Best of the week entry 4

It is no shocker for me to say that I disagree vehemently with almost everything R. Scott Clark writes. Even when he is right on the subject, he is more often than not wrong on the practice and implications. In spite of that very faint praise indeed, I liked a lot of what he had to say about the increasingly embarrassing and tragic Ergun Caner debacle and what it says about the carnival atmosphere found in much of evangelicalism. In his essay Ergun Caner, the Legacy of Revivalism, and Show Biz Dr. Clark rightly points out that the desire to "make converts" (as if humans can make converts!) encourages us to adopt any methodology that seems wise to the world to make that happen and I believe leads to churches full of unregenerate people who place their hope in a "decision" they made in the heat of an emotional response. Rather than a personal attack on Ergun Caner, and there are plenty of those out there, Dr. Clark looks at the system that led to men like Ergun Caner gaining prominence.

Of course, I can't just let this go without at least one parting shot:

Praise God many covenant children never remember when they did not believe. They feel no need to embellish their personal stories because they don’t live in an ecclesiastical culture where that sort of narrative is highly valued.

The reason many "covenant children" don't remember their conversion is that they were never converted in the first place. But I digress. Good essay, give it a read!

Best of the week entry 3

These aren't blog posts but they are interesting if you are into food production.

A Backyard Battleground to Save the Honeybee

Pasturing Pigs: MSU organic farm benefits swine, students, researcher

There is a real cost that comes along with cheap food.

Best of the week entry 2

Comes from Eric Young and is an excerpt from R.C. Sproul, asking a question that I think advocates of free will cannot answer. The post is titled R.C. Sproul On The Serious Answer All Arminians Must Answer:

The biggest question any semi-Pelagian or Arminian has to face at the practical level is this: Why did I choose to believe the gospel and commit my life to Christ when my neighbor, who heard the same gospel, chose to reject it?

That really gets to the crux of it. So many people hear the Gospel, often at the same time and from the same person but only some respond. Why? That is the question that can only be satisfactorily answered by the submission to the sovereign grace of God in salvation. Good stuff and humbling.

Best of the week entry 1

Comes from Albert Mohler on the topic of relics and arks and other attempts to find tangible evidence to bolster our faith. Dr. Mohler's essay Real Enough? — Relics, Gopher Wood, and the Sufficiency of Scripture takes on this touchy issue and does so in his normal, thorough and Scriptural way.

Archaeologists remain skeptical about the claims, and the controversy is likely to continue for some time. But Christians should not give too much attention to such claims in the first place. Our confidence that the account of the flood and Noah’s ark happened in space, time, and history is grounded in the Bible, not in remnants of ancient timber.

If archaeologists later agree that the fragments are indeed from Noah’s ark, that will be a matter of real interest to Christians, but this should add nothing to our confidence in the Bible. If the fragments are determined to be authentic or, most likely, if there is no consensus at all, this will not detract anything from the truthfulness, authority, and sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Our confidence is in the Bible as the Word of God, not in gopher wood.

Couldn't have said it any better myself!

Justification and Community

Justification and community. Two inseparable friends that are too often kept apart in the Body of Christ.

I am slowly coming to a better understanding of how inextricably linked these two are. In the church, like so much of our lives, we tend to put things into silos. Justification goes here. The church community goes there. Friends and family go over there. A proper understanding of the Kingdom demands that we view all of life through the lens of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are saved out of an eternal hell but we are also saved into a community of faith. That community is not something that can be forced but it is something that should occur naturally when allowed to flourish among believers. Having said that, Christian community is only as sound as the understanding of the person and work of Christ in the people of the community. Christian community is based in the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

It is possible, but not healthy, to become so fixated on the cross and deep conversations about justification that we lose sight of the community of the redeemed. The life of a disciple of Christ is more than being born-again and then waiting around for the Second Coming or death, whichever comes first, interspersed by going to church on Sunday morning.

It is possible, but quite dangerous, to become so fixated on unity and community that we lose the wondrous truth of the cross work of Christ. Justification by faith alone, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the secure salvation purchased by Christ.

Bottom line. There can be no genuine Christian community where people are unregenerate. There can be no genuine Christian unity where the Gospel is wrongly understood. Christianity is more than a set of beliefs but it is certainly not less than the sum of those beliefs. There is a real danger in putting the community cart before the doctrinal horse. Similarly, there can be no faithful expression of the church where community is forced or absent entirely. The most theologically orthodox church where community is reduced to an hour long "worship service" is not faithful to the Scriptural expression of the church.

I have so much more to learn about this relationship. I am excited about that not so that I can say I am right and that guy is wrong. I am excited about it because it helps to clarify so much of what I see as the disconnect between doctrine and practice that makes the church so splintered and confusing.

Thinking about shepherding

We know from many, many places in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ is the Good Shepherd (John 10: 1-16), the Shepherd of our souls (1 Peter 2:25), the Lamb of God who is also the Shepherd of His sheep (Rev 7:17). We also see some places in Scripture where shepherding is spoken of in regards to people. We see reference to elders in a shepherding role (1 Peter 5:1-2), we see shepherding as a function in the church (Ephesians 4:11) and we see Jesus exhorting Peter three times to shepherd believers even before the crucifixion (John 21: 15-17). The imagery is mixed and confusing in some ways. Jesus is the Shepherd but He is also the Lamb. We are His sheep but we are also called to shepherding.

This whole topic of shepherds, shepherding and sheep raises some questions in my mind:

Is shepherding an office or a function?

Is shepherding reserved to a select few in the church or is it the responsibility of all Christians?

Is shepherding the same thing as pastoral ministry in a traditional church?

I have some thoughts on these questions but I wanted to throw them out there. In the life of the church, how should we view shepherding?

Participating by attending

Throughout the Christendom era, "churchgoing" was an accurate description of how most people participated. Church was a sacred building they visited regularly or periodically, an event organized by professionals at which they were mainly passive spectators, or an institution to which they belonged since infancy and to which they could look when necessary for certain services. Church membership and civic membership were closely interrelated. "Going to church" was one of many activities shared with one's neighbors.

The Naked Anabaptist, pg. 98

What binds us and what divides us?

Traditions in the church are deeply ingrained and hard to shake loose. Because they are so tightly interwoven with the life of the church they become a part of the church and take on an importance and meaning far above what is proper. This can, and often does, lead to dogmatic positions that are unsupportable from Scripture and can change the way we interpret Scripture itself. I offer as exhibit A and exhibit B two examples from sources that are normally solid interpreters of Scripture and theologically orthodox. Please note I am not out hunting for blog posts to disagree with. These are blogs that I link to and read for edification often.

My first example is from The Reformed Baptist Fellowship. In an otherwise interesting post, Seminary and the Local Church, we come across this little comment:

Timothy was a pastor at the church in Ephesus, and it was in that context, while being a pastor, that Timothy was told to train and equip men for the ministry.

See how easy that is? Timothy was a pastor of the church in Ephesus (First Baptist Church of Ephesus no doubt) and likely had a parking spot out front with a wooden sign in Greek “Reserved for Senior Pastor”. Now the Scriptural account of Timothy indicates to me that he traveled all over the place and was not a "pastor" in any sense of the word as we use it today.

This is what is so dangerous about the way we read Scripture in light of our traditions. We assume something without a shred of evidence and then make proclamations based on that assumption. In doing so we create whole systems of theology that are based only loosely on Scripture but that simultaneously become dividers in the Body of Christ. Dangerous, dangerous stuff and so seductively easy to do.

So from that one traditional assumption (Timothy was a pastor in Ephesus) we see support for a whole system of professional pastors including an enormously expensive seminary system and hundreds of thousands of men employed by local churches. The enormity of this traditional assumption cannot be overstated because it is at the root of centuries of church practice that is taken for granted and vociferously defended.

The second comes from 9 Marks Ministries and is part of a lengthy series on the role and function of deacons. It is interesting that they have such a comprehensive series on the role of deacons when Scripture doesn’t say anything about the role of deacons (at least in the sense of specific spheres of responsibility) and in fact says very little about deacons at all. By my count there are five times in the ESV where the English word “deacon” is used, four of those in 1 Tim 3: 8-13. Taken together with the generic reference in Philippians 1:1, that makes seven verses where deacons are mentioned or referenced and in none of those seven verses do we see a “job description”. 9 Marks turns that into seven essays and two book reviews. One that I found especially troubling was How to Separate Deacon Work from Elder Work, not least because it assumes that there are types of ministry that are "Deacon Work" and types of ministry that are "Elders Work". From the essay in question:

Fights occur over issues that don’t clearly fall to either elders or deacons. If it’s clear to all parties who’s responsible for something, there’s no cause for dispute. But trouble occurs when it’s less clear: Is this deacon work? Is it elder work? How much should the elders comment on the deacons’ work? Can the deacons weigh in on the elders’ conclusions?

My answer is a rock solid, “It depends.”

No deacon should object to the elders’ ability to pick Sunday School teachers. No elder should argue with the deacons about the furniture polish used on the communion table. If you have this level of disputes in your church, you need to do some basic teaching about what an elder is, and what a deacon is. Your elders should know they are responsible for the spiritual oversight of the church, and your deacons should know they are responsible for the physical and material needs of the church. If both parties don’t know that, start there.

On the other hand, the tough cases are tough because the issue falls on the boundary line between the spiritual oversight of the church and its physical and material care, or the issue involves both domains.

How do we get here? Here is how the thought process works:

- Tradition teaches that Stephen was a deacon although he is never identified as such in Scripture

- Stephen was involved in making sure that the widows received the daily distribution

- Therefore deacons should take care of the buildings

- Huh?

How much time and effort is wasted in fighting over something that is entirely traditional?

Why is it that when it comes to the gathering of the church we abandon Sola Scriptura in favor of a Roman view that seems to place equal weight on Scripture, tradition and the teachings of our favorite theologians? I can’t think of another topic among the most orthodox among us where bold statements are made without even a whiff of Scriptural evidence.

We all have our traditions. Mainline Protestants have their traditions. Evangelicals have their traditions. The Reformed have their traditions. The Anabaptists have their traditions. House church people have their traditions. Many of these traditions are harmless but some are potentially dangerous. The key is to try to recognize where our traditions are and make sure that those traditions don’t override Scripture or serve as a barrier to unity in the Body. When we elevate our traditions to the level of Scripture, all manner of mischief results and I believe that these traditions are the catalyst for much the splintering in the Body of Christ. We all too often let the minors divide us instead of letting the covenant community of our common salvation unite us.

It is far easier to see and critique the traditions held by others than it is to see the ones we hold most dear. I know that is true with me and I have seen it in effect with many others. The only way to get a clearer view is to submit to Scripture and hold everything up to the pages of Holy Writ. There is no tradition that we should hold as sacrosanct to the point that it trumps Scripture. There are no traditions that fail the test of Scripture that can be used as dividers among the Body. When we draw lines in the sand that are without Biblical warrant, we sin against our brothers and sisters. That is harsh but I wholeheartedly believe it is true.

Piper on membership

Watch this video from John Piper on “membership”. Dr. Piper admits that there is no explicit command or example of membership in the local church but he defends it as implied. I don’t find his line of reasoning very convincing, especially given how big Bethlehem Baptist Church is.



Here is my problem with this. If you need a system of formal church membership to know who the “members” of the local church are, that is indicative of a problem. When there were discipline problems in the early church (for example 1 Corinthians 5: 9-13), they stopped being in fellowship with the unrepentant transgressor. They didn’t remove his name from a written list; they had nothing to do with him, refusing to even eat with him.

The key here is all about demonstrating a tangible commitment to the Body of Christ, to live out in deed and not just in words the command to “love one another”. I get that. I just don’t agree that it is represented by declaring “this is my church” and therefore “that church over there is NOT my church”. The traditional formal membership system divides the Body into fiefdoms and inhibits Christian unity by turning groups of believers into competitors for members (and their offerings).

How did the New Testament church show their dedication and commitment to one another? Walking an aisle? Signing a piece of paper? Attending the requisite number of “membership” classes? Of course not.

The early church showed commitment to one another in lives lived together, with complete sacrifice. Sacrifice of time, sacrifice of self, sacrifice of rights, sacrifice of property and counted all of it as nothing compared to the joy of community in the covenant Body of Christ.

If you want to show faithfulness to Christ lived out in community with the Body, skip the formalism. Skip the membership classes. Skip the miserly “tithe” envelope. Give yourselves to one another as the church. Take everything the world tells you us important and set it aside as meaningless. That is the path I am seeking for our family, carving out the unimportant and worldly to live in community. I am not sure how that is going to look yet but I am certain that if we focus on loving others more than ourselves and unraveling the love of worldliness, community will naturally result.

Dirt: It Does a Body Good!

I read a fascinating article this morning on the benefits of letting kids get a little dirty now and then. The article Can Dirt Do a Little Good? appears in the Wall Street Journal and examines the relative health of children in “third-world” nations where hyper-sanitation has not taken hold and kids in Western countries. The article echoes and affirms what I have been thinking for some time.

I fear that in trying to insulate our kids from every possible pathogen we are creating a generation of people who will live to unprecedented ages but will simultaneously live with all manner of health ailments during their lifetimes. From the article…

Allergies and autoimmune diseases were virtually unknown in the U.S. before the turn of the last century, but they began to emerge as modern sanitation, decontaminated water, food refrigeration and antibiotics became more widespread. "There's a whole series of diseases that just emerged in the 20th century," says Dr. Weinstock.

In 1998, about 1 in 5 children in industrialized countries suffered from allergic diseases such as asthma, allergies and rashes, according to the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood, a global research initiative. The incidence of peanut allergy in the U.S. tripled between 1997 and 2008, according to a report from Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

But such diseases are still relatively rare in Africa and rural Asia, as are Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

In our hyper-sensitivity to keep any dirt, scraped knees, germs, etc. away from our kids, have we created a dangerous atmosphere where we are technically “healthier” but suffer more health problems? It is apparent to me that we are seeing far more people with allergies and asthma than when I was younger.

You aren’t a failure as a parent if your kids are not slathered in sunscreen and hand sanitizer at all times, or if you don’t rush them to the doctor to get an antibiotic every time they get a sniffle. Childhood is messy and dirty and when we try to insulate our kids from the merest whiff of a germ, it appears to have long term health consequences.

Isn’t there a happy medium? We certainly can and should embrace modern sanitation and medicine but the tendency towards using the nuclear option for every sniffle and the attempt to “de-germ” every square inch of our living space is going too far. Let kids be kids. That means dirt and scraped knees, it means runny noses and occasionally eating a little sand. I am not a scientist or doctor, but I think that common sense should be employed here. I am afraid that in our crusade against germs we are going to raise up a generation that will have such weak immune systems that it will be vulnerable to the exact sorts of catastrophic diseases that killed so many in centuries past.

Childhood is supposed to be messy. Embrace the dirt!

Women baptizing

Here is an interesting question. I have a co-worker who is getting married soon. She is a confessing Christian and her fiancé up until recently was not. He has made a profession of faith and desires to be baptized. So their local church is going to have him baptized before their wedding but here is the kicker: his fiancé is going to baptize him. Well, she is going to actually dunk him and one of the pastors will speak. So that raises an interesting question…

- Can a woman baptize another woman or a child?

- Should a woman baptize a man?

My instinct is to say that no, a woman should not baptize a man. Then I started thinking about it and wondered if that reaction is based in Scripture or not. The question hinges on whether or not baptism is limited to ordained men or elders and whether the act of baptizing a believer is an authoritative act which would run afoul of 1 Timothy 2: 12. There are no examples as far as I can think of where a woman baptizes someone in Scripture. On the other hand, I wonder if there is a warrant for assuming that it is not permitted. I am as firmly committed to the complemantarian position as anyone I know but this is one of those areas where I wonder if we are deciding a question reflexively instead of Scripturally.

So what do you think? Is there a Scriptural reason that a woman cannot baptize someone?

The toxin of institutionalism in the Body of Christ

Another interesting quote from The Naked Anabaptist...

The Christendom era has left the body of Christ with toxins in its bloodstream - practices, instincts, commitments, structures, attitudes, biases, compromises, and reactions that damage our health and disfigure our witness. We need to purge these toxins from our system. (The Naked Anabaptist, pg. 82)

I really liked that metaphor. The toxin of institutionalism runs through the veins of the Body and will take more than superficial changes to clean out. There are many areas of the church that are deeply influenced by Christendom, including some areas of the church that actually purport to decry Christendom. The sickness of a thousand years of homogeneous Roman rule over Christendom is not so easily cured. We see symptoms of it still today in virtually every corner of the church. We see it in cultural Christianity, institutionalism, militarism and many other facets of life where the distinction between the Kingdom and the world has been blurred and worn down over the centuries.

The perspective presented in this book is interesting because the author is European and Europeans are way ahead of the U.S. in terms of secularization and the death throes of Christendom. We can look to Europe and see where we are headed. That scares a lot of people, the image of empty cathedrals, churches turned into mosques and a general disinterest in religion. I don't see it as frightening so much as more reflective of what the reality has always been. In fact I think that the centuries of Christendom have given Europeans such a distorted view of the church that the past, when Europe was "more Christian", is actually hampering the Gospel witness. Instead of bemoaning the loss of Christendom and seeking to return to the comfort of Christianity in the 16th-19th centuries, we should instead seek to purge the last vestiges of Christendom from the church so that she can be a faithful witness to the world.

While it certainly is going to be more difficult and less comfortable, I think ultimately the death of Christendom lived out in the cultural Christianity of America will be healthy for the witness of the church. We aren't doing anyone any favors by giving them a false sense of security based on religious observation.