While researching the cross, I came upon a great sermon from John Piper in 1998, Christian Unity and the Cross. Drawing from the text of 1 Corinthians 1:10-17, Dr. Piper shows the root causes of the disunity among the people of God. Here is a snippet…
The other reason it's relevant to say that Christ is not divided is that when a believer has Christ, he has ALL of Christ. No one needs to feel inferior or superior if Christ is really your great treasure. Christ is not divided. If you have him, you have all of him. And to have all of Christ is to have everything you need to be happy forever and ever.
I would encourage you to give the text of his sermon a read.
The cross is the great unifier of the people of God. When you strip away the denominations and institutions and factions we have built up, all of the redeemed sheep of Christ are unified by the cross. The cross is our common confession and our common hope. This unity does not negate that we hold certain truths or that we are warned to be wary of false teaching. This unity does not mean that we accept as brothers those who are heretics or that we fail to enforce church discipline in love with an eye toward restoration. What the unity of the cross does mean is that if I start to think of myself as a Baptist or as a Calvinist first, if I exclude others from fellowship because they don’t share my self-identification I put the cross to shame. It matters nothing that we share attendance at Together for the Gospel or that we are “members” of this church or that, or that we have a more nuanced form of theology. What matters is our redemption at the cross. As Dr. Piper states so well, at the heart of all Christian disunity is pride and pride is the antithesis of the cross.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
The Jesus Paradigm
There is a new book coming out this summer by Dr. David Black called The Jesus Paradigm. It looks very interesting and I am looking forward to reading it. I expect to agree with a lot of what Dr. Black says and I also expect to have a fair amount of disagreement with what he says. But I fully anticipate that either way, this book will be challenging to the Body of Christ.
Alan Knox has an excerpt on his blog here and just from that blurb it looks like something that is going to ruffle some feathers and raise some questions. He clearly is not advocating that we tinker around the edges but instead that we purposefully review why we do what we do. Isn’t that what we should be doing? I think that what many Christians of all theological stripes agree on is that something is broken and it has been broken for some time. Dr. Black may not have all of the answers but if we refuse to think things through and hold everything up to Scripture the church will keep limping along the way it has been.
Check out the blurb on Alan’s blog and you can also read the press release from Energion Publication here.
Alan Knox has an excerpt on his blog here and just from that blurb it looks like something that is going to ruffle some feathers and raise some questions. He clearly is not advocating that we tinker around the edges but instead that we purposefully review why we do what we do. Isn’t that what we should be doing? I think that what many Christians of all theological stripes agree on is that something is broken and it has been broken for some time. Dr. Black may not have all of the answers but if we refuse to think things through and hold everything up to Scripture the church will keep limping along the way it has been.
Check out the blurb on Alan’s blog and you can also read the press release from Energion Publication here.
The cross of Christ and John 10
There is a lot of chatter this week leading up to Easter Sunday. When conversation turns to the cross of Christ, confusion often ensues. I want to work out some of the surrounding issues of the cross, what it did (or did not) accomplish, what it means for the believer. So over the course of this week, I plan on posting a number of thoughts about the cross and what that cross means to the believer.
The first place I want to look is at the Good Shepherd discourse of John 10. In John 10 Jesus speaks in some depth of Himself as the Good Shepherd, about those who are His sheep and those who are not (and why some are His sheep and some are not), and what He would be doing for His sheep at the cross.
What is the key theme from John 10? Jesus knows His sheep and His sheep know Him and He lays down His life for the sheep. What makes someone one of His sheep? Is it that we chose to be one of His sheep? Or is it that we were His sheep because He chose us? That really gets to the question of why some believe and some do not when they hear the Gospel. That question is one that is confounding to those who reject sovereign grace. Read what Jesus says in John 10: 24-27:
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
In other words, because we are His sheep we hear His voice, not the converse that we are His sheep because we hear His voice. Those who hear the Gospel and reject it, who do not believe, do not believe not because of how clever the presentation is or because someone didn’t lead them in a prayer. Those who reject the Word reject it because they are not part of Christ’s flock. I would say that you could (and should) preach the Gospel to someone who is not one of His sheep until you are blue in the face and they will never believe because they are not of His flock. Conversely, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Christian, the only difference between you and that guy over there bound for hell is that the Father gave you to the Son as part of His flock and because of the working of the Holy Spirit in your rebellious, God-hating heart you heard His voice and followed Him. You and I are nothing but sheep, prone to wander, kind of dumb, and we have no basis for bragging about being saved because we had nothing to do with being saved. If I had chosen to follow Christ without the intervention of God, then I have something to brag about: I was smarter or more righteous or whatever than that guy and I chose Jesus. But that is not what it is about, you were chosen as one of His flock not because of who you were but in spite of who you are.
So what does that have to do with the cross? Well, elsewhere in John 10: 14-17 we see who Christ laid down His life for:
14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
Notice the urgency. I must bring them, they will listen to my voice. Why is Christ the Good Shepherd? Because unlike the hireling He lays down His life for His sheep. He dies for His sheep, the sheep given Him by the Father:
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Not only does He lay down His life for His sheep, He secures them. They were given to Him by the Father, He died for them and none of them will ever be snatched from Him. You give the Enemy far too much credit to think that He is able to snatch a ransomed sheep from the hand of the Good Shepherd.
When you examine it in this way, the power of the cross becomes clearer. It is not a sacrifice made in the hopes that some would make a “decision” to follow Christ. It was a conscious decision, a specific and purposeful act that accomplished redemption for a people, not because of anything inherently good in them or because of a future decision that was foreseen. With the nails in His hands and feet, Jesus paid for the sins of His sheep and they are paid in full. Nothing else is left to do and nothing can undo that redemption. We have bought into this fuzzy notion of the cross and fail to give His cross the proper power and efficacy. Someone asked me the other day when I was saved and I told them I was saved in the first century A.D., on Calvary at the cross of Christ. I was born again around the year 2000 but the saving work on my behalf was finished and complete at the cross.
Next, I want to look at some of the deeper theological terms and concepts that surround the cross.
The first place I want to look is at the Good Shepherd discourse of John 10. In John 10 Jesus speaks in some depth of Himself as the Good Shepherd, about those who are His sheep and those who are not (and why some are His sheep and some are not), and what He would be doing for His sheep at the cross.
What is the key theme from John 10? Jesus knows His sheep and His sheep know Him and He lays down His life for the sheep. What makes someone one of His sheep? Is it that we chose to be one of His sheep? Or is it that we were His sheep because He chose us? That really gets to the question of why some believe and some do not when they hear the Gospel. That question is one that is confounding to those who reject sovereign grace. Read what Jesus says in John 10: 24-27:
24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
In other words, because we are His sheep we hear His voice, not the converse that we are His sheep because we hear His voice. Those who hear the Gospel and reject it, who do not believe, do not believe not because of how clever the presentation is or because someone didn’t lead them in a prayer. Those who reject the Word reject it because they are not part of Christ’s flock. I would say that you could (and should) preach the Gospel to someone who is not one of His sheep until you are blue in the face and they will never believe because they are not of His flock. Conversely, His sheep hear His voice and follow Him. Christian, the only difference between you and that guy over there bound for hell is that the Father gave you to the Son as part of His flock and because of the working of the Holy Spirit in your rebellious, God-hating heart you heard His voice and followed Him. You and I are nothing but sheep, prone to wander, kind of dumb, and we have no basis for bragging about being saved because we had nothing to do with being saved. If I had chosen to follow Christ without the intervention of God, then I have something to brag about: I was smarter or more righteous or whatever than that guy and I chose Jesus. But that is not what it is about, you were chosen as one of His flock not because of who you were but in spite of who you are.
So what does that have to do with the cross? Well, elsewhere in John 10: 14-17 we see who Christ laid down His life for:
14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. 17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again.
Notice the urgency. I must bring them, they will listen to my voice. Why is Christ the Good Shepherd? Because unlike the hireling He lays down His life for His sheep. He dies for His sheep, the sheep given Him by the Father:
27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”
Not only does He lay down His life for His sheep, He secures them. They were given to Him by the Father, He died for them and none of them will ever be snatched from Him. You give the Enemy far too much credit to think that He is able to snatch a ransomed sheep from the hand of the Good Shepherd.
When you examine it in this way, the power of the cross becomes clearer. It is not a sacrifice made in the hopes that some would make a “decision” to follow Christ. It was a conscious decision, a specific and purposeful act that accomplished redemption for a people, not because of anything inherently good in them or because of a future decision that was foreseen. With the nails in His hands and feet, Jesus paid for the sins of His sheep and they are paid in full. Nothing else is left to do and nothing can undo that redemption. We have bought into this fuzzy notion of the cross and fail to give His cross the proper power and efficacy. Someone asked me the other day when I was saved and I told them I was saved in the first century A.D., on Calvary at the cross of Christ. I was born again around the year 2000 but the saving work on my behalf was finished and complete at the cross.
Next, I want to look at some of the deeper theological terms and concepts that surround the cross.
Sprechen Sie Austrian?
Check out our illustrous leader making a faux pas. Nary a peep from the media though.
Monday, April 06, 2009
How can you lose what you didn’t win?
Yesterday our message was on eternal security, although it was couched in the converse, i.e. can a believer lose their salvation? It was put together well and made the case quite convincingly that the Bible teaches that all of the sins of the believer are paid in full on the cross. I would add that when Christ made propitiation, He did so for all of the sins throughout the life of the believer, both before and after being born again.
What really struck me as I sat there, and I am sure this point has been made before, is that a proper view of the sovereign nature of salvation eliminates the idea of a Christian losing their salvation. Redemption of lost sinners is something that is all of Christ and none of us. Even the requisite faith needed to be saved is a gift granted us by God, a changed heart, a dead man brought to new life. The cross secured the salvation of God’s elect; it didn’t merely make it possible for people to save themselves. With so many false professors out there, it can seem like people are losing their salvation left and right, but the truth is that they never were saved to begin with. They may have had an emotional experience, they may have been conditioned to assert certain truths, but they were never truly born again and their falling away is evidence of an unregenerate heart rather than a genuine salvation lost.
We didn’t win our salvation so how in the world could we lose it? If our salvation is not based on anything we did, how can it be lost by anything we do?
What really struck me as I sat there, and I am sure this point has been made before, is that a proper view of the sovereign nature of salvation eliminates the idea of a Christian losing their salvation. Redemption of lost sinners is something that is all of Christ and none of us. Even the requisite faith needed to be saved is a gift granted us by God, a changed heart, a dead man brought to new life. The cross secured the salvation of God’s elect; it didn’t merely make it possible for people to save themselves. With so many false professors out there, it can seem like people are losing their salvation left and right, but the truth is that they never were saved to begin with. They may have had an emotional experience, they may have been conditioned to assert certain truths, but they were never truly born again and their falling away is evidence of an unregenerate heart rather than a genuine salvation lost.
We didn’t win our salvation so how in the world could we lose it? If our salvation is not based on anything we did, how can it be lost by anything we do?
Bring it on!
The latest post-mortem of religious Christianity in America is out, this time in a very in-depth editorial from Jon Meacham, editor of Newsweek magazine (somewhat ironic as he oversees an old-school and rapidly dying form of media, the weekly news magazine) titled: The End of Christian America. Dr. Mohler features prominently in the piece (and has his own comments here) and rightly so as I think he is perhaps the most thoughtful and sober commentator among conservative Christians. But where Dr. Mohler is “despondent” about the trends, I have a slightly different reaction.
I say bring it on!
I say bring on the end of religious America. Bring on the end of spirit-less gatherings of unregenerate people assembling to watch a paid performance. Bring on an end to the people preaching prosperity or “social justice” or conservative political activism and calling it Christianity. Bring on the end of churches as social clubs or networking opportunities. Bring on the end of the program driven, corporate model “church” organizations with mission statements and org charts. Bring on the end of the assumption of Christianity, where Americans are presumed Christian unless proven otherwise. Bring on an end to a Christianity that carries no personal cost and therefore has no personal value.
We need to get away from the “make America a Christian nation again” rhetoric. This much is true: the influence of the old guard culture warriors is waning. As men like James Dobson step aside and we see the passing of men like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, the ability to mobilize millions of culturally Christian conservatives is slipping away, and politicians know it. As the value of the Christian Right as a voting bloc wanes, politicians will be able to disregard issues that have been hot-buttons for so long: abortion and gay marriage. The last election bears this out. Many people who profess to be Christians only care about so-called religious values when they don’t have something more pressing (i.e. their wallet) concerning them. In years of prosperity, they line up to vote for pro-life politicians. One good quarter of economic distress and they flock in huge numbers to a man who is hell-bent on making abortion as commonplace as a flu shot. I will put my conservative credentials up against anyone, but I also know that winning conservative political victories is not and never has been the mission of the church. We are to preach the Word, in season and out, knowing nothing but Christ and Him crucified.
Christians will never make an impact on American culture by attempting to moralize or legislate faith. We will only be able to impact America for Christ by taking Christ to Americans. There is a desperate need for people to preach the Gospel in America. That seems an odd thing to say. There are tens of thousands of churches and tens of thousands of preachers in those churches, how can I say we have a desperate need for people to preach the Gospel? The sad truth is that most “preaching” is not Gospel preaching at all, but is some form of “moralistic therapeutic deism”. An awful lot of churches are concerned more about being a church than they are about the church. I don’t fancy the idea of hundreds of abandoned churches scattered about the land, but I also don’t fancy the idea of hundreds of churches full of people getting a false sense of assurance based on religious rituals.
The days of American civil religion are over. That is OK. In fact, it may be the healthiest thing to happen to the church since the Protestant Reformation.
I say bring it on!
I say bring on the end of religious America. Bring on the end of spirit-less gatherings of unregenerate people assembling to watch a paid performance. Bring on an end to the people preaching prosperity or “social justice” or conservative political activism and calling it Christianity. Bring on the end of churches as social clubs or networking opportunities. Bring on the end of the program driven, corporate model “church” organizations with mission statements and org charts. Bring on the end of the assumption of Christianity, where Americans are presumed Christian unless proven otherwise. Bring on an end to a Christianity that carries no personal cost and therefore has no personal value.
We need to get away from the “make America a Christian nation again” rhetoric. This much is true: the influence of the old guard culture warriors is waning. As men like James Dobson step aside and we see the passing of men like D. James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell, the ability to mobilize millions of culturally Christian conservatives is slipping away, and politicians know it. As the value of the Christian Right as a voting bloc wanes, politicians will be able to disregard issues that have been hot-buttons for so long: abortion and gay marriage. The last election bears this out. Many people who profess to be Christians only care about so-called religious values when they don’t have something more pressing (i.e. their wallet) concerning them. In years of prosperity, they line up to vote for pro-life politicians. One good quarter of economic distress and they flock in huge numbers to a man who is hell-bent on making abortion as commonplace as a flu shot. I will put my conservative credentials up against anyone, but I also know that winning conservative political victories is not and never has been the mission of the church. We are to preach the Word, in season and out, knowing nothing but Christ and Him crucified.
Christians will never make an impact on American culture by attempting to moralize or legislate faith. We will only be able to impact America for Christ by taking Christ to Americans. There is a desperate need for people to preach the Gospel in America. That seems an odd thing to say. There are tens of thousands of churches and tens of thousands of preachers in those churches, how can I say we have a desperate need for people to preach the Gospel? The sad truth is that most “preaching” is not Gospel preaching at all, but is some form of “moralistic therapeutic deism”. An awful lot of churches are concerned more about being a church than they are about the church. I don’t fancy the idea of hundreds of abandoned churches scattered about the land, but I also don’t fancy the idea of hundreds of churches full of people getting a false sense of assurance based on religious rituals.
The days of American civil religion are over. That is OK. In fact, it may be the healthiest thing to happen to the church since the Protestant Reformation.
Al Gore was right!
This was taken with my blackberry this morning, the first day of "Spring" break for the local schools...
Sunday, April 05, 2009
Ah, springtime in Michigan...
Issued by The National Weather ServiceGrand Rapids, MI 3:32 pm EDT, Sun., Apr. 5, 2009
... WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 2 PM EDT MONDAY...
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN GRAND RAPIDS HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WARNING FOR HEAVY SNOW...
WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 2 PM EDT MONDAY. THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
SNOWFALL AMOUNTS OF 6 INCHES OR MORE ARE EXPECTED FROM THIS STORM WITH THE HEAVIEST AMOUNTS FALLING BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 9 AM FROM LANSING TO JACKSON. THE MONDAY MORNING COMMUTE WILL BE IMPACTED BY SNOWY ROADS. IT HAS BEEN SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE LAST SNOWSTORM. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR WINTER DRIVING TIPS.
... WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 2 PM EDT MONDAY...
THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN GRAND RAPIDS HAS ISSUED A WINTER STORM WARNING FOR HEAVY SNOW...
WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 10 PM THIS EVENING TO 2 PM EDT MONDAY. THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
SNOWFALL AMOUNTS OF 6 INCHES OR MORE ARE EXPECTED FROM THIS STORM WITH THE HEAVIEST AMOUNTS FALLING BETWEEN MIDNIGHT AND 9 AM FROM LANSING TO JACKSON. THE MONDAY MORNING COMMUTE WILL BE IMPACTED BY SNOWY ROADS. IT HAS BEEN SEVERAL WEEKS SINCE THE LAST SNOWSTORM. PLEASE REMEMBER YOUR WINTER DRIVING TIPS.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Repeat, retreat or reform
In a cough syrup induced epiphany, I came to the conclusion that we are really faced with three possible directions when it comes to what ails the church (and I think everyone of every stripe in every camp agrees that something is wrong with the church). We can repeat, retreat or reform.
In the repeat camp are the mast majority of Christians, stubbornly refusing to even consider that the model of church we have been immersed in for 1000 years might be the problem. Cherished traditions are lifted to the level of apostolic commands and Scripture is twisted to fit our traditions, instead of our traditions bowing to the Word. When you step back and look at the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, we see a radical rediscovery of the authority of Scripture and of justification by faith. What I don’t see is a parallel radical change to the expression of the local gathering. The songs are different in some cases, the rituals have been changed but is the local church gathering that dramatically different from a Roman ceremony? Less formal? Probably. More Word focused? Hopefully! As steeped in tradition and ritual? Most certainly.
Case in point. On the last episode of the White Horse Inn, at around the twentieth minute, Kim Riddlebarger said of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 that it was "a settled liturgy" and a "liturgical service" using the exact words that Jesus used. The Lord's Supper, according to Dr. Riddlebarger, is "not a celebratory meal". The words that are recorded are the specific words you should utter. What Paul received from Christ and passed on to Corinth was a liturgy? Is that what Paul said? Is he commanding them to repeat these words before the Supper or is he recounting the Words that Christ said in making a point? Is there anything in the Last Supper or in 1 Cor 11 that would indicate that these words were part of a settled liturgy to be repeated like a mantra before we could partake of a legitimate Lord's Supper? In other words, if a body of believers is gathered and in fellowship breaking bread together, that is not a celebration of the Lord's Supper but a bunch of people in a particular building, people who are united only by their "membership" in a church organization eating a morsel of bread and a sip of wine after the utterance of these words is a legitimate observance? You must come to a particular building, say the right words, follow the proper ceremony led by someone with the proper authority. Gee, that sounds kind of...Roman Catholic to me. We meet in buildings at a set time and place, following a schedule. We hire men to be paid leaders in the church, distinguished from the laity. We invest in the clergy the control of the ordinances of the church, baptism and the Supper, and in many ways have reduced both of those sacraments into religious rituals divorced from their Scriptural example and meaning. With that model entrenched, it is hard to see how the downward spiral of the local church is going to be arrested.
There are a lot of people who just stubbornly insist that this is the way we must do church and nothing else is possible. Whatever the solutions proposed, they all amount to tinkering around the periphery: make the service more fun, make it more relevant, make it more liturgical, have more expository preaching, have less preaching, change the service times, and on and on and on. None of these solutions deal with the fundamental question of what is the gathering for and how does that look.
Then there is the retreat camp, which would be those people fed up with the failures of the institutional church who are then disengaging from the assembling together completely. I don’t mean people who are in house churches, although there are some people who see the house church not as a more Biblical way to gather but instead as a way to exert control and exclude people, to be against the institutional church. The people I am referring to are those that are completely checked out, who never gather with the Body, who are not engaged in serving one another. Ironically, these people are the polar opposite of the first camp but are a direct result of their methods. While not advocating this response, I can see why some people react to the rituals of institutional church in the way that they do. Some would say that such people must not be real Christians but I would argue that the local church can often be such an impediment to fellowship that we cannot dismiss those who don’t show up on Sunday as being out of compliance any more than we can label those who make an appearance as being in compliance with the assembling together.
I don't think that either of those options is really appealing. Repeating the same tradition encumbered way of gathering as the church certainly isn't smart and disengaging from the rest of the Body is not Biblical either. We are lifted up by one another and we are unhealthy when we are separated from one another. On the other hand, going through religious rituals isn't really fellowship either so you can understand why so many people are tossing it aside. In order to break this cycle of repetition that is simultaneously leading to many people disengaging entirely, we must do what we should always default to doing: turn to the Word. Reform must always been centered on the Word, not on traditions or creeds or confessions.
What is the point of the local gathering? It is not to engage in empty rituals to fulfill a religious requirement for the week. It is not to provide gainful employment for seminary graduates. I would say it is not even primarily an evangelistic enterprise. The local church gathering is about the church, and the church is not the building or the organization, it is the people of God worshipping God by…
Loving one another.
Serving one another.
Fellowshipping with one another.
Praying with and for one another.
Teaching and being taught by one another.
Correcting and being corrected by one another.
We often see elements of the above, but in such a ritualistic, formulaic manner that it ceases to fulfill the spirit intended.
In a lot of circles, asking certain questions is forbidden. Railing against liberalism or secularism or evolution or gay marriage or abortion, all fine. Questioning the traditions of the church? Those are questions that dare not be asked. I am not talking about rejecting traditions just to stick your thumb in the eye of the old fuddy duddies. “Hey look at me, look at me! I am wearing a T-shirt to church and drinking beer! In your face!” I am talking about asking serious questions about why we do what we do in light of the Scriptures. Until we are willing to ask the questions, submit to the Word and really examine what the church is all about, we will continue to see multi-million dollar entertainment complexes and gatherings of “spirit-less shufflers” shuffling in and shuffling out but deep down yearning for Christian fellowship.
In the repeat camp are the mast majority of Christians, stubbornly refusing to even consider that the model of church we have been immersed in for 1000 years might be the problem. Cherished traditions are lifted to the level of apostolic commands and Scripture is twisted to fit our traditions, instead of our traditions bowing to the Word. When you step back and look at the Reformation in the 16th and 17th centuries, we see a radical rediscovery of the authority of Scripture and of justification by faith. What I don’t see is a parallel radical change to the expression of the local gathering. The songs are different in some cases, the rituals have been changed but is the local church gathering that dramatically different from a Roman ceremony? Less formal? Probably. More Word focused? Hopefully! As steeped in tradition and ritual? Most certainly.
Case in point. On the last episode of the White Horse Inn, at around the twentieth minute, Kim Riddlebarger said of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor 11 that it was "a settled liturgy" and a "liturgical service" using the exact words that Jesus used. The Lord's Supper, according to Dr. Riddlebarger, is "not a celebratory meal". The words that are recorded are the specific words you should utter. What Paul received from Christ and passed on to Corinth was a liturgy? Is that what Paul said? Is he commanding them to repeat these words before the Supper or is he recounting the Words that Christ said in making a point? Is there anything in the Last Supper or in 1 Cor 11 that would indicate that these words were part of a settled liturgy to be repeated like a mantra before we could partake of a legitimate Lord's Supper? In other words, if a body of believers is gathered and in fellowship breaking bread together, that is not a celebration of the Lord's Supper but a bunch of people in a particular building, people who are united only by their "membership" in a church organization eating a morsel of bread and a sip of wine after the utterance of these words is a legitimate observance? You must come to a particular building, say the right words, follow the proper ceremony led by someone with the proper authority. Gee, that sounds kind of...Roman Catholic to me. We meet in buildings at a set time and place, following a schedule. We hire men to be paid leaders in the church, distinguished from the laity. We invest in the clergy the control of the ordinances of the church, baptism and the Supper, and in many ways have reduced both of those sacraments into religious rituals divorced from their Scriptural example and meaning. With that model entrenched, it is hard to see how the downward spiral of the local church is going to be arrested.
There are a lot of people who just stubbornly insist that this is the way we must do church and nothing else is possible. Whatever the solutions proposed, they all amount to tinkering around the periphery: make the service more fun, make it more relevant, make it more liturgical, have more expository preaching, have less preaching, change the service times, and on and on and on. None of these solutions deal with the fundamental question of what is the gathering for and how does that look.
Then there is the retreat camp, which would be those people fed up with the failures of the institutional church who are then disengaging from the assembling together completely. I don’t mean people who are in house churches, although there are some people who see the house church not as a more Biblical way to gather but instead as a way to exert control and exclude people, to be against the institutional church. The people I am referring to are those that are completely checked out, who never gather with the Body, who are not engaged in serving one another. Ironically, these people are the polar opposite of the first camp but are a direct result of their methods. While not advocating this response, I can see why some people react to the rituals of institutional church in the way that they do. Some would say that such people must not be real Christians but I would argue that the local church can often be such an impediment to fellowship that we cannot dismiss those who don’t show up on Sunday as being out of compliance any more than we can label those who make an appearance as being in compliance with the assembling together.
I don't think that either of those options is really appealing. Repeating the same tradition encumbered way of gathering as the church certainly isn't smart and disengaging from the rest of the Body is not Biblical either. We are lifted up by one another and we are unhealthy when we are separated from one another. On the other hand, going through religious rituals isn't really fellowship either so you can understand why so many people are tossing it aside. In order to break this cycle of repetition that is simultaneously leading to many people disengaging entirely, we must do what we should always default to doing: turn to the Word. Reform must always been centered on the Word, not on traditions or creeds or confessions.
What is the point of the local gathering? It is not to engage in empty rituals to fulfill a religious requirement for the week. It is not to provide gainful employment for seminary graduates. I would say it is not even primarily an evangelistic enterprise. The local church gathering is about the church, and the church is not the building or the organization, it is the people of God worshipping God by…
Loving one another.
Serving one another.
Fellowshipping with one another.
Praying with and for one another.
Teaching and being taught by one another.
Correcting and being corrected by one another.
We often see elements of the above, but in such a ritualistic, formulaic manner that it ceases to fulfill the spirit intended.
In a lot of circles, asking certain questions is forbidden. Railing against liberalism or secularism or evolution or gay marriage or abortion, all fine. Questioning the traditions of the church? Those are questions that dare not be asked. I am not talking about rejecting traditions just to stick your thumb in the eye of the old fuddy duddies. “Hey look at me, look at me! I am wearing a T-shirt to church and drinking beer! In your face!” I am talking about asking serious questions about why we do what we do in light of the Scriptures. Until we are willing to ask the questions, submit to the Word and really examine what the church is all about, we will continue to see multi-million dollar entertainment complexes and gatherings of “spirit-less shufflers” shuffling in and shuffling out but deep down yearning for Christian fellowship.
The ongoing fight to redefine deviancy
In news that surprises no one, Vermont voted Thursday to permit homosexual couples to get “married”. It appears that the Governor of Vermont is going to veto this legislation and it is unclear if there are enough votes to override that veto, but it is just the latest attempt to chip away at the institution of marriage by making it so amorphous a concept that it loses all meaning. If marriage is merely a social contract with innumerable permutations that can be entered into and gotten out of at will, open for definition and redefinition with each shift of the cultural wind it ceases to be the bedrock institution that has been the cornerstone of civilization for millennia. Part of the agenda of the homosexual lobby is to break down and eliminate all social and ethical restrictions on behavior so that their own behavior will be viewed as “normal” rather than deviant.
Be sure that this is all part of the concerted effort to override the intent and will of the majority of Americans who have no desire to see homosexual unions solemnized as “marriages”. By picking the most liberal of states to gain a foothold (Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut) the radical homosexual agenda now moves to the courts in an attempt to bypass the people in a judicial end-around. With the aid and blessing of the administration, barriers will be removed to allow homosexuals “married” in these states to then demand legal recognition of those “marriages” in states where gay marriage either doesn’t exist or has been explicitly denied by the people of that state. This will set the stage for a showdown between the states which will likely end up in the courts and you can see where that is going. Expect the challenges to occur in states covered by the most liberal Federal courts so that the plaintiffs seeking to force their definition of marriage on the people of a state who have rejected it will get the most friendly hearing.
In one way, this entire issue is a moot point. Marriage is defined by God very clearly and without exception in His Word. The laws of nations can be altered to apply the title of marriage to whatever sort of relationship that nation wants but fundamentally a “marriage” that is not a Biblical marriage is no more valid than saying that two goldfish are married. God has defined marriage and man has no right and no ability to redefine marriage as he sees fit. Still, when we see someone declaring holy that which is unholy, I think that as God’s people Christians have an obligation to speak up. “Gay marriage” will not destroy marriage. Marriage is ordained by God and sustained by Him. Yet gay marriage is bad for our society, bad for families, bad for children and damaging to the cultural fabric and as such we have an duty to speak out and present that progressively more unpopular view that marriage is the same today as it was thousands of years ago: the union of one man and one woman, united in marriage for life.
Be sure that this is all part of the concerted effort to override the intent and will of the majority of Americans who have no desire to see homosexual unions solemnized as “marriages”. By picking the most liberal of states to gain a foothold (Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut) the radical homosexual agenda now moves to the courts in an attempt to bypass the people in a judicial end-around. With the aid and blessing of the administration, barriers will be removed to allow homosexuals “married” in these states to then demand legal recognition of those “marriages” in states where gay marriage either doesn’t exist or has been explicitly denied by the people of that state. This will set the stage for a showdown between the states which will likely end up in the courts and you can see where that is going. Expect the challenges to occur in states covered by the most liberal Federal courts so that the plaintiffs seeking to force their definition of marriage on the people of a state who have rejected it will get the most friendly hearing.
In one way, this entire issue is a moot point. Marriage is defined by God very clearly and without exception in His Word. The laws of nations can be altered to apply the title of marriage to whatever sort of relationship that nation wants but fundamentally a “marriage” that is not a Biblical marriage is no more valid than saying that two goldfish are married. God has defined marriage and man has no right and no ability to redefine marriage as he sees fit. Still, when we see someone declaring holy that which is unholy, I think that as God’s people Christians have an obligation to speak up. “Gay marriage” will not destroy marriage. Marriage is ordained by God and sustained by Him. Yet gay marriage is bad for our society, bad for families, bad for children and damaging to the cultural fabric and as such we have an duty to speak out and present that progressively more unpopular view that marriage is the same today as it was thousands of years ago: the union of one man and one woman, united in marriage for life.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)