets paid for by those same evil corporations, trade political favors like baseball cards, etc. they are cheered by the media as “doing something”. People really think that filthy rich liberals in Washington D.C., Hollywood and New York care about them. Guess what, Michael Moore doesn’t care about you. Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care about you. Al Gore doesn’t care about you. At least the Wall Street executives look at you as customers. Liberal elites look at you as chattel, as sheep that are expected to bleat and follow your Marxist shepherds right over the cliff.
If Americans want to be outraged, let’s be outraged by those who take our tax dollars at gunpoint and then burn those hard earned dollars on billions in foolish spending and pork barrel projects. No one makes you buy a product or service from a private company, but the Internal Revenue service and law enforcement agencies across this land make darn sure you pay every nickel that Uncle Sam says you owe him. Everyone blames the executives for misappropriating the TARP money, but who voted to give it to them with no strings attached? The CEOs of Chase and Bank of America didn’t sneak into the U.S. Treasury and steal away sacks of money, they were written blank checks and now everyone is outraged. Be outraged at the knuckleheads who tripped over themselves to give away billions of dollars with no conditions, not at the bank executives.
I have been pretty down on the Republican Party but kudos to the House Republicans for doing the right thing and voting unanimously against this ridiculous “stimulus” bill that is going to accomplish little besides miring us deeper in debt and passing on a burden to future generations that they will be unable to pay. Between the massive debt we are about to incur and the government mandates that we are going to create, we are standing on the brink, one foot on the path that will lead inexorably to the twilight of American greatness. Future generations will not thank us for shaking our fists at Wall Street while we are being shaken down by Washington.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Acts 2, necessary inference and infant baptism
OK, so I am back on this kick again. Infant baptism just gets under my skin. It used to be something I just shrugged off for the sake of peace among Reformed, confessional brothers but baptism is so important for the body of Christ and when it is misapplied, especially to infants, it seems to me to be an issue we need to really get some clarity on. I recognize that this is an issue that has divided the church over the years, in fact it may be the issue that is the most divisive in terms of fellowship among Christians and that the ground I am covering has been covered thousands of times before.
Let’s look again at the “proof text” offered for infant baptism in Acts 2, verse 39:
What does verse 39 say? It says that the promise, fulfilled in the cross and described in Peter’s sermon in verses 14-36 was for them (those listening), and also for succeeding generations and for people in far away lands. Indeed the promise is for, and this is important, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”. So the recipient of the promise are these men, succeeding generations, people in far away countries, all of whom are united by one thing: they have been called by Christ. It is no longer just a Jewish faith, it is a faith that is universal in the sense of being for all people, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, free and slave. What unites them under this promise is their election and effectual calling. Just as Peter is not saying that people are saved merely by being in far away lands, he is not in any way saying that infants are saved or that they should be baptized because of who their parents are. We shouldn’t take Acts 2:39 to mean that we should baptize people in Thailand just because they are far away from Jerusalem nor should we baptize infants just because of having Christian parents.
Let’s look now at the preceding and successive verses that add light to verse 39 and demonstrate even more fully that Peter did not intend his statement in what we know as Acts 2:39 to advocate infant baptism. First the verses immediately preceding verse 39.
These men were cut to the heart by Peter’s preaching of the Gospel. In response to that Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. So we have here the first of many examples of proper baptism: the preaching of the Gospel accompanied by a changed and penitent heart, a call for repentance and finally baptism. Contrast that with the paedo view: start with baptism, preach the Gospel through church and catechism and hope that they are elect. Kind of like growing into their baptism, even though countless numbers of infants that are baptized end up never being regenerate. This is the problem of making the argument of “necessary inference”. There is no need for inference here because we are already given explicit command and example of the proper recipients of baptism. Infant baptism is not a “necessary inference”, it is a reversal of the clear teaching of Scripture which tells us and shows us that the proper recipients of baptism are people who profess Christ. Not only is there no example or command to the contrary, but the writers of Scriptures go to pains to demonstrate just the opposite.
What of the verses immediately following verse 39?
So who was baptized that day? See again verse 41: “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2: 41)
Not those who received his word and their infant children. Those who received his word were baptized. It is a statement that is inclusive of those who received his word and exclusive of anyone else. This is where infant baptism falls apart in my eyes, you can go so far but no further. It is like the missing link or the lack of transitional forms in evolution. You have fossil A and current creature B, but there is no link between the two so you just make one up. Again, it certainly seems that the Scripture writers go out of their way to point out who is being baptized. Those who received his word were baptized.
There is simply no teachings at all in Scripture, NONE, that refers to, describes, commands or even infers that infants were or that infants should be baptized. So proponents of infant baptism are left with arguments of silence (well it doesn’t say we shouldn’t baptize infants) and invalid continuities between the Old Covenant community and the New. Given the importance of baptism, I will take the explicit commands and examples of Scripture over tradition and the Westminster Confession any day of the week.
(Up next, there is an online article on Jeremiah 31: 31-34 from a paedo perspective I am going to address.)
Let’s look again at the “proof text” offered for infant baptism in Acts 2, verse 39:
Acts 2: 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”This is the most inexplicable verse used to defend infant baptism. Taking that verse from a paedo worldview, it says that the promise is for these men and their offspring, i.e. their children, so in response they should be baptized and so should their infants. The problem is two fold. First, it doesn’t say or even imply that. Second, the surrounding context before and after doesn’t support that view. You can’t get to “…your children” and stop reading. Let’s look at the verse itself, taken in a vacuum before we look at the surrounding context.
What does verse 39 say? It says that the promise, fulfilled in the cross and described in Peter’s sermon in verses 14-36 was for them (those listening), and also for succeeding generations and for people in far away lands. Indeed the promise is for, and this is important, “everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself”. So the recipient of the promise are these men, succeeding generations, people in far away countries, all of whom are united by one thing: they have been called by Christ. It is no longer just a Jewish faith, it is a faith that is universal in the sense of being for all people, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, free and slave. What unites them under this promise is their election and effectual calling. Just as Peter is not saying that people are saved merely by being in far away lands, he is not in any way saying that infants are saved or that they should be baptized because of who their parents are. We shouldn’t take Acts 2:39 to mean that we should baptize people in Thailand just because they are far away from Jerusalem nor should we baptize infants just because of having Christian parents.
Let’s look now at the preceding and successive verses that add light to verse 39 and demonstrate even more fully that Peter did not intend his statement in what we know as Acts 2:39 to advocate infant baptism. First the verses immediately preceding verse 39.
Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
These men were cut to the heart by Peter’s preaching of the Gospel. In response to that Peter tells them to repent and be baptized. So we have here the first of many examples of proper baptism: the preaching of the Gospel accompanied by a changed and penitent heart, a call for repentance and finally baptism. Contrast that with the paedo view: start with baptism, preach the Gospel through church and catechism and hope that they are elect. Kind of like growing into their baptism, even though countless numbers of infants that are baptized end up never being regenerate. This is the problem of making the argument of “necessary inference”. There is no need for inference here because we are already given explicit command and example of the proper recipients of baptism. Infant baptism is not a “necessary inference”, it is a reversal of the clear teaching of Scripture which tells us and shows us that the proper recipients of baptism are people who profess Christ. Not only is there no example or command to the contrary, but the writers of Scriptures go to pains to demonstrate just the opposite.
What of the verses immediately following verse 39?
Acts 2:40-41 And with many other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.” So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.
So who was baptized that day? See again verse 41: “So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.” (Acts 2: 41)
Not those who received his word and their infant children. Those who received his word were baptized. It is a statement that is inclusive of those who received his word and exclusive of anyone else. This is where infant baptism falls apart in my eyes, you can go so far but no further. It is like the missing link or the lack of transitional forms in evolution. You have fossil A and current creature B, but there is no link between the two so you just make one up. Again, it certainly seems that the Scripture writers go out of their way to point out who is being baptized. Those who received his word were baptized.
There is simply no teachings at all in Scripture, NONE, that refers to, describes, commands or even infers that infants were or that infants should be baptized. So proponents of infant baptism are left with arguments of silence (well it doesn’t say we shouldn’t baptize infants) and invalid continuities between the Old Covenant community and the New. Given the importance of baptism, I will take the explicit commands and examples of Scripture over tradition and the Westminster Confession any day of the week.
(Up next, there is an online article on Jeremiah 31: 31-34 from a paedo perspective I am going to address.)
Well that was nice
In my first day of work living close to the office, I went home for lunch, had a sandwich, read a little in one of my books, read through Colossians, had my high speed internet hooked up and generally relaxed a bit.
I could get used to this!
I could get used to this!
So apparently Democrats are all in favor of taxes…
….except when they have to pay them. First we had Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s tax booboo, and now we have paragon of virtue Tom Daschle overlooking a small tax burden of just $120,000.
WASHINGTON – Tom Daschle apologized Monday to the Senate panel that will decide whether he becomes Health and Human Services secretary, saying he was "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.
A $120,000 error? Oops! That seems a bit more than an oversight.
Tom, how are we supposed to pay for a massive and bloated new health care bureaucracy if people have “mistakes” like that on their taxes?
A financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the health care industry that Obama wants him to reform.
The speaking fees were just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former South Dakota senator earned over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
Five million in speaking fees over the last two years. I am sure none of the groups who paid him exorbitant amounts to speak (and he is not much of an orator) will be looking for special access in return for their payments.
This is the Democrat party. Big spending rich liberals who can afford tax shelters while at the same time pontificating about people “paying their fair share” and passing growth crushing tax increases at every opportunity. Limousine liberals who fan the flames of populist rhetoric with great speeches that amount to “do as I say, not as I do”. Little wonder that liberals are so opposed to simplifying the tax code, because in doing so they lose control over people and the filthy rich among the liberal elites can’t hide their income anymore. I expect the Senate and the media to give Daschle a pass on this, just like they have everything else associated with Obama. Jeremiah Wright? Pass. William Ayers? Pass. The Clinton Foundation? Pass. Timothy Geithner? Pass. Tom Daschle? Pass. Media bias? What media bias?
Hope? Change? Politics as usual.
WASHINGTON – Tom Daschle apologized Monday to the Senate panel that will decide whether he becomes Health and Human Services secretary, saying he was "deeply embarrassed and disappointed" about his failure to pay more than $120,000 in taxes.
A $120,000 error? Oops! That seems a bit more than an oversight.
Tom, how are we supposed to pay for a massive and bloated new health care bureaucracy if people have “mistakes” like that on their taxes?
A financial disclosure form Daschle filed about a week ago shows that he made more than $200,000 in the past two years speaking to members of the health care industry that Obama wants him to reform.
The speaking fees were just a portion of the more than $5.2 million the former South Dakota senator earned over the past two years as he advised health insurers and hospitals and worked in other industries such as energy and telecommunications, according to a financial statement filed with the Office of Government Ethics.
Five million in speaking fees over the last two years. I am sure none of the groups who paid him exorbitant amounts to speak (and he is not much of an orator) will be looking for special access in return for their payments.
This is the Democrat party. Big spending rich liberals who can afford tax shelters while at the same time pontificating about people “paying their fair share” and passing growth crushing tax increases at every opportunity. Limousine liberals who fan the flames of populist rhetoric with great speeches that amount to “do as I say, not as I do”. Little wonder that liberals are so opposed to simplifying the tax code, because in doing so they lose control over people and the filthy rich among the liberal elites can’t hide their income anymore. I expect the Senate and the media to give Daschle a pass on this, just like they have everything else associated with Obama. Jeremiah Wright? Pass. William Ayers? Pass. The Clinton Foundation? Pass. Timothy Geithner? Pass. Tom Daschle? Pass. Media bias? What media bias?
Hope? Change? Politics as usual.
Internetless!
Yikes, we have been without meaningful internet since Thursday. AT&T is very efficient at turning the DSL off at the old house, but turning it on at the new house? Not so much. It should be on today. So I was eager to get to work so I could check my email and blog. I have been sporadically checking my Yahoo! Mail on my Blackberry but that is kind of cumbersome. Have nine comments on my blog I haven’t even looked at yet.
Had breakfast with my family this morning, which is the first time I have done that on a weekday in a long time and we haven’t all sat around the table together for a long time either. We have all four leaves in the table and still can get around it, so the chair at the opposite end from me seems really far away! The move is going slowly, I made four round trips of 150 miles each on Saturday. I need to take some time off to get the rest of our stuff from northern Michigan and the house in Detroit so we can get really settled in.
More to come…
Had breakfast with my family this morning, which is the first time I have done that on a weekday in a long time and we haven’t all sat around the table together for a long time either. We have all four leaves in the table and still can get around it, so the chair at the opposite end from me seems really far away! The move is going slowly, I made four round trips of 150 miles each on Saturday. I need to take some time off to get the rest of our stuff from northern Michigan and the house in Detroit so we can get really settled in.
More to come…
Thursday, January 29, 2009
You can have some of your own money back. Gee, thanks!
To the shock of no one who is paying attention, the Congress is ramming the “stimulus” package through as fast as they can. Little wonder. The last thing the Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill want is for anyone to look under the hood and find that instead of an economy driving engine we see a bunch of bacon and pork chops. The handcuffs are off and every liberal interest group has been given a check to write for whatever misguided social cause they represent. Stimulus has nothing to do with what is going on here. This is all payback to liberal interest groups, donors, lobbyist and the most senior members of Congress. Luckily for liberals, their lackeys and willing accomplices in the media are helping run interference for them until they can get this thing on Obama’s desk.
The “stimulus package” is basically taking our money, filtering it through the Washington D.C. bureaucracy, taking out huge loans with 300 million co-signers and then giving us back some of our own money that comes from our pockets and from debt we have to pay back. Brilliant! I am sure President Obama and Nancy Pelosi would be OK with me taking $100 out of their wallets, giving them back $50 of it and then applying for a credit card in their name, maxing it out and sharing some of what I bought with them. Sure I spent $5000 on your credit card, but you get the $2000 TV you didn’t need. So what if Joe in Nebraska also gets a TV with your credit and I keep $1000 for “administrative costs”.
The “stimulus” is not coming from some magic pot of money the government has been sitting on for a rainy day. It is not coming by socking it to the rich. It is being funded by tax dollars from regular, working class Americans who pay taxes and by an enormous debt load that will be passed on for generations to come.
YOU ARE PAYING FOR YOUR OWN STIMULUS!
Why not cut payroll taxes and leave working people with more money in their wallets? Two reasons:
1. Doing that would take control away from politicians to spend our money as they see fit. What is the point of being a politician if you can’t get your hand in the cookie jar?
2. Politicians think we are too stupid to spend our own money. Why wouldn’t they? They think we are too stupid to educate and raise our own kids.
Wake up America. The government is coming into your house, stealing your car, trading it in and giving you a Yugo in exchange and then expects you to be grateful for their generosity with your money.
Are you feeling stimulated yet? I am feeling something but I can’t say it is stimulated. Maybe “nauseated” is a better word for what I am feeling.
The “stimulus package” is basically taking our money, filtering it through the Washington D.C. bureaucracy, taking out huge loans with 300 million co-signers and then giving us back some of our own money that comes from our pockets and from debt we have to pay back. Brilliant! I am sure President Obama and Nancy Pelosi would be OK with me taking $100 out of their wallets, giving them back $50 of it and then applying for a credit card in their name, maxing it out and sharing some of what I bought with them. Sure I spent $5000 on your credit card, but you get the $2000 TV you didn’t need. So what if Joe in Nebraska also gets a TV with your credit and I keep $1000 for “administrative costs”.
The “stimulus” is not coming from some magic pot of money the government has been sitting on for a rainy day. It is not coming by socking it to the rich. It is being funded by tax dollars from regular, working class Americans who pay taxes and by an enormous debt load that will be passed on for generations to come.YOU ARE PAYING FOR YOUR OWN STIMULUS!
Why not cut payroll taxes and leave working people with more money in their wallets? Two reasons:
1. Doing that would take control away from politicians to spend our money as they see fit. What is the point of being a politician if you can’t get your hand in the cookie jar?
2. Politicians think we are too stupid to spend our own money. Why wouldn’t they? They think we are too stupid to educate and raise our own kids.
Wake up America. The government is coming into your house, stealing your car, trading it in and giving you a Yugo in exchange and then expects you to be grateful for their generosity with your money.
Are you feeling stimulated yet? I am feeling something but I can’t say it is stimulated. Maybe “nauseated” is a better word for what I am feeling.
A Call for a New Reformation in the church: Membership, schmembership
Time for a dogmatic overstatement! The very institution of local church membership has become essentially meaningless. My reason for saying this is multifold but it starts out of the gate with my contention that formal church membership in a local church has no Scriptural support. I am not convinced at all by references to 1 Corinthians 12: 12-31 where it seems to me that Paul is making an analogy between the different members of our (physical) body and comparing it to the different members of the Body of Christ. I don’t see how we can make the leap from the use of the word “member” and apply it to a tradition of membership rolls in local organizations.
The key for me is verse 13: For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12: 13. Then Paul goes on to speak of members of that body. We certainly are all members, but not because we have our names on the rolls of a local church but because we are baptized into that one Body, the Body of Christ. Nor are references to lists of widows getting a distribution at all convincing and to suggest that the one confirms the other (lists of widows in need and formal membership lists) is ridiculous. Really, what we see is just the opposite. Christians A, B and C in membership at First Baptist and Christians X,Y and Z in membership at First Presbyterian are not members of the same local bodies but they are all members of “The Church”. In fact they share something with one another that many people in “membership” in their respective bodies do not share, that is being members of the Body of Christ. I am far more concerned with my standing in the Body of Christ than I am with my, or anyone else’s for that matter, standing in a local church organization.
But even beyond that (as if we can or should get beyond the lack of Biblical support), the practical working out of the system of membership has failed to achieve any useful purpose. I make that claim for two main reasons:
First, in any given church a substantial portion of the membership is unregenerate. That is a bold claim. I stand by it wholeheartedly. I base that in part on my experience, which granted is limited to less than a decade as a Christian, and in part on the methods by which we enable church membership. In paedobaptist churches, infants are brought into the covenant community by virtue of having parents who are believers. Little wonder that many of those darling infants being sprinkled turn out to be unbelievers and go to judgment lost in their sins. It is not because the church failed to catechize them or take them to Sunday evening services. It is because they are not elect and there was never any way that they were going to come to faith. In spite of that reality, thousands of churches keep sprinkling babies in a misguided attempt to maintain a sentimental church tradition. Credobaptist churches are often little better, baptizing young children and adults alike after they “make a decision” and pray a prayer. In a well-meaning but misguided quest to carry out the Great Commission, they are inviting people into a local church body as members and giving them a false assurance of salvation. Given the two headed monster of infant baptism and “decisional evangelism”, it is little wonder that the membership rolls of local churches are full of people who never go to a particular church (I would be willing to bet that our names are listed as members in at least two Baptist churches we haven’t attended for some time) or worse people who have never exhibited Biblical faith and repentance but think that they have based on baptism as an infant or praying a “sinners prayer”.
Second, the most common and probably most Scriptural objection is that without membership how can we have Biblical church discipline? That objection makes two major assumptions. First it assumes that if you are not formal members in a local church, then you cannot be disciplined. Second it assumes that in churches with formal membership lists, discipline of any sort actually happens. I think that both of these assumptions are highly suspect and faulty. I would argue that any Christian can be disciplined by whatever assembly they are part of. If they are a Christian they will accept loving discipline from the church. I am far more apt to listen to rebuke from men who I respect as mature brothers in Christ because they are my brothers than I am from someone who is in a position of contrived ecclesiastical authority but shows no sign of humble servant leadership. For discipline to be Biblical it is not required that a man with a seminary degree and a formal ordination be leading it. If Joe or Josh, men who are pastors but not “my pastor” rebuke me, or men like Rick or John who are not “pastors” at all rebuke me I would listen to their words. I may still not heed their words, but I at least will consider them!
On the flip side, in those churches that do have formal church membership rarely enforce church discipline. In some it is just not practical. How can someone in a church with 500 members effectively discipline members? Even in smaller churches, there is often little or no church discipline. There are a number of reasons for this but I think ultimately it comes down to this: if you are going to welcome into membership unregenerate people either by baptizing them as infants or leading them to make an emotional “decision”, then you are going to have little basis upon which to discipline them. Are you going to discipline a pagan for acting like a pagan?
Really, what does being a member of a local church do for you? There is no Scriptural mandate for it. You get to vote on the budget. You get to teach Sunday school (even though many “members” are unregenerate and not apt to teach, and some “non-members” or “regular attenders” are regenerate and are apt to teach. But I digress. ). You can submit to church discipline, which you should do regardless of your membership status. But local church membership seems to me to be contrived and worthless. There is nothing that supporters of church membership cite that cannot be accomplished without church membership.
The idea of formalized church membership with lists goes hand in hand with infant baptism as holdovers from Roman Catholicism. I may do more on this linkage later as time permits, but there is a great deal of background information that points to infant baptism and membership lists as being mechanisms invented by Rome as a means of control. In the good old days, if you were not a member of the Roman Catholic church you were outside of the body of Christ. In other words, membership in good standing in the visible local body was a prerequisite for being a member of the universal church, the Body of Christ (hmmm, now where have I heard that argument before). That is a strongly worded and vaguely supported statement, so I will have to beg your forbearance until I can dig my church history books out to gather support for it.
The key for me is verse 13: For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12: 13. Then Paul goes on to speak of members of that body. We certainly are all members, but not because we have our names on the rolls of a local church but because we are baptized into that one Body, the Body of Christ. Nor are references to lists of widows getting a distribution at all convincing and to suggest that the one confirms the other (lists of widows in need and formal membership lists) is ridiculous. Really, what we see is just the opposite. Christians A, B and C in membership at First Baptist and Christians X,Y and Z in membership at First Presbyterian are not members of the same local bodies but they are all members of “The Church”. In fact they share something with one another that many people in “membership” in their respective bodies do not share, that is being members of the Body of Christ. I am far more concerned with my standing in the Body of Christ than I am with my, or anyone else’s for that matter, standing in a local church organization.
But even beyond that (as if we can or should get beyond the lack of Biblical support), the practical working out of the system of membership has failed to achieve any useful purpose. I make that claim for two main reasons:
First, in any given church a substantial portion of the membership is unregenerate. That is a bold claim. I stand by it wholeheartedly. I base that in part on my experience, which granted is limited to less than a decade as a Christian, and in part on the methods by which we enable church membership. In paedobaptist churches, infants are brought into the covenant community by virtue of having parents who are believers. Little wonder that many of those darling infants being sprinkled turn out to be unbelievers and go to judgment lost in their sins. It is not because the church failed to catechize them or take them to Sunday evening services. It is because they are not elect and there was never any way that they were going to come to faith. In spite of that reality, thousands of churches keep sprinkling babies in a misguided attempt to maintain a sentimental church tradition. Credobaptist churches are often little better, baptizing young children and adults alike after they “make a decision” and pray a prayer. In a well-meaning but misguided quest to carry out the Great Commission, they are inviting people into a local church body as members and giving them a false assurance of salvation. Given the two headed monster of infant baptism and “decisional evangelism”, it is little wonder that the membership rolls of local churches are full of people who never go to a particular church (I would be willing to bet that our names are listed as members in at least two Baptist churches we haven’t attended for some time) or worse people who have never exhibited Biblical faith and repentance but think that they have based on baptism as an infant or praying a “sinners prayer”.
Second, the most common and probably most Scriptural objection is that without membership how can we have Biblical church discipline? That objection makes two major assumptions. First it assumes that if you are not formal members in a local church, then you cannot be disciplined. Second it assumes that in churches with formal membership lists, discipline of any sort actually happens. I think that both of these assumptions are highly suspect and faulty. I would argue that any Christian can be disciplined by whatever assembly they are part of. If they are a Christian they will accept loving discipline from the church. I am far more apt to listen to rebuke from men who I respect as mature brothers in Christ because they are my brothers than I am from someone who is in a position of contrived ecclesiastical authority but shows no sign of humble servant leadership. For discipline to be Biblical it is not required that a man with a seminary degree and a formal ordination be leading it. If Joe or Josh, men who are pastors but not “my pastor” rebuke me, or men like Rick or John who are not “pastors” at all rebuke me I would listen to their words. I may still not heed their words, but I at least will consider them!
On the flip side, in those churches that do have formal church membership rarely enforce church discipline. In some it is just not practical. How can someone in a church with 500 members effectively discipline members? Even in smaller churches, there is often little or no church discipline. There are a number of reasons for this but I think ultimately it comes down to this: if you are going to welcome into membership unregenerate people either by baptizing them as infants or leading them to make an emotional “decision”, then you are going to have little basis upon which to discipline them. Are you going to discipline a pagan for acting like a pagan?
Really, what does being a member of a local church do for you? There is no Scriptural mandate for it. You get to vote on the budget. You get to teach Sunday school (even though many “members” are unregenerate and not apt to teach, and some “non-members” or “regular attenders” are regenerate and are apt to teach. But I digress. ). You can submit to church discipline, which you should do regardless of your membership status. But local church membership seems to me to be contrived and worthless. There is nothing that supporters of church membership cite that cannot be accomplished without church membership.
The idea of formalized church membership with lists goes hand in hand with infant baptism as holdovers from Roman Catholicism. I may do more on this linkage later as time permits, but there is a great deal of background information that points to infant baptism and membership lists as being mechanisms invented by Rome as a means of control. In the good old days, if you were not a member of the Roman Catholic church you were outside of the body of Christ. In other words, membership in good standing in the visible local body was a prerequisite for being a member of the universal church, the Body of Christ (hmmm, now where have I heard that argument before). That is a strongly worded and vaguely supported statement, so I will have to beg your forbearance until I can dig my church history books out to gather support for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)